| Page Range | 6451-6788 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 6458 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 | |
| 83 FR 6615 - Sunshine Act Meetings; Correction | |
| 83 FR 6615 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6490 - Response to June 1, 2016, Clean Air Act Section 126(b) Petition From Connecticut | |
| 83 FR 6563 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6669 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 83 FR 6667 - Meeting on United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Environment Chapter Implementation, Working Group on Environmental Cooperation, and Public Session | |
| 83 FR 6574 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 6613 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 83 FR 6573 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 6458 - Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program | |
| 83 FR 6665 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company | |
| 83 FR 6666 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company | |
| 83 FR 6473 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea Subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 83 FR 6731 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Terrorism Risk Insurance Program | |
| 83 FR 6475 - Greater-Than-Class C and Transuranic Waste | |
| 83 FR 6507 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of an Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Eggplant From Israel | |
| 83 FR 6619 - Very Low-Level Radioactive Waste Scoping Study | |
| 83 FR 6563 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 83 FR 6520 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee to the United States Delegation to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas | |
| 83 FR 6522 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy 2018 Ice Exercise Activities in the Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean | |
| 83 FR 6496 - Air Plan Approval; KY: Removal of Reliance on Reformulated Gasoline in the Kentucky Portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton Area | |
| 83 FR 6605 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 6612 - Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi | |
| 83 FR 6612 - Notice of Deadline for Submitting Completed Applications To Begin Participation in the Tribal Self-Governance Program in Fiscal Year 2019 or Calendar Year 2019 | |
| 83 FR 6609 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 6611 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Post Disaster Survivor Preparedness Research | |
| 83 FR 6613 - Indian Gaming; Extension of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact (Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota) | |
| 83 FR 6510 - In the Matter of: Justin Gage Jangraw, P.O. Box 601, Key West, Florida 33041; Order Denying Export Privileges | |
| 83 FR 6673 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing | |
| 83 FR 6697 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 83 FR 6725 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 83 FR 6545 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 6548 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 6716 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 83 FR 6694 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 83 FR 6680 - Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; National Electrical Contractors Association | |
| 83 FR 6535 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 6704 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 83 FR 6729 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 83 FR 6685 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 83 FR 6692 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 83 FR 6674 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 83 FR 6724 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 83 FR 6509 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Montana Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 6732 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple IRS Information Collection Requests | |
| 83 FR 6510 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 134-Chattanooga, Tennessee; Authorization of Production Activity; (Passenger Motor Vehicles); Chattanooga, Tennessee | |
| 83 FR 6510 - Foreign-Trade Zone 76-Bridgeport, Connecticut; Application for Subzone; SDI USA, LLC; Meriden, Connecticut | |
| 83 FR 6510 - Foreign-Trade Zone 102-St. Louis, Missouri; Application for Subzone; Orgill, Inc.; Sikeston, Missouri | |
| 83 FR 6670 - Procedures To Consider Additional Requests for Exclusion of Particular Products From the Solar Products Safeguard Measure | |
| 83 FR 6712 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 83 FR 6700 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 83 FR 6702 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing | |
| 83 FR 6701 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing | |
| 83 FR 6576 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; BELEODAQ | |
| 83 FR 6472 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Amendment 16 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan | |
| 83 FR 6542 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth | |
| 83 FR 6541 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico | |
| 83 FR 6541 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford | |
| 83 FR 6698 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing | |
| 83 FR 6681 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 83 FR 6718 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation, Lamps and Reflective Devices; Application for an Exemption From STEMCO LP | |
| 83 FR 6722 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 83 FR 6711 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 83 FR 6715 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 83 FR 6581 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; IBRANCE | |
| 83 FR 6730 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review | |
| 83 FR 6668 - Environmental Impact Statement for 2019 Update to the Integrated Resource Plan | |
| 83 FR 6477 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 6553 - ColGreen North Shore, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 83 FR 6551 - Carlsbad Energy Center LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 83 FR 6546 - Tristate NLA, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 83 FR 6547 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 6552 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 6601 - Request for Public Comment: 30 Day Notice for Extension of the Indian Health Service Loan Repayment Program (LRP) | |
| 83 FR 6600 - Request for Public Comment: 30 Day Proposed Information Collection: Indian Health Service Information Security Ticketing and Incident Reporting | |
| 83 FR 6574 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; JUVEDERM VOLUMA XC | |
| 83 FR 6522 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6521 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6591 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 6554 - East Cheyenne Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Lewis Creek Amendment | |
| 83 FR 6544 - Kenai Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions | |
| 83 FR 6542 - Consumers Energy Company and DTE Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions to Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions | |
| 83 FR 6547 - ISO New England Inc.; Notice of Filing | |
| 83 FR 6549 - EONY Generation Limited; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process | |
| 83 FR 6550 - Algonquin Power (Beaver Falls), LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions | |
| 83 FR 6547 - Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Application | |
| 83 FR 6555 - Questar Southern Trail Pipeline Company, Navajo Tribal Utility Authority; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Southern Trail Pipeline Abandonment Project Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
| 83 FR 6621 - Florida Power and Light Company; St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 | |
| 83 FR 6616 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Renew an Information Collection System | |
| 83 FR 6559 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 6562 - Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 83 FR 6558 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 83 FR 6557 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 83 FR 6560 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 83 FR 6457 - Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Addition of South Sudan | |
| 83 FR 6455 - Airworthiness Directives; GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Turboprop Engines | |
| 83 FR 6579 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; KERYDIN | |
| 83 FR 6583 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; JARDIANCE | |
| 83 FR 6577 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; OSURNIA | |
| 83 FR 6582 - Utilizing Innovative Statistical Methods and Trial Designs in Rare Disease Settings; Public Workshop | |
| 83 FR 6534 - National Medal of Technology and Innovation Nomination Application | |
| 83 FR 6532 - Patent Prosecution Highway Program | |
| 83 FR 6633 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the By-Laws and Make Other Changes | |
| 83 FR 6630 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule | |
| 83 FR 6654 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the By-Laws and Make Other Changes | |
| 83 FR 6639 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the By-Laws | |
| 83 FR 6626 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Changes To Amend the Loss Allocation Rules and Make Other Changes | |
| 83 FR 6653 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Changes To Adopt a Recovery & Wind-Down Plan and Related Rules | |
| 83 FR 6626 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Permit the Listing and Trading of NQX Index Options on a Pilot Basis | |
| 83 FR 6650 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Options Regulatory Fee | |
| 83 FR 6662 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Options Regulatory Fee | |
| 83 FR 6629 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Restore the Timeframe for Processing Credit Post-Payable Adjustments | |
| 83 FR 6624 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend Procedures in the DTC Settlement Service Guide Relating to the Intra-Month Collection of Required Participants Fund Deposits | |
| 83 FR 6627 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges | |
| 83 FR 6664 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Options Regulatory Fee | |
| 83 FR 6660 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe Collateral and Haircut Policy | |
| 83 FR 6646 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Options Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Related to the Options Clearing Corporation's Margin Policy | |
| 83 FR 6651 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Revise the Options Clearing Corporation's Schedule of Fees | |
| 83 FR 6536 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; OSERS Peer Review Data Form | |
| 83 FR 6535 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Quarterly Cumulative Caseload Report | |
| 83 FR 6519 - Hydrographic Services Review Panel | |
| 83 FR 6518 - Hydrographic Services Review Panel Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6552 - Transparency Provisions of Section 23 of the Natural Gas Act; Notice of Change to Filing Instructions | |
| 83 FR 6544 - Notice of Conference Call | |
| 83 FR 6553 - Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Application | |
| 83 FR 6551 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 83 FR 6545 - BM Energy Park, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 83 FR 6537 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and approval; Comment Request; Survey of Postgraduate Outcomes for the Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellowship Program (Survey) | |
| 83 FR 6585 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request; Information Collection Request Title: Health Professions Student Loan (HPSL) Program and Nursing Student Loan (NSL) Program Administrative Requirements (Regulations and Policy). OMB No. 0915-0047-Revision | |
| 83 FR 6563 - NIOSH List of Antineoplastic and Other Hazardous Drugs in Healthcare Settings: Proposed Additions to the NIOSH Hazardous Drug List 2018 | |
| 83 FR 6666 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program | |
| 83 FR 6537 - Eligibility Designations and Applications for Waiver of Eligibility Requirements; Programs Under Parts A and F of Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended (HEA), and Programs Under Title V of the HEA | |
| 83 FR 6735 - Proposed Collections; Comment Requests | |
| 83 FR 6602 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6603 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6602 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 6603 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 6518 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 6520 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Documentation of Fish Harvest | |
| 83 FR 6509 - South Branch Potomac River Subwatershed of the Potomac River Watershed, Highland County, Virginia and Pendleton and Grant Counties, West Virginia | |
| 83 FR 6604 - Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 6672 - Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on a Disposal of 17.6 Acres of Airport Land at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport, Manchester, NH | |
| 83 FR 6615 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 6508 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Reinstate an Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 6613 - Royalty Policy Committee; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6587 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records. | |
| 83 FR 6758 - Competitive Postal Products | |
| 83 FR 6513 - Xanthan Gum From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 | |
| 83 FR 6503 - Head Start Designation Renewal System Improvements | |
| 83 FR 6506 - CLASS Condition of the Head Start Designation Renewal System | |
| 83 FR 6516 - Certain Pasta From Turkey: Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 83 FR 6511 - Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Turkey: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review | |
| 83 FR 6515 - Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments in Part; 2016 | |
| 83 FR 6493 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 | |
| 83 FR 6503 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Disapproval of Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Revision for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 | |
| 83 FR 6470 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arkansas; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
| 83 FR 6491 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to Permitting and Public Participation for Air Quality Permit Applications | |
| 83 FR 6451 - Fees for Official Inspection and Official Weighing Services Under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) | |
| 83 FR 6480 - Postmarketing Safety Reports for Approved New Animal Drugs; Electronic Submission Requirements | |
| 83 FR 6740 - Senior Corps: Senior Companion Program, Foster Grandparent Program, Retired and Senior Volunteer Program |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Indian Affairs Bureau
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, GIPSA, USDA.
Final rule.
USDA, on behalf of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is announcing the fee schedule for official inspection and weighing services performed under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA), as amended, in order to comply with FGIS regulations and the Agriculture Reauthorizations Act of 2015, and publishing the annual review of Schedule A fees calculation and the resulting fees that went into effect on January 1, 2018.
Effective February 14, 2018.
Submit comments or notice of intent to submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Denise Ruggles, FGIS Executive Program Analyst, USDA AMS; Telephone: (816) 659-8406; Email:
USGSA authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide official grain inspection and weighing services and to charge and collect reasonable fees for performing these services. The fees collected are to cover, as nearly as practicable, costs for performing these services, including associated administrative and supervisory costs. The fees are in the regulations at 7 CFR 800.71.
On December 30, 2016, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) published in the
The Secretary delegated to the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs (MRP) authorities “related to grain inspection, packers and stockyards.” 7 CFR 2.22(a)(3)(i)-(vi). In 7 CFR 2.81, the Under Secretary for MRP further delegated these authorities to the Administrator of GIPSA. In a November 14, 2017 Secretary's Memorandum, the Secretary directed that the authorities at 7 CFR 2.81 be re-delegated to the Administrator of AMS, and that the delegations to the Administrator of GIPSA be revoked. The delegations to the Under Secretary of MRP related to grain inspection, packers and stockyards at 7 CFR 2.22(a)(3) remain unchanged. As part of the reorganization, GIPSA (and FGIS) were merged into AMS.
In publishing this final rule, we are dispensing with the usual notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures contained in 5 U.S.C. 553. We have determined that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), good cause exists for dispensing with the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures for this rule. Specifically the rulemaking comports with and is consistent with the statutory adjustment of fees in section 7 of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 79(j)) and the regulations at 7 CFR 800.71 with no issue of policy discretion. Accordingly, we have determined that opportunity for prior comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest, and we are issuing this revised regulation as a final rule that will apply to all national tonnage fees, local tonnage fees, and fees for service in 2018.
The regulations require FGIS annually review the national tonnage fees, local tonnage fees, and fees for service. After calculating the tonnage fees according to the regulatory formula in section 800.71(b)(1), FGIS then reviews the amount of funds in the operating reserve at the end of the fiscal year (FY2017 in this case) to ensure that it has 4
(a) Tonnage fees for the 5-year rolling average tonnage were calculated on the previous 5 fiscal years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. Tonnage fees consist of the national tonnage fee and local tonnage fee and are calculated and rounded to the nearest $0.001 per metric ton. The tonnage fees are calculated as following:
(1)
The national program administrative costs for fiscal year 2017 were $6,906,527. The fiscal year 2018 national tonnage fee, prior to the operating reserve review, is calculated to be at $0.060 per metric ton.
(2)
The field offices fiscal year tons for the previous 5 fiscal years and calculated 5-year rolling average are as follows:
The local field office administrative costs for fiscal year 2017 and the fiscal year 2018 calculated local field office tonnage fee, prior to the operating reserve review, are as follows:
(3)
The program operating reserve at the end of fiscal year 2017 was $23,546,619 with a monthly operating expense of $3,340,024. The target of 4.5 months of operating reserve is $15,030,108 therefore the operating reserve is greater than 4.5 times the monthly operating expenses by $8,516,511. For each $1,000,000, rounded down, above the target level, all Schedule A fees must be reduced by 2 percent. The operating reserve is $8.5 million above the target level resulting in a calculated 16 percent reduction. As required by 800.71(b)(2)(ii), the reduction is limited to 5 percent. Therefore, FGIS is reducing all Schedule A fees for service in Schedule A in paragraph (a)(1) by the maximum 5 percent. All Schedule A fees for service are rounded to the nearest $0.10, except for fees based on tonnage or hundredweight.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this regulatory action in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and has determined that it does not meet the criteria for significant regulatory action. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”” (April 5, 2017).
Since grain export volume can vary significantly from year to year, estimating the total impact in any single year can be difficult. AMS recognizes, however, that the industry needs predictable inspection and weighing fees. The regulations at 7 CFR 800.71(b) set an annual cap of 5 percent for increases or decreases in inspection and weighing fees, and the increases and decreases are fixed according the statutory requirements of the Agriculture Reauthorization Act of 2015. This rulemaking is unlikely to
The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis (5 U.S.C. 603, 604) are not applicable to this final rule because USDA was not required to publish notice of proposed rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
This final rule imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements necessitating clearance by OMB.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Grains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, USDA amends 7 CFR part 800 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. M601D-11, M601E-11, M601E-11A, M601E-11AS, M601E-11S, and M601F turboprop engines. This AD requires removal of certain power turbine (PT) disks installed on the affected engines. This AD was prompted by a design review by the manufacturer that determined PT rotors with certain disks have less overspeed margin than originally stated during product certification. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 21, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact GE Aviation Czech s.r.o., Beranových 65, 199 02 Praha 9—Letňany, Czech Republic; phone: +420 222 538 111; fax: +420 222 538 222. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. M601D-11, M601E-11, M601E-11A, M601E-11AS, M601E-11S, and M601F turboprop engines. The NPRM published in the
The MCAI states:
It was identified during a recent design review that power turbine (PT) rotors with certain disks, part number (P/N) M601-3220.6 and P/N M601-3220.7, have a reduction in the declared theoretical PT rotor overspeed limit.
This condition, if not corrected, may lead to high energy debris release in case of PT rotor overspeed occurrence, possibly resulting in damage to, and/or reduced control of, the aeroplane.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We considered the comment received. Cody Hargis (not further identified) supported the NPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed.
We reviewed GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. ASB-M601E-72-50-00-0069, ASB-M601D-72-50-00-0052, ASB-M601F-72-50-00-0035, ASB-M601T-72-50-00-0028, and ASB-M601Z-72-50-00-0038, (single document), dated February 21, 2017. The ASB describe procedures for replacing the PT disk.
We estimate that this AD affects 50 engines installed on 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 engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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 March 21, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. M601D-11, M601E-11, M601E-11A, M601E-11AS, M601E-11S, and M601F turboprop engines, with power turbine (PT) rotors with disks, part number (P/N) M601-3220.6 or P/N M601-3220.7, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by a review by the manufacturer that determined that PT rotors with disks, P/N M601-3220.6 or P/N M601-3220.7, have less overspeed margin than originally declared during product certification. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the PT rotor. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the PT rotor, uncontained release of the PT disk, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
After the effective date of this AD, remove the affected PT disk from service during the next engine overhaul or rebuild, or within 5 years, whichever occurs first.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install an affected PT disk on any engine.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2017-0100, dated June 8, 2017, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
None.
Department of State.
Final rule.
The Department of State is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to include reference to South Sudan in its regulations on prohibited exports, imports, and sales to and from certain countries, and to update defense trade policy toward South Sudan by applying a policy of denial on the export of defense articles and defense services to South Sudan, except as otherwise provided. This amendment reflects a policy determination made by the Secretary of State.
The rule is effective on February 14, 2018.
Ms. Engda Wubneh, Foreign Affairs Officer, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, U.S. Department of State, telephone: (202) 663-2816, or email
In response to the escalating crisis in South Sudan, the Secretary of State has determined that it is in the best interests of U.S. foreign policy to restrict, with certain exceptions, the export of defense articles and defense services to South Sudan in order to reflect the U.S. government's opposition to the trade of arms to South Sudan and its contribution to the conflict and humanitarian crisis, to promote the cessation of hostilities, and to reinforce international unity in addressing the South Sudan crisis by aligning the United States with existing restrictions on certain exports to South Sudan by the European Union. This action requires the Department to amend ITAR § 126.1(d)(2) to include South Sudan in the list of countries to which a policy of denial applies, and to add a new paragraph (w) to specify the exceptions to the policy of denial for which licenses and other approvals to South Sudan may be approved on a case-by-case basis. Further, in accordance with ITAR § 129.7, no broker, as described in ITAR § 129.2, may engage in or make a proposal to engage in brokering activities subject to the ITAR that involve South Sudan without first obtaining the approval of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.
The Department of State is of the opinion that controlling the import and export of defense articles and services is a foreign affairs function of the United States Government and that rules implementing this function are exempt from sections 553 (rulemaking) and 554 (adjudications) of the Administrative Procedure Act. Since this rule is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 553, the provisions of § 553(d) do not apply to this rulemaking. Therefore, this rule is effective upon publication. The Department also finds that, given the national security issues surrounding U.S. policy towards the aforementioned countries, there is good cause for the effective date of this rule to be the date of publication, as provided by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Since this rule is exempt from the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, there is no requirement for an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Department does not believe this rulemaking is a major rule within the definition of 5 U.S.C. 804.
This rulemaking will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the Department has determined that this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess 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, distributed impacts, and equity). These executive orders stress the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Because the scope of this rule implements a governmental policy limiting defense trade with a country, and does not impose additional regulatory requirements or obligations, the Department believes costs associated with this rule will be minimal. The Department also finds that any costs of this rulemaking are outweighed by the foreign policy benefits, as described in the preamble. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” by the Office and Information and Regulatory Affairs under Executive Order 12866.
The Department of State reviewed this rulemaking in light of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
The Department of State determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” See OMB Memorandum M-17-21, “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771” of April 5, 2017.
This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements
Arms and munitions, Exports.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, 22 CFR part 126 is amended as follows:
Secs. 2, 38, 40, 42, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2780, 2791, and 2797); 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 287c; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205; 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; Sec. 1225, Pub. L. 108-375; Sec. 7089, Pub. L. 111-117; Pub. L. 111-266; Sections 7045 and 7046, Pub. L. 112-74; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(w)
(1) Defense articles and defense services for monitoring, verification, or peacekeeping support operations, including those authorized by the United Nations or operating with the consent of the relevant parties;
(2) Defense articles and defense services intended solely for the support of, or use by, African Union Regional Task Force (AU-RTF) or United Nations entities operating in South Sudan, including but not limited to the United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS), the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS), the United Nations Police (UNPOL), or the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA);
(3) Defense articles and defense services intended solely for the support of or use by non-governmental organizations in furtherance of conventional weapons destruction or humanitarian demining activities;
(4) Non-lethal defense articles intended solely for humanitarian or protective use and related technical training and assistance;
(5) Personal protective equipment including flak jackets and helmets, temporarily exported to South Sudan by United Nations personnel, human rights monitors, representatives of the media, and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel, for their personal use only; or
(6) Any defense articles and defense services provided in support of implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan, or any successor agreement.
In rule document 2018-02554 appearing on pages 5536-5537 in the issue of February 8, 2018, make the following correction:
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Final regulations.
The Secretary delays, until July 1, 2019, the effective date of selected provisions of the final regulations entitled Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program (the 2016 final regulations), published in the
As of February 14, 2018, the effective date for the amendments to or additions of: §§ 668.14(b)(30), (31), and (32); 668.41(h) and (i); 668.71(c); 668.90(a)(3); 668.93(h), (i), (j); 668.171; 668.175 (c) and (d) and (f) and (h); Appendix C to Subpart L of Part 668; 674.33(g)(3) and (g)(8); 682.202(b)(1); 682.211(i)(7); 682.402(d)(3), (d)(6)(ii)(B)(
George Alan Smith, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Mail Stop 294-34, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-7757 or by email at:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
On October 24, 2017 (82 FR 49114), the Department of Education (Department) published an IFR giving notice that under its interpretation of section 482 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1089), also known as the “master calendar requirement,” selected provisions of the 2016 final regulations would have an effective date of July 1, 2018. (82 FR 49114) The original effective date of the 2016 final regulations (November 1, 2016 at 81 FR 75926) was July 1, 2017. On June 16, 2017, a 705 Document (82 FR 27621) delayed the effective date of certain provisions of the 2016 final regulations until a legal challenge by the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools (CAPPS) is resolved.
Also on June 16, 2017, the Department announced its intent to convene a committee to develop proposed regulations to revise the existing regulations on borrower defense to repayment of Federal student loans and other matters (82 FR 27640), the same topics addressed in the 2016 final regulations. Under the master calendar requirement, a regulatory change that has been published in final form on or before November 1 of the year prior to the start of an award year—which begins on July 1 of any given year—may take effect only at the beginning of the next award year, or in other words, on July 1 of the next year. In light of this requirement, the regulations resulting from negotiated rulemaking could not be effective before, at the earliest, July 1, 2019.
Accordingly, the Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to delay the effective date of the 2016 final regulations until July 1, 2019 (October 24, 2017 at 82 FR 49155). This notice adopts that proposal, delaying the effective date of the 2016 final regulations, to continue to preserve the regulatory status quo, until July 1, 2019. The Department will continue to process borrower defense claims under the existing regulations that will remain in effect during the delay so that borrowers may continue to apply for the discharge of all or a part of their loans.
Based on the above considerations, the Department delays until July 1, 2019, the effective date of the following provisions of the final regulations in title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):
§ 668.14(b)(30), (31), and (32) Program participation agreement.
§ 668.41(h) and (i) Reporting and disclosure of information.
§ 668.71(c) Scope and special definitions.
§ 668.90(a)(3) Initial and final decisions.
§ 668.93(h), (i), and (j) Limitation.
§ 668.171 General.
§ 668.175(c), (d), (f), and (h) Alternative standards and requirements.
Part 668 subpart L, Appendix C.
§ 674.33(g)(3) and (g)(8) Repayment.
§ 682.202(b)(1) Permissible charges by lenders to borrowers.
§ 682.211(i)(7) Forbearance.
§ 682.402(d)(3), (d)(6)(ii)(B)(
§ 682.405(b)(4)(ii) Loan rehabilitation agreement.
§ 682.410(b)(4) and (b)(6)(viii) Fiscal, administrative, and enforcement requirements.
§ 685.200(f)(3)(v) and (f)(4)(iii) Borrower eligibility.
§ 685.205(b)(6) Forbearance.
§ 685.206(c) Borrower responsibilities and defenses.
§ 685.212(k) Discharge of a loan obligation.
§ 685.214(c)(2) and (f)(4) through (7) Closed school discharge.
§ 685.215(a)(1), (c)(1) through (c)(8), and (d) Discharge for false certification of student eligibility or unauthorized payment.
§ 685.222 Borrower defenses.
Part 685 subpart B, Appendix A Examples of borrower relief.
§ 685.300(b)(11), (b)(12), and (d) through (i) Agreements between an eligible school and the Secretary for participation in the Direct Loan Program.
§ 685.308(a) Remedial actions.
Section 668.90 has been redesignated as § 668.91 and § 668.93 has been redesignated as § 668.94 pursuant to the borrower defense procedural rule, published January 19, 2017 at 82 FR 6253 (the borrower defense procedural rule).
As noted in the IFR, the Department interprets all references to “July 1, 2017” in the text of the above-referenced regulations to mean the effective date of those regulations. The regulatory text included references to the specific July 1, 2017, date in part to provide clarity to readers in the future as to when the regulations had taken effect. Because the regulations did not take effect on July 1, 2017, we would, in connection with this delay of the effective date, read those regulations as referring to the new effective date established by this rule,
This delay of the effective date of the 2016 final regulations does not delay the effective dates of the regulatory provisions published in 81 FR 75926 which: (1) Expand the types of documentation that may be used for the granting of a discharge based on the death of the borrower; (2) amend the regulations governing the consolidation of Nursing Student Loans and Nurse Faculty Loans so that they align with the statutory requirements of section 428C(a)(4)(E) of the HEA; (3) amend the regulations governing Direct Consolidation Loans to allow a borrower to obtain a Direct Consolidation Loan regardless of whether the borrower is also seeking to consolidate a Direct Loan Program or FFEL Program loan, if the borrower has a loan type identified in 34 CFR 685.220(b); (4) address severability; and (5) make technical corrections. In the 2016 final regulations, 34 CFR 682.211(i)(7) and 682.410(b)(6)(viii) were designated for early implementation, at the discretion of each lender or guaranty agency. That designation remains effective.
An analysis of the comments and of any changes to this regulatory action since publication of the NPRM follows.
A number of commenters opposed the proposed rule to delay the effective date of selected provisions of the 2016 final regulations until July 1, 2019, stating that such delay (1) would harm student loan borrowers and, in some cases, taxpayers; (2) is unnecessary and unaligned with the mission of the Department of Education; (3) is not justifiable on the grounds that there is pending litigation as referenced in the NPRM; and (4) would not be compliant with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). However, several commenters supported the delay because they believed, collectively, that a further delay would (1) relieve the regulatory burden on institutions; (2) mitigate uncertainty about the potential impact of the current regulations; and (3) prevent unnecessary harm and disruption to postsecondary educational institutions. We discuss and respond to these comments in greater detail below.
One commenter asserted that further delaying the 2016 final regulations would perpetuate existing harms experienced by borrowers, such as poor credit ratings resulting from debt that borrowers accumulated that the borrower may be able to discharge based on a borrower defense.
One commenter argued that further delay in the effective date harms borrowers because the delay creates uncertainty in how the Department will treat future borrower defense claims. The commenter asserted that while borrowers can wait for the outcome of the new rulemaking effort for clarity on the process, waiting has risks for borrowers as well, including the application of statutes of limitations which may limit the loan amount that may be discharged. The same commenter noted that Direct Loan borrowers with loans issued during the delay cannot avail themselves of the Federal standard in the 2016 final regulations; these borrowers will be limited to the State law standard. Finally, this commenter stated that although the Department claimed that borrowers would not be harmed by the further delay of the effective date of the 2016 final regulations because borrower defense claims would continue to be processed under existing regulations, the Department's own impact analysis estimates a reduction in student loan discharges of nearly two billion as a result of the further delay. Citing a July 2017 letter from the Department's Acting Under Secretary to Senator Richard Durbin, the commenter stated that the Department had not approved borrower defense applications since January 20, 2017, and that there were at least 64,000 outstanding borrower defense applications as of the date of the letter. The commenter noted that the number of unprocessed claims has since risen to 95,000, and that a further delay of the 2016 final regulations will exacerbate the lack of expediency in the Department's borrower defense discharge process to the detriment of borrowers who continue to wait for relief.
The Department does not share the commenters' concern that borrowers will be subject to certain institutions' predatory practices absent the 2016 final regulations. Because the current borrower defense regulations will remain in effect, borrowers will continue to be able to submit claims to the Department and have their claims processed in accordance with the HEA and those current regulations. Borrowers will not need to wait for new rules to go into effect to have a borrower defense claim considered. We do not anticipate that borrowers will be harmed by the current process because we routinely grant forbearances, and stop collection activities on defaulted loans, to borrowers while their discharge claims are under review. We acknowledge the commenter's concern regarding the number of pending claims before the Department. However, in the time since the commenter submitted the comment, the Department has issued decisions on borrower defense claims and we will continue to accept and process borrower defense claims.
In the event that the borrower defense regulations currently being negotiated result in discharge standards for a borrower defense claim different from the current standards, the new standards would apply only to loans first disbursed on or after the effective date of those regulations. Claims filed as to loans first disbursed before July 1, 2019, which would include currently pending claims and claims filed between the date of this final rule and July 1, 2019, will continue to be processed under the current standard for borrower defense claims.
We further disagree with commenters who claimed that the July 1, 2019 effective date would harm borrowers because the Federal standard established in the 2016 final regulations would not be in effect. As we noted in the 2016 final regulations, the Federal standard was designed to address much of the conduct covered by the State law-based standard so the vast majority of claims made by borrowers whose loans were first disbursed between July 1, 2017, and July 1, 2019, could be evaluated and discharges provided under the current State law-based standard. (81 FR 75937-75941). Any benefits to borrowers associated with having the Federal standard in place during that time period are outweighed by the confusion and disruption that would result from allowing the 2016 final regulations to take effect during a time when they are subject to a legal challenge and when the Department is reevaluating its borrower defense regulations generally. In addition to causing confusion for borrowers, implementing a different standard for a potentially short period of time could delay the processing of claims. One of the goals of the 2016 final regulations was to provide borrowers with more consistency and clarity about their borrower defense claims. (81 FR 39339-39340). Under the circumstances, the delay of the effective date of the 2016 final regulations provides greater clarity and consistency for borrowers, as well as a more streamlined process, than implementation of the rule under the current schedule.
With respect to the comment about a two billion dollar reduction in claims based on the difference in the primary and baseline scenarios from the net budget impact in the 2016 final regulations, as noted in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), the Department estimates the savings resulting from the delay to be much less. The savings resulting from the delay are mainly driven by slight differences between the State law-based standards in the current regulations and the Federal standards from the 2016 final regulations if they were applicable to loans disbursed between July 1, 2018, and July 1, 2019. Since we have always maintained that there would be significant overlap between the State law-based and Federal standards from the 2016 final regulations, the differences are estimated to be minor. The provisions of the 2016 final regulations pertaining to the process for review and determination of claims were not limited to specific cohorts designated by the effective date so the delay will not result in specific cohorts of borrowers being excluded from the process in effect when the claim is made. Additionally, the figures in the Accounting Statement for the 2016 final regulations would more appropriately be characterized as the costs associated with a single cohort and not the costs associated with a fiscal year. As part of its ongoing efforts to improve the utility of student loan information, the Department has updated its Accounting Statement presentation to better align with OMB Circular A-4, so the effects presented in this document do show the impact on the affected cohorts by fiscal year. The Net Budget Impact section of the RIA presents the assumptions about the effect of the delay.
With regard to the financial protection disclosures, the 2016 final regulations provided that before the disclosures would be required, the Secretary would conduct consumer testing to inform the identification of events for which disclosure would be required and to determine the form of the disclosure. In light of the fact that the 2016 final regulations provided for a future process before the disclosure requirement could be implemented, we do not believe a delayed effective date would significantly change what would occur in this regard during the period of the delay. In other words, because we did not anticipate the financial protection disclosures having a significant impact immediately following the 2016 final regulations' effective date, we believe the incremental effect of delaying those provisions is minimal. We address the comments related to institutional financial responsibility triggers in more detail in the RIA.
Moreover, there are other existing protections for borrowers, including periodic reviews and site visits by Department employees to title IV participating institutions to monitor regulatory compliance; and the activities of the enforcement unit within FSA charged with taking actions against parties participating in title IV, HEA programs to enforce compliance. In addition to the Department, other entities also act to protect students, borrowers, and taxpayers, such as the States through State law enforcement activities and other Federal agencies whose jurisdictions may overlap with, or affect, the higher education sector.
Finally, we note that borrowers may continue to apply for closed school and false certification discharges under the current regulations. With regard to the comments relating to the grounds for false certification discharge, as we stated in the notice of proposed
The Department acknowledges the commenters' concern that the window under applicable statutes of limitation for some borrowers to file lawsuits may end during the period covered by the delay of the 2016 final regulations' prohibitions on institutions' use of pre-dispute arbitration and class action waiver contractual provisions. However, as acknowledged in the 705 Document, serious questions regarding the legality of these provisions of the final regulations exist and these provisions are among the regulations directly challenged in the CAPPS litigation. The Department thinks that it is likely that the arbitration and class action waiver provisions will be overturned. Should the Department's regulations prohibiting schools from enforcing pre-dispute arbitration agreements and class action waivers be invalidated by the court, there would be significant confusion from borrowers and schools who may have engaged in court litigation on the basis of the prohibitions as to the enforceability of those agreements. We believe the harm from having these provisions take effect in the face of the CAPPS challenge is too great and outweigh any benefits these provisions would have. Further, we note that a borrower may continue to apply for relief, from the Department under the current, State-law based borrower defense to repayment regulations, irrespective of whether the borrower has a pre-dispute arbitration agreement with the school or an agreement to waive involvement in class action lawsuits.
We also note that the pre-dispute arbitration and class action waiver provisions of the 2016 final regulations would require some institutions to change their policies and procedures and to amend their enrollment agreements. In addition, re-training staff and sending notices to borrowers informing them of the changed class action waivers and pre-dispute arbitration provisions would impose administrative costs on institutions. If pre-dispute arbitration requirements and class action waivers are addressed through the current rulemaking process, institutions would need to repeat or reverse these steps to address any requirements that would go into effect on July 1, 2019. Maintaining the regulatory status quo with respect to pre-dispute arbitration agreements and class action waivers will reduce the administrative burden on schools and lessen confusion for borrowers who would be affected by these changes.
The Department further believes that implementing the 2016 final regulations at this time would cause significant confusion around borrower defenses generally that would be unfair to students and schools. Without a delay, if the current rulemaking process results in a different standard for borrower defense claims, there would be three separate sets of standards for borrower defense claims: the State-law based standard that is currently in effect; standards for loans disbursed between July 1, 2018, and July 1, 2019; and standards for loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2019. This would be more confusing for borrowers than the potential for two different standards—one for loans disbursed before July 1, 2019, and one for loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2019. Providing for an effective date of July 1, 2019, will allow the Department and the negotiating committee to develop new borrower defense regulations that would protect students from the most serious predatory practices, provide clear and evenhanded rules for students, colleges and universities to follow, and constrain the costs to taxpayers.
The Department's processing of borrower defense claims is not affected by the effective date of the 2016 final regulations, as the current regulations remain in effect. While the process for reviewing claims and the standard under which they are reviewed would have changed under the 2016 final regulations, the Department does not expect that the length of time required to review individual claims would have changed significantly if the 2016 final regulations had gone into effect as originally scheduled. With regard to group claims, the Department has granted group claims under the existing regulations. While the 2016 final regulations provided a regulatory process for granting group borrower defense claims, the Secretary had and continues to have the authority, and has exercised that authority, to grant group claims under the borrower defense regulations currently in effect.
Another commenter pointed out that if the effective date of the 2016 final regulations was not delayed, the Department estimated that $381 million in loans would be forgiven between July 1, 2017, and July 1, 2019. The commenter noted that the Department does point out that the Federal government will save this money by delaying the effective date but does not point out that borrowers will end up absorbing the cost. The commenter noted that the Department could change the current regulations and not include the new closed school discharge provisions, and noted that even a temporary delay causes financial stress that can trap some borrowers in poverty. Moreover, borrowers who default on their loans because they are not discharged would not be eligible for further financial aid.
As discussed in the RIA for this final rule with respect to the delay of the financial protection provisions, several factors will affect the cost for individual institutions, including: the level of institutional conduct giving rise to borrower defense claims, the applicability of certain financial protection triggers, the financial strength of the institution, the manner in which the institution provides financial protection to the Department, and the potential development of financial products aimed at providing this protection. The Department believes that individual institutions are best positioned to evaluate their potential exposure to borrower defense claims, their financial relationships with parties who could provide financial protection, and the cost of providing protection. Along with the uncertainty about the projected amount of claims as recognized in the different sensitivity runs presented in the RIA for the 2016 final regulations, the Department believes that quantifying the cost of providing financial protection would provide a false sense of precision. Rather than producing a number that would be inapplicable to most institutions, the Department focused on explaining the regulations and providing data about the provisions for which it had information such as the cohort default rate (CDR), 90/10 revenue requirement, fluctuation in title IV aid, withdrawal rate, and accreditor action triggers. The 2016 final regulations did not present information about the provisions related to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or stock exchange actions, gainful employment, the withdrawal of owner's equity from an institution, teach-outs, State licensing, financial stress tests, an institution's violation of a loan agreement, or pending borrower defense claims. Additionally, given that the known borrower defense claims at the time were from a small number of institutions and many had not been approved or disapproved, it is unclear how the distribution of successful borrower defense claims at institutions would match up with the distribution of institutions' performance on the financial responsibility triggers for which the Department had some information.
As is further discussed in the RIA for this final rule, the Department recognizes that the delayed effective date will postpone the impact of the financial protection provisions on institutions. This impact was not quantified for the same reasons described above, but would be a fraction of the total protection expected to be generated under the rule as some of the triggers are tied to the production of certain performance measures and would not have kicked in immediately under the 2016 regulations. Successful claims made by borrowers will be paid regardless of the limited delay in the date for requiring institutions to provide financial protection, and the Department believes the cost to taxpayers of the slightly reduced recoveries described in the Net Budget Impact in the RIA is justified by the benefits of reconsidering the financial protection provisions and appropriately balancing the costs to institutions with protection of borrowers and taxpayers.
With respect to the comment about closed school discharges, the Department disagrees with the claim that borrowers will bear a $381 million cost because of the delay. As noted in the NPRM, the $364 million savings estimated for FY 2017 occurred because the Department did not execute the modification for cohorts 2014-2016 anticipated in the President's Budget (PB) for 2018 because of the change of the effective date of the 2016 final regulations. The difference in the $381 million estimated for the three-year automatic discharge in the 2016 final regulations and the $364 million estimate for the modification in this rule is that the $381 million was based on PB 2017 loan model assumptions and the modification to be executed was based on the PB 2018 assumptions. Under the credit reform scoring rules applicable to the student loan programs, the unexecuted modification created savings that needed to be recognized. This budget scoring requirement does not affect borrowers or their eligibility for a closed school discharge. Borrowers can avoid any uncertainty about the timing of receiving a closed school discharge or costs associated with a delay in receipt of such discharge by submitting a closed school discharge application at any time. Any costs or savings associated with changes in the automatic discharge provision as a result of the current negotiated rulemaking are outside the scope of the analysis of the delay, and we will address any related issues raised by commenters in response to the NPRM for the proposed rule resulting from the current rulemaking process.
In its execution of these responsibilities, and consistent with 20 U.S.C. 3402, the Department has determined that the public interest is best served by a delay in the effective date of the 2016 final regulations.
Negotiated rulemaking typically takes the Department well over 12 months to complete. The statute requires the Department to hold public hearings before commencing any negotiations. Based upon the feedback the Department receives during the hearings, the Department then identifies those issues on which it will conduct negotiated rulemaking, announces those, and solicits nominations for non-Federal negotiators. Negotiations themselves are typically held over a 3 month period. Following the negotiations, the Department then prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking and submits the proposed rule to OMB for review. The proposed rules are then open for public comment for 30-60 days. Following the receipt of public comments, the Department then prepares a final regulation and submits it to OMB for review.
With the completion of all of these steps taking well over 12 months, it would not have been feasible for the Department to complete negotiated rulemaking on the delayed effective date by July 1, 2018. Indeed, it would not have been feasible even if the Department had commenced the process on May 24, 2017, when it learned of the CAPPS litigation. Thus, the Department had good cause to waive that requirement.
Regarding the comment that we did not provide sufficient justification to propose delay of the effective date of the 2016 final regulations, the Department is in the process of developing proposed revisions to the borrower defense regulations through the negotiated rulemaking process. As a result of the timing of the negotiated rulemaking and the effect of the master calendar requirement, any regulations resulting from the negotiated rulemaking cannot become effective before July 1, 2019. Therefore, the Department proposed in the NPRM to delay the effective date of the 2016 final regulations to July 1, 2019. This would prevent a scenario in which the 2016 final regulations might become effective for a short period of time before new regulations resulting from the current borrower defense rulemaking process take effect, a result which likely would lead to a great deal of confusion and difficulty for borrowers and schools alike. Accordingly, the Department articulated a reasonable and sufficient justification to propose a delay of a final rule.
Also with regard to the comment that the NPRM fails to identify any specific deficiencies in the 2016 final regulations, the APA and applicable case law require only that an agency's rulemaking justify the particular action or actions to be taken by that rule. This final rule does not amend the substance of the 2016 final regulations; it merely changes the effective date of the 2016 final regulations and is fully supported based on the information provided in the NPRM and in this final rule. Amending the substance of the 2016 final regulations (or prior borrower defense regulations) would require a separate rationale. We are separately conducting a negotiated rulemaking process to address the substance of the borrower defense regulations, and any resulting NPRM will provide a rationale for proposed changes.
The NPRM at issue here proposed only a delay of the effective date of the 2016 final regulations; it did not propose any other changes and therefore the Department was not required to solicit comment on any matters other than the effective date. Also contrary to the commenter's assertions, the number of comments received in response to an NPRM has no bearing on the sufficiency of the Department's solicitation of public engagement. The APA requires the Department to “give interested persons an opportunity to participate” and consider “the relevant matter presented,” not to reach a certain threshold of comments before it may proceed with the rulemaking process. 5 U.S.C. 553(c). The Department requested comments that covered the scope of our rulemaking—delay of an effective date—and considered each applicable comment received in promulgating this final rule.
The regulatory impact analysis in the NPRM estimated the quantified economic effects and net budget impact of the delay, and projected that the delay would result in a net cost savings. However, the delay was not proposed solely on the basis of those calculations. Executive Order 13563 requires the Department to, in part, “propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify).” Just as the commenters note harms to borrowers that cannot be definitively quantified, not all benefits of the delay are measurable in monetary terms. Delaying the effective date as proposed in the NPRM will preserve the regulatory status quo while the Department reconsiders the substance of its regulations governing borrower defense, preventing borrowers and institutions alike from being subject to an uncertain, quickly changing set of regulatory requirements. The Department undertook the required analysis and determined that the benefits of the delay would justify the costs.
With regard to the comment about redundancy and wastefulness, we have substantive concerns about the 2016 final regulations. In light of that, negotiated rulemaking and publication of an NPRM with request for further public comment is the statutorily required path to ensure public input and potentially make substantive changes to the Department's regulations. After careful consideration, we determined the benefits of proceeding with negotiated rulemaking to properly analyze the borrower defense regulations outweighed the costs of doing so.
Commenters asserted that the delay of selected provisions of the 2016 final regulations would mitigate uncertainty about the potential impact of the regulations, especially in light of ongoing litigation, the master calendar requirement, and ongoing negotiated rulemaking.
One commenter asserted that the Department properly used Section 705 of the APA to avoid substantial harm to students. The commenter suggested that if some of the provisions of the 2016 final regulations went into effect and were quickly struck down by a court, the result would be chaotic, particularly if the subsequent regulatory framework change occurred in the course of an award year. The commenter asserted further that the ongoing negotiated rulemaking is justified based on the need to improve the borrower defense regulations as part of a regulatory reset. This commenter argued that because the reset could lead to significant changes, it would be nonsensical, even aside from the litigation, to implement new regulations for a full or for part of an award year only to change them after the current negotiated rulemaking process is complete.
One commenter asserted that the arbitration and class action provisions in the 2016 final regulations would require institutions to incur significant costs in changing multiple policies and procedures and amending existing and future enrollment agreements, re-training staff, litigating new cases, and sending notices to borrowers that existing class action waivers or arbitration provisions will not be enforced. According to the commenter, the implementation of these requirements would divert resources from students and would require the further diversion of resources if schools were required to retrain staff and litigate the effects of the temporary ban on past agreements with students, including those signed during the interim period, if the regulations were to change as a result of the current rulemaking process.
The commenter also stated that the financial responsibility provisions that require, in some circumstances, an institution to obtain a letter of credit or some type of financial protection would impose a significant burden on schools because a letter of credit is difficult to obtain and the additional cost could cause many schools, including some historically black colleges and universities, to close. The commenter also argued that the delay is appropriate because schools may need to establish different compliance measures if the current negotiated rulemaking process modifies the financial responsibility provisions. In such event, the commenter stated that the temporary implementation of these provisions would lead to potentially unnecessary compliance and training costs for schools to accommodate different rules.
The commenter also argued that the repayment rate provisions which would require proprietary schools with a certain loan repayment rate to distribute a warning to students and prospective students might damage the reputation of such schools and impact such schools' ability to draw students and raise funds. The commenter argued that the delay would prevent any disruptions as changes to the requirements are considered during the negotiated rulemaking process.
Finally, the commenter stated its view that given the significant expansion of borrower defense under the 2016 final regulations and the changes to the borrower defense regulations that may result from the Department's current rulemaking effort, the additional delay is required to prevent confusion for students and the expenditure of school resources on implementing the different borrower defense standards and procedures when those resources could otherwise be used to enhance student experiences.
Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
The Department estimates the quantified annualized economic and net budget impacts of the delay of the effective date to be −$26.9 million in reduced costs to institutions and the Federal government. These reduced costs result from the delay of the borrower defense provisions of the 2016 final regulations as they would apply to
We have also reviewed this final rule under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing this final rule only on a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this final rule is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, or Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive Orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action.
The quantified economic effects and net budget impact associated with the delayed effective date are not expected to be economically significant.
As indicated in the RIA published with the 2016 final regulations on November 1, 2016, those final regulations were economically significant with a total estimated net budget impact of $16.6 billion over the 2017-2026 loan cohorts in the primary estimate scenario, including a cost of $381 million for cohorts 2014-2016 attributable to the provisions for a three-year automatic closed school discharge.
However, as noted in the RIA for the NPRM published October 24, 2017, the analysis of the net budget impact in this final rule is limited to the effect of delaying the effective date of the 2016 final regulations from July 1, 2018, to July 1, 2019, and does not account for any potential changes in the 2016 final regulations or administrative updates to existing processes and procedures related to borrower defense claims.
As the net budget impact is based on the net present value of the cash flows of the relevant cohorts over 40 years, delaying the 2016 final regulations until July 1, 2019, will have limited effect, as discussed below.
Even with the change in the effective date to July 1, 2019, borrowers will still be able to submit claims. The provisions of the 2016 final regulations pertaining to the process for review and determination of claims were not limited to specific cohorts designated by the effective date so the delay will not result in specific cohorts of borrowers being excluded from the process in effect when the claim is made. Loans made before July 1, 2017, were always subject to the State law-based standard, and borrowers' ability to bring claims under that standard is unchanged by the delay. For claims filed after the effective date of the regulations for loans made on or after July 1, 2019, the Federal standard established in the 2016 final regulations would apply. As discussed previously, the Department interprets all references to “July 1, 2017” in the text of the final regulations to mean the effective date of the final regulations. As a result, the delay in the effective date means that loans made between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, will be subject to the current State law-based standard. As we noted in the 2016 final regulations, the Federal standard was designed to address much of the conduct already covered by the State law-based standard, so the vast majority of discharge claims associated with loans made between July 1, 2017, and the delayed effective date could be made under the current, State law-based standard as well. (81 FR 76057)
Some commenters suggested that borrowers will be harmed by the delay, either through uncertainty as to how claims will be handled, the application of statutes of limitation, or processing delays. Commenters also expressed concerns about the processing of existing claims and the effect of the delay on their resolution. The Department does not agree that the delay of the effective date of the 2016 final regulations will affect the processing of existing claims. Existing claims were always subject to the State law-based standard in the current regulations. Efforts to improve the efficiency of claims processing are ongoing and are not contingent upon implementation of the 2016 final regulations.
The Department maintains that the loans affected by the delay from July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019 are those issued between those dates and for which any potential borrower defense claims will now be evaluated under the State law-based standard. These loans have not been made yet, and the NPRM and this final rule clarify that the State law-based standard will apply to them—this provides borrowers certainty regarding the standard that will be applied to their claims. Some commenters noted the difference in the annualized estimate for the primary and baseline scenarios and suggested the delay will cost borrowers approximately two billion dollars. As explained in the
As discussed in the
In addition to borrowers, institutions are also affected by the delayed effective date. As indicated in the RIA for the 2016 final regulations, institutions would bear the major costs of compliance, paperwork burden, and providing financial protection to the Department. In terms of cost savings for institutions, the estimated annual paperwork burden was approximately $9.4 million in the first year after the 2016 final regulations were to take effect. In the revised scenario developed to estimate the effect of this delay in the effective date, estimated transfers from institutions to students, via the Federal government, would be reduced by approximately $9.3 million for the 2017 and 2018 loan cohorts because of the slight reduction in claims from the application of the State law-based standard and the change in the effective date of the financial protection provisions as reflected in the assumptions presented in Table 1. The costs of providing financial protection were not quantified in the RIA for the 2016 final regulations, and the Department has no additional data to estimate costs institutions may avoid from the delayed effective date of the financial protection provisions. Given the limited history of borrower defense claims and recovery actions and numerous factors that affect the cost for individual institutions, the Department believed that quantifying the cost of providing financial protection would provide a false sense of precision. As noted in the 2016 final regulations and the NPRM, there are several ways for institutions to provide financial protection to the Department, including some that may be developed in the future. The price of this protection would likely vary by the size of the institution and the institution's existing financial relationships with parties who could provide the financial protection. Other key elements that contribute to the uncertain cost of financial protection overall are the distribution of borrower defense claims, the type of institutions involved, the applicability of specific financial protection triggers, and the Department's pursuit of recoveries. The Department recognizes that the delayed effective date will postpone the impact of the financial protection provisions on institutions. This would be a fraction of the total protection expected to be generated under the rule as some of the triggers are tied to the production of certain performance measures such as gainful employment rates and there would be some time, possibly months, between the effective date and the next release of rates. The recovery assumption always assumed some ramping up of financial protection as different metrics became available for application, so the change in effective date will affect the early years when recoveries were assumed to be smaller. Borrowers are not affected by institutions' delay in incurring the costs of financial protection, and the Department believes it is worth the cost to taxpayers from reduced recoveries described in the Net Budget Impact in the RIA to reconsider the financial protection provisions and appropriately balance the costs to institutions with protection of borrowers and taxpayers.
As described in the NPRM, to estimate the net budget impact of the delay in the effective date to July 1, 2019, the Department developed a scenario that revised the primary estimate assumptions from the 2016 final regulations for the affected 2017 to 2019 cohorts, as was done for the one-year delay described in the IFR. The Department has reviewed the comments it received, particularly those about the potential impacts and estimation of the effects of the delay and responded in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section and this RIA. However, the Department believes that the assumptions for the scenario to estimate the net budget impact on the student loan program from the delay from July 2018 to July 2019 remain appropriate and reasonable.
As before, the Department applies an assumed level of school conduct that could generate borrower defense claims, borrower claims success, and recoveries from institutions (respectively labeled as Conduct Percent, Borrower Percent, and Recovery Percent in Table 1) to the PB 2018 loan volume estimates to generate the estimated net borrower defense claims for each loan cohort, loan type, and sector. The assumptions for the primary scenario from the 2016 final regulations were the basis for the PB2018 baseline that assumed the final regulations would go into effect on July 1, 2017. The scenario developed for the NPRM is designed to capture the incremental change from the one-year delay in the IFR associated with the further one-year delay in the effective date to July 1, 2019. Compared to the scenario developed for the IFR, recoveries are reduced by an additional two percent for the 2017 and 2018 cohorts, all of the 2018 cohort is subject to the State law-based standard, and the affected portion of the 2019 cohort is subject to the current, State law-based standard and reduced recoveries at the five percent level used for the one-year delay in the IFR. Table 1 presents assumptions for the primary estimate from the final regulations and the revised estimate for the delay from July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019, in the effective date. In this scenario, the conduct percent is 90 percent of the primary scenario from the final regulations and the borrower percent is the same. The financial protection provided was always expected to increase over time, so the delayed effective date in the near term is not expected to significantly affect the amount of recoveries over the life of any particular loan cohort, limiting any net budget impact from the delay. To estimate the potential reduction in recoveries related to the proposed delayed effective date, we reduced recoveries for the affected portion of the 2017 and 2018 cohorts by seven percent for the private not-for-profit and proprietary sectors and by five percent for the 2019 cohort. As in the 2016 final regulations and the IFR, recoveries from public institutions were held constant at 75 percent across scenarios.
The net budget impact associated with these effects of the one-year delay in the effective date on the borrower defense provisions only is approximately −$46.1 million from the 2017 to 2019 loan cohorts.
As the amount and composition of borrower defense claims and estimated recoveries over the lifetime of the relevant loan cohorts are not expected to change greatly due to the delayed effective date, the Department does not estimate an economically significant net budget impact from the delay itself, with a potential net budget impact related to borrower defense claims of −$46.1 million in reduced costs for the affected cohorts. This represents the incremental change associated with the one-year delay from July 1, 2018, to July 1, 2019. If compared to the PB 2018 baseline, the savings would be approximately −$78.8 million.
The closed school automatic discharge provisions were the other significant source of estimated net budget impact in the 2016 final regulations. Under credit reform scoring, the modification to older cohorts for the automatic discharge provision estimated to cost $364 million was expected to occur in FY 2017 in the PB 2018. As a result of the delay in the effective date, the Department will not execute the modification in FY 2017.
Moving the execution of the modification beyond FY 2017 will require a new cost analysis with economic assumptions from the fiscal year of the execution. This will result in a change of cost, but at this point it is not possible to know the discount rates in future fiscal years, so the cost of the modification will be determined in the year that it is executed. While the actual cost of the future modification cannot be determined at this time, the Department did approximate the effect of the delay by shifting the timing of the relevant discharges back by a year and recalculating a modification using the discount rates and economic assumptions used for the calculation of the PB2018 modification. When calculated in this manner, the delay in the modification to July 2018 described in the IFR resulted in estimated savings of less than $10 million. Using the same approach, the delay to July 2019 is expected to save approximately $15 million above the savings from the initial one-year delay.
As the delay does not change the substance of the automatic discharge, we would expect the amount and composition of loans affected by the automatic discharge not to change significantly. The closed school three-year automatic discharge provisions were applicable to loans made on or after November 1, 2013, and were not linked to the effective date of the final regulations. Therefore, delaying the effective date of those provisions will not change the set of loans eligible for this automatic discharge. Additionally, borrowers would have the ability to apply for a closed school discharge before July 1, 2019, if they did not want to wait for the automatic discharge to be implemented. For future cohorts, the delay is not significant as the three-year period will fall beyond the delayed effective date. Any significant change to the estimated net budget impact associated with the closed school automatic discharge depends on any substantive changes made to the provisions as a result of the current rulemaking process and changes to economic assumptions when the modification is executed.
Consistent with Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017), we have determined that this rule will result in cost savings. Therefore, this rule would be considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
In evaluating whether a regulation is economically significant, a key consideration is whether the annual effect in any given year is over $100 million.
To evaluate this, the Department looked at the difference in the undiscounted cash flows related to the death, disability, and bankruptcy (DDB) claims in which borrower defense claims are included for the one-year delay established in the IFR and the one-year delay scenario established in this notice and described under the heading “Net Budget Impact”. The difference from subtracting this delay scenario from the IFR one-year delay scenario for the 2017 to 2019 loan cohorts is summarized in Table 2.
Table 3 shows the effects when those differences in the DDB cashflows are discounted at 7 and 3 percent and annualized.
As indicated in the Paperwork Reduction Act section published in the 2016 final regulations, the assessed estimated burden was 253,136 hours, affecting both institutions and individuals, with an estimated cost of $9,458,484. The table below identifies the regulatory sections, OMB Control Numbers, estimated burden hours, and estimated costs of those final regulations.
This final rule delays the effective date of the implementation of all of the cited regulations and will result in a cost savings in the total amount of $9,458,484. However, 34 CFR 682.211(i)(7) which was included in the 2016 final regulations, regarding mandatory forbearance based on a borrower defense claim, with an estimated 5,784 hours and $211,405 cost, was designated for early implementation. Lenders may have elected early implementation and, therefore, those specific costs and hours remain applicable and have been subtracted from the overall estimated cost savings. Based on the delayed effective date of July 1, 2019, the revised estimated annual cost savings to institutions and individuals is $9,247,079 ($9,458,484−$211,405) with an estimated burden hours savings of 253,136 (258,920−5,784).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities, Consumer protection, Grant programs—education, Loan programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Selective Service System, Student aid, Vocational education.
Loan programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid.
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities, Loan programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid, Vocational education.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Arkansas to address the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2006 and 2012 fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on March 16, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0435. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Nevine Salem, (214) 665-7222,
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our November 20, 2017 proposal (82 FR 55065). In that action, we proposed to approve the Arkansas i-SIP submittal dated March 24, 2017 to address the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Act for the 2006 and 2012 PM
We received an anonymous public comment on December 18, 2017 on the proposed rulemaking action. The comment is posted to the docket (EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0435). The commenter raised concerns about the accuracy of agricultural and wild fires emissions inventory. Such comment is irrelevant and is outside the scope of this specific rule making action.
As detailed in the proposal action, EPA is approving the majority of the March 24, 2017, Arkansas i-SIP submittal, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2006 PM
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 16, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Interstate transport of pollution, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS is publishing this final rule to implement Amendment 16 of the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This rule will allow for very small amounts of directed, non-live bait fishing (referred to as “minor directed fishing”) on CPS finfish to occur when a fishery is otherwise closed to directed fishing. Currently, when directed fishing is closed, a small sector of the CPS fishery that is not part of the primary commercial directed fishery has been precluded from landing even minor amounts because this activity does not fall under the existing exemptions for incidental harvest or for harvesting CPS to be sold as live bait. This rule allows this sector to continue directed fishing after other directed fisheries are closed, unless otherwise specified in a closure notice published by NMFS or if an applicable annual catch limit (ACL) is anticipated to be exceeded. To prevent exploitation of this rule to make large aggregate harvests, “minor directed fishing” would not be allowed to exceed landings of 1 metric ton (mt) per day per vessel or person or one fishing trip per day by any vessel. The purpose of this rule is to provide greater flexibility to small fishing operations, while continuing to conserve the target CPS fish stocks.
Effective March 16, 2018.
Copies of the CPS FMP as amended through Amendment 16, with notations showing how Amendment 16 will change the FMP are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Joshua B. Lindsay, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4034; or Kerry Griffin, Pacific Fishery Management Council, at 503-820-2280.
The CPS fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the West Coast is managed under the CPS FMP, which was developed by the Council pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801
At its April 2017 meeting, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) voted to submit Amendment 16 to NMFS for review and approval. On November 6, 2017, NMFS published a Notice of Availability for Amendment 16 in the
This final rule implements Amendment 16 by allowing “minor directed fishing” for CPS finfish after a directed fishery has been closed. Current regulations allow live bait fishing and incidental landings to continue even after a directed fishery closure; this rule allows a small sector of the CPS fishery that is not part of the primary commercial directed fishery to harvest minor amounts of CPS even during a directed fishery closure. This minor directed fishery intentionally targets CPS and typically sells the catch as specialty dead bait to recreational and commercial fisheries, or as fresh fish to restaurants and the public. Total landings from this sector typically make up less than one percent of the total landings of any particular CPS stock. Currently, directed fishing closures apply even to minor directed fisheries.
This final rule will allow minor directed fishing to continue after a directed fishery is closed. Minor directed fishing will be allowed unless otherwise specified by NMFS when closing the directed fishery, or if an applicable ACL is anticipated to be exceeded. To prevent this rule from being exploited by those who would make large aggregate harvests, “minor directed fishing” is limited to landings that do not exceed 1 mt per day per vessel or person or one fishing trip per day by any vessel. The intent of distinguishing between a “vessel” and “person” in these regulations is that some minor directed fishermen target CPS from a platform other than a vessel (
This rule also updates the definition of “Regional Administrator” to reflect the absorption of the former NMFS Southwest Region into the West Coast Region, and to explicitly reference the fact that directed “live bait” fisheries may continue to operate after most other directed fishing is prohibited (which is an original provision of the FMP, not a change made by Amendment 16).
A total of 10 public comments relevant to this action were received on Amendment 16 and the proposed rule. Commenters consisted of West Coast fishing industry representatives, seafood companies, fishermen, and charter boat owners/operators. All comments expressed support for Amendment 16, primarily noting that the ability to harvest small amounts of sardine will provide new business opportunities to small-scale fishermen, including sale to specialty markets, restaurants, and as dead bait. No changes were made from the proposed rule.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the FMP as revised by Amendment 16, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(i) When a directed fishery has been closed, take and retain, possess, or land more than the incidental trip limit announced in the
(d) After the directed fishery for a CPS is closed under § 660.509, no person may take and retain, possess or land more of that species than the incidental trip limit set by the Regional Administrator, except the following directed fisheries may continue until the effective date of a
(1) Fishing exclusively for live bait;
(2) Minor directed fishing for finfish that does not exceed 1 mt per day per vessel or person, and which is limited to 1 fishing trip per day by any vessel.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by trawl catcher vessels in the Bering Sea subarea of the
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 11, 2018, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., April 1, 2018.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2018 allocation of Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) for the Bering Sea Trawl Catcher Vessel A-Season Sector Limitation in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI is 24,768 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 26, 2017) and inseason adjustment (82 FR 60329, December 20, 2017).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2018 allocation of Pacific cod TAC for the Bering Sea Trawl Catcher Vessel A-Season Sector Limitation in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 23,268 mt and is setting aside the remaining 1,500 mt as incidental catch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by trawl catcher vessels in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for Pacific cod by trawl catcher vessels in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 8, 2018.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Public meeting; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking stakeholder participation and involvement in identifying the various technical issues that should be considered in the development of a regulatory basis for the disposal of Greater-than-Class C (GTCC) and transuranic radioactive waste through means other than a deep geologic disposal, including near surface disposal. To assist in this process, the NRC is holding a public meeting and is requesting that stakeholders respond to the questions discussed in Section IV, “Specific Request for Comments,” of this document.
Submit comments by April 16, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is only able to ensure consideration of comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Cardelia H. Maupin, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-4127; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0081 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0081 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket. If your comment contains proprietary or sensitive information, please contact the individual listed in the
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 December 22, 2015, the Commission, in Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)-SECY-15-0094, “Historical and Current Issues Related to Disposal of GTCC Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW)” (ADAMS Accession No. ML15356A623), directed the NRC staff to develop a regulatory basis for disposal of GTCC and transuranic waste through means other than a deep geologic disposal, including near surface disposal, within six months of the completion of the final rule for part 61 of title 10 of the
The NRC staff is in the initial phase of implementing the Commission's directions in SRM-SECY-15-0094 and SRM-SECY-16-0106. The process of potentially amending the NRC's regulations is very thoughtful and deliberative because it can have significant impacts on members of the public, States, licensees, and other stakeholders. The regulatory basis describes the various scientific, technical, and legal issues associated with a potential rulemaking. Therefore, as a part of the initial steps in implementing the Commission's directions, the staff has planned a public meeting with stakeholders to identify the various technical issues that should be considered in the development of a regulatory basis for the disposal of GTCC and transuranic waste. The staff is also requesting that stakeholders respond to the questions discussed in Section IV, “Specific Request for Comments,” of this notice. When this initial phase is completed, staff plans to develop a regulatory basis, which will be provided for public review. Staff plans to hold public meetings on the draft regulatory basis as well. After which, the staff will develop a final regulatory basis.
The NRC's “
The Statements of Consideration (SOC) for the 10 CFR part 61 proposed rule explained that not all waste may be suitable for disposal in the near surface. Specifically,
In § 61.55, “
The GTCC waste is generated by nuclear power reactors, facilities supporting the nuclear fuel cycle, and other facilities and licensees outside of the nuclear fuel cycle. This class of wastes include (1) plutonium-contaminated nuclear fuel cycle wastes; (2) activated metals; (3) sealed sources; and (4) radioisotope product manufacturing wastes (
With regards to transuranic waste, as mentioned earlier, transuranic waste is not included in the § 61.2 definition of LLRW. In a 1988 amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, a definition for transuranic was added. Transuranic waste
The identification and evaluation of regulatory concerns associated with land disposal of GTCC and transuranic waste will largely depend on the characteristics of the wastes (
The NRC is seeking stakeholder participation and involvement in identifying the various technical issues that should be considered in the development of a draft regulatory basis for the disposal of GTCC and transuranic radioactive waste through means other than a deep geologic disposal, including near surface disposal. To assist in this process, the NRC staff is requesting that stakeholders respond to the questions below. In addition, the NRC staff has conducted some initial technical analyses to assist its understanding of potential hazards with near surface disposal of GTCC and transuranic wastes, which are contained in draft “
The U.S. Department of Energy has described three broad categories of GTCC wastes, including a range of transuranic radionuclides, in its “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) Low-Level Radioactive Waste and GTCC-Like Waste” (
The presence of sufficient quantities of high activity radionuclides and/or fissile radionuclides in GTCC and transuranic wastes may impact the design and operational activities associated with a disposal facility prior to disposal. The NRC is interested in identifying those design and operational activities at a disposal facility that may be impacted by GTCC and transuranic wastes. For example, the requirements in 10 CFR part 73 would require licensees to develop safeguards systems to protect against acts of radiological sabotage and to prevent the theft or diversion of Special Nuclear Material (
The NRC is considering disposal units (
To facilitate the understanding of the public and other stakeholders of these issues and the submission of comments, the NRC staff has scheduled a public meeting for February 22, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (EST) in the NRC Auditorium at 11545 Rockville, Pike, Rockville, MD. In addition, those wishing to participate by Webinar will be able to view the presentation slides prepared by the NRC and electronically submit comments during the meeting. Participants must register to participate in the Webinar. Registration information may be found in the meeting notice (
Additionally, the final agenda for the public meeting will be posted no fewer than 10 days prior to the Webinar at this website. Those who are unable to participate in person or via Webinar may also participate via teleconference. For details on how to participate via teleconference, please contact Sarah Achten; telephone: 301-415-6009; email:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-01-02, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. AD 2017-01-02 requires an inspection for discrepant inboard and outboard trailing edge flap rotary actuators. Since we issued AD 2017-01-02, we have determined that it is necessary to revise the applicability to include additional airplanes, and to reduce the number of affected actuators. This proposed AD would continue to require an inspection of the inboard and outboard trailing edge flap rotary actuator for any discrepant rotary actuator, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 2, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Douglas Tsuji, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6546; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
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 2017-01-02, Amendment 39-18769 (82 FR 4775, January 17, 2017) (“AD 2017-01-02”), for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. AD 2017-01-02 requires an inspection for discrepant inboard and outboard trailing edge flap rotary actuators. AD 2017-01-02 resulted from a report that indicated that some rotary actuators of the inboard and outboard trailing edge flap may have been assembled with an incorrect no-back brake rotor-stator stack sequence during manufacturing. We issued AD 2017-01-02 to detect and replace incorrectly assembled rotary actuators, which could cause accelerated unit wear that will eventually reduce braking performance. This degradation could lead to loss of no-back brake function and reduced controllability of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2017-01-02, we have determined that it is necessary to revise the applicability to include additional airplanes, and to reduce the number of affected actuators.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 003, dated July 28, 2017. The service information describes procedures for an inspection of the inboard and outboard trailing edge flap rotary actuator for any discrepant rotary actuator, and corrective actions if necessary. The related investigative action includes a functional test of the trailing edge flap no-back brake. The corrective actions include replacement of the discrepant rotary actuator with a non-discrepant rotary actuator. 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 are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2017-01-02 and add airplanes to the applicability. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. Related investigative actions are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. Corrective actions correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.
To support operations, many operators have put processes in place that, given certain conditions, allow them to rotate or transfer parts or equipment within their fleets to different aircraft than what is defined in the manufacturer's type design. We have determined that the parts or equipment subject to the unsafe condition may have been rotated or transferred in this manner, due to similarity with parts or equipment not subject to the unsafe condition. Therefore, the applicability of this proposed AD is for all The Boeing Company Model 787 series airplanes.
The effectivity specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 001, dated November 3, 2015, consists of only certain Boeing Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. In this proposed AD, the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD would be accomplished on any The Boeing Company Model 787 series airplane with an original Certificate of Airworthiness or an original Export Certificate of Airworthiness dated on or before the effective date of the final rule. Expanding the applicability of this proposed AD addresses the rotability issue of the trailing edge flap rotary actuators. We have confirmed with the manufacturer that the accomplishment instructions in the following service information are applicable to the expanded group of airplanes:
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 001, dated November 3, 2015.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 002, dated November 3, 2016.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 003, dated July 28, 2017.
The Boeing Company Model 787 series airplanes with an original Certificate of Airworthiness or an original Export Certificate of Airworthiness dated after the effective date of the final rule are not required to complete the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, but must comply with the parts installation prohibition in paragraph (i) of this AD.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 89 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft or the number of rotary actuators (up to 8 per shipset) that might need these on-condition actions:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We have 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 that the 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,
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.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 2, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2017-01-02, Amendment 39-18769 (82 FR 4775, January 17, 2017) (“AD 2017-01-02”).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 787 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight control systems.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that some inboard and outboard trailing edge flap rotary actuators may have been assembled with an incorrect no-back brake rotor-stator stack sequence during manufacturing. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace incorrectly assembled rotary actuators, which could cause accelerated unit wear that will eventually reduce braking performance. This degradation could lead to loss of no-back brake function and reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 001, dated November 3, 2015: Within 60 months after February 21, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-01-02), do an inspection of the inboard and outboard trailing edge flap rotary actuator for any discrepant rotary actuator, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 001, dated November 3, 2015; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 003, dated July 28, 2017. If any discrepant rotary actuator is found, within 60 months after February 21, 2017, do the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 001, dated November 3, 2015; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 003, dated July 28, 2017. After the effective date of this AD only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 003, dated July 28, 2017, may be used.
(1) Replace the discrepant rotary actuator.
(2) Check the maintenance records to determine the flight cycles of each discrepant rotary actuator and, within 60 months after February 21, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-01-02), do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions.
For airplanes not identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 001, dated November 3, 2015, which have an Original Certificate of Airworthiness or Export Certificate of Airworthiness with a date on or before the effective date of this AD: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do an inspection of the inboard and outboard trailing edge flap rotary actuator for any discrepant rotary actuator, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 003, dated July 28, 2017. If any discrepant rotary actuator is found, within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 003, dated July 28, 2017.
(1) Replace the discrepant rotary actuator.
(2) Check the maintenance records to determine the flight cycles of each discrepant rotary actuator and, within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a rotary actuator with a part number and serial number identified in Appendix A of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 003, dated July 28, 2017, unless the actuator has been permanently marked in accordance with Task 2 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 003, dated July 28, 2017, with “B787-81205-SB270032-00 INCORPORATED.”
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 002, dated November 3, 2016.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 001, dated November 3, 2015, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 002, dated November 3, 2016.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2017-01-02 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(5) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(5)(i) and (k)(5)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Douglas Tsuji, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6546; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is proposing to amend its postmarketing safety reporting regulations for approved new animal drugs to require that certain adverse drug experience and product/manufacturing defect reports be submitted to FDA in an electronic format that we can process, review, and archive. This action is intended to improve our systems for collecting and analyzing postmarketing safety reports. The proposed change would help us to more rapidly review postmarketing safety reports, identify emerging safety problems, and disseminate safety information in support of our public health mission. In addition, the proposed amendments would facilitate international harmonization and exchange of safety information.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed rule by April 30, 2018. Submit comments on information collection issues under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 by March 16, 2018.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 30, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Submit comments on information collection issues under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the following ways:
• Fax to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or email to
FDA is issuing this proposed rule to amend our regulations under § 514.80 (21 CFR 514.80) to require electronic submission of certain postmarketing
We require applicants to submit to us postmarketing safety reports of adverse drug experiences and product/manufacturing defects for approved new animal drugs (see § 514.80). An applicant is defined as “a person or entity who owns or holds on behalf of the owner the approval for an NADA [new animal drug application] or an ANADA [abbreviated new animal drug application], and is responsible for compliance with applicable provisions of the act and regulations.” (§ 514.3 (21 CFR 514.3)) In addition, nonapplicants, defined in § 514.3 as “any person other than the applicant whose name appears on the label and who is engaged in manufacturing, packing, distribution, or labeling of the product,” may elect to submit adverse drug experience reports directly to us (§ 514.80(b)(3)).
We propose to require electronic submission for the following reports for approved new animal drugs: 3-day alert reports that applicants elect to submit directly to FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) in addition to the requirement they have to submit these reports on paper Form FDA 1932 to the appropriate FDA District Office or local FDA resident post; 15-day alert reports and followup reports; product/manufacturing defect and adverse drug experience reports submitted by nonapplicants who elect to report adverse drug experiences directly to CVM in addition to providing these reports to the applicant; product/manufacturing defect and adverse drug experience reports (including reports of previously not reported adverse drug experiences that occur in postapproval studies) required to be submitted as part of the periodic drug experience report. We propose to replace the current paper submission process with the electronic submission requirement and a procedure for requesting a temporary waiver of the electronic submission requirement. Finally, we propose to clarify where to submit reports not required to be submitted electronically. Under the proposed rule, we would continue to require 3-day alert reports to be submitted to the appropriate FDA District Office or local FDA resident post. However, as noted, if in addition to the report an applicant submits on paper Form FDA 1932 to the appropriate FDA District Office or local FDA resident post, an applicant elects to submit a 3-day field alert report directly to CVM, the applicant would be required to submit the report to CVM electronically.
Our legal authority to require electronic submission of postmarketing safety reports for approved new animal drugs derives from sections 201, 301, 501, 502, 512, and 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 360b, and 371).
The purpose of this proposed rule is to require electronic submission of certain postmarketing safety reports for approved new animal drugs. The rule, if finalized, would also provide a procedure for requesting a temporary waiver of the electronic reporting requirement for “good cause” shown, such as a natural disaster. As currently proposed, this rule would not change the content of the postmarketing safety reports or the frequency of the reporting requirements. Currently, most submitters have chosen, voluntarily, to use electronic submission for the reports that would be affected by this proposed rule. As of 2016, approximately 99.7 percent of postmarketing safety reports eligible for electronic submission were electronically submitted. Thus, this proposed rule would affect a small proportion of these reports.
The major benefits of this proposed rule, if finalized, would be to animal health and the Agency in the form of quicker access to postmarketing safety information. The annual cost savings to the Agency is estimated at $7,535. The present value of these benefits over 10 years is $64,272 at a 3 percent discount rate, and $52,920 at a 7 percent discount rate.
Total one-time costs to industry would be $61,311 for changing standard operating procedures (SOPs) and training employees to electronically submit postmarketing safety reports in accordance with the new SOPs. Recurring costs to the Agency would be $153 per year, for processing the waivers to the electronic reporting requirement. Annualizing these costs over a 10-year period, we estimate total annualized costs to be $7,131 at a 3 percent discount rate, and $8,310 at a 7 percent discount rate. The present value of these costs over 10 years is $60,823 at a 3 percent discount rate, and $58,368 at a 7 percent discount rate.
When a new animal drug is approved and enters the market, the product is introduced to a larger population in settings different from the controlled studies required by the approval process. New information generated during the postmarketing period offers further insight into the benefits and/or risks of the product, and evaluation of this information is important to ensure the safe and effective use of these products.
CVM receives information regarding adverse drug experiences for approved new animal drugs from postmarketing safety reports. For over 25 years, we have received these safety reports on paper. However, the majority of submitters have chosen, voluntarily, to utilize electronic submission as electronic means became available. As of 2016, approximately 99.7 percent of postmarketing safety reports eligible for electronic submission were electronically submitted. The proposed rule would require electronic submission of the remaining 0.3 percent of postmarketing safety reports eligible for electronic submission.
Electronic submission improves our ability to process and archive postmarketing safety reports in a timely manner, and to make postmarketing reports more readily available for analysis. Information from electronic and paper reports is entered into our computerized database, which is designed to support our postmarketing safety surveillance program for animal drug products. Scientists at CVM use the database to make decisions about product safety, which may include regulatory action. Electronically submitted reports are available for analysis as soon as they have been processed, generally within 2 days of receipt. Safety reports submitted to us on paper must be physically received, reviewed, and then manually entered into our computerized database, a process that can take several weeks. Paper reports increase the time it takes us to review safety information, impede our ability to analyze the data comprehensively, and hinder our ability to quickly identify problems. Voluntary electronic submission of safety reports has been an important step in improving
The proposed rule, which would require electronic submission of certain postmarketing safety reports, would further improve our systems for collecting and analyzing these reports and would save FDA an expected $7,459 annually, primarily in the cost of processing paper submissions. The proposal would:
• Expedite our access to safety information and provide us data in a format that would support more efficient and comprehensive reviews;
• Enhance our ability to rapidly communicate information about suspected problems to animal owners, veterinarians, consumers, and industry within the United States and internationally in support of our public health mission; and
• Eliminate or reduce the time and costs to industry associated with submitting paper reports, and the time, costs, errors, and physical storage needs of the Agency associated with manually entering data from paper reports into the electronic system for review and analysis.
The proposed rule would allow us to be more responsive to rapidly occurring changes in the technological environment. Consistent with our current practice for voluntarily provided electronic submissions, the proposed rule would require that data in electronic submissions conform to the data elements in Form FDA 1932 and our technical documents on how to provide electronic submissions (
The proposed rule is also an important step in our continuing efforts to harmonize our postmarketing safety reporting regulations with international standards for submitting safety information. Currently, the technical specifications referenced in our guidance documents supporting the voluntary electronic submission processes rely upon and adopt certain safety reporting and transmission standards recommended by the International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH). VICH was formed to facilitate the harmonization of technical requirements for the marketing authorization or “registration” of veterinary medicinal products among three regions: The European Union, Japan, and the United States. Our electronic submission specifications allow applicants or nonapplicants to submit postmarketing safety reports using the Health Level 7 (HL7) Individual Case Safety Report (ICSR) standard that has been adopted worldwide by VICH. In this proposed rule, we reaffirm our intention to continue to rely on these VICH-recommended standards. We believe the continued use of VICH standards will promote harmonization of safety reporting among regulatory agencies and facilitate the international exchange of postmarketing safety information. Accordingly, this proposed rule is consistent with our ongoing initiatives to encourage the widest possible use of electronic submission and to promote international harmonization of safety reporting for animal drug products through reliance on VICH standards. We anticipate that the proposed rule would enhance industry's global pharmacovigilance practices by allowing it to use common data elements and transmission standards when submitting ICSRs to multiple regulators.
The current postmarketing safety reports required under § 514.80 for approved NADAs and approved ANADAs are summarized below. The proposed electronic submission requirement would leave the substantive aspects of these reports largely unchanged.
Under section 512(
Specifically, § 514.80(b) requires the following adverse drug experience reports, among other reports:
• Three-day field alert reports (§ 514.80(b)(1)). Applicants must submit a report to the appropriate FDA District Office or local resident post with information pertaining to product and manufacturing defects that may result in serious adverse drug events within 3 working days of first becoming aware that a defect may exist.
• Fifteen-day alert reports (§ 514.80(b)(2)(i)) and followup reports (§ 514.80(b)(2)(ii)). Applicants must submit a report to us for each postmarketing adverse drug event that is both serious and unexpected within 15 working days of first receiving the information about the adverse drug event. A followup report must be submitted within 15 working days of receipt of significant new information or as requested by us.
• Nonapplicant reports (§ 514.80(b)(3)). Nonapplicants are required to forward reports of adverse drug experiences
• Reports of product/manufacturing defects and adverse drug experiences submitted as part of the periodic drug experience report (§ 514.80(b)(4)(iv)(A) and (C)). Applicants are required to submit a periodic report every 6 months for the first 2 years following approval (6-month periodic drug experience reports) and yearly thereafter (yearly
As noted, for over 25 years we have received postmarketing safety reports on paper. Currently, § 514.80 requires that applicants and nonapplicants submit to us reports of adverse drug experiences and product/manufacturing defects on paper Form FDA 1932. It further requires that 3-day field alert reports must be submitted to the appropriate FDA District Field Office or local FDA resident post while 15-day alert reports and followup reports, periodic drug experience reports, and nonapplicant reports must be submitted to CVM (§ 514.80(b)(1) to (3), (b)(4)(iv)(A) and (C), and (g)).
As noted earlier in this preamble, since May 2010 we have provided industry with the option of submitting certain postmarketing safety reports electronically. Since that time, the majority of submitters have chosen, voluntarily, to utilize electronic submission. As of 2016, approximately 99.7 percent of postmarketing safety reports eligible for electronic submission were electronically submitted.
Reports that may be submitted electronically include 15-day alert reports and followup reports (§ 514.80(b)(2)(i) and (ii)); nonapplicant reports of adverse drug experiences submitted directly to FDA (§ 514.80(b)(3)); and reports of product/manufacturing defects and adverse drug experiences submitted as part of the periodic drug experience report (§ 514.80(b)(4)(iv)(A) and (C)). At this time, 3-day field alert reports (§ 514.80(b)(1)) must be submitted on paper Form FDA 1932 to the appropriate FDA District Office or local resident post. CVM collaborates with the FDA District Office or local resident post to follow up as appropriate in response to 3-day field alert reports. If an applicant elects to submit a 3-day field alert report directly to CVM, the applicant would be required to submit the report electronically. However, this would not alleviate the applicant's responsibility to submit this report to the FDA District Field Office or local FDA resident post on paper Form FDA 1932.
Electronic reports may be submitted through FDA's Electronic Submission Gateway or through the FDA-National Institutes of Health Safety Reporting Portal (Safety Reporting Portal). The Electronic Submission Gateway allows applicants or nonapplicants to submit postmarketing safety reports using the HL7 ICSR standard, which, as discussed earlier in this preamble, has been adopted worldwide by VICH. The Electronic Submission Gateway provides industry with gateway-to-gateway access to transmit an HL7 ICSR message using the FDA electronic submission standard. The Safety Reporting Portal provides applicants or nonapplicants a means to submit individual postmarketing safety reports without having to make financial investments in the technical infrastructure needed to access the Electronic Submission Gateway. Any person who has internet access can use the Safety Reporting Portal to submit reports through a user-friendly, interactive questionnaire available at
For applicants or nonapplicants that submit large numbers of reports, sending an HL7 ICSR electronic file is more cost effective because the information from the reports is transmitted directly from the submitter's database to FDA, eliminating the need for additional resources for collating, copying, storing, retrieving, and mailing paper copies. For applicants or nonapplicants that submit a small number of reports, the use of the web-based Safety Reporting Portal may be more cost effective than implementing a system to send an HL7 ICSR message through the FDA Electronic Submission Gateway.
Section 512(
We are proposing to amend our regulations in part 514 (21 CFR part 514). The proposed rule would require electronic submission of certain postmarketing safety reports for approved new animal drugs and provide a procedure for requesting a temporary waiver of the requirement. This action is intended to improve our systems for collecting and analyzing postmarketing safety reports.
The proposed rule would amend § 514.80 to require electronic submission of the following postmarketing safety reports for approved new animal drugs:
• Three-day alert reports that applicants elect to submit directly to CVM in addition to the requirement they have to submit these reports on paper Form FDA 1932 to the appropriate FDA District Office or local FDA resident post (§ 514.80(b)(1);
• Fifteen-day alert reports (§ 514.80(b)(2)(i)) and followup reports (§ 514.80(b)(2)(ii));
• Product/manufacturing defects and adverse drug experience reports submitted by nonapplicants who elect to report adverse drug experiences directly to FDA under § 514.80(b)(3) in addition to providing these reports to the applicant; and
• Product/manufacturing defects and adverse drug experience reports (including reports of previously not reported adverse drug experiences that occur in postapproval studies) required to be submitted as part of the periodic drug experience report (§ 514.80(b)(4)(iv)(A) and (C)).
At this time, we are not proposing to require electronic submission of 3-day field alert reports (§ 514.80(b)(1)) to the appropriate FDA District Office or local resident post because, as noted previously, we currently do not have the information technology systems in place to share with FDA District Offices or local resident posts reports submitted electronically through the Electronic Submission Gateway or Safety Reporting Portal. Under this proposed rule, these reports would continue to be submitted on paper Form FDA 1932 directly to the appropriate FDA District Office or local resident post. CVM will continue to collaborate with the FDA District Office or local resident post to follow up as appropriate in response to
We are proposing that applicants would continue to have the obligation to submit 3-day field alert reports directly to the appropriate FDA District Office or local resident post within 3 working days of first becoming aware that a defect may exist. However, if applicants choose to also report directly to CVM in addition to reporting to the appropriate FDA District Office or local resident post, they would be required to submit the report to CVM electronically, unless we grant a waiver permitting an alternate submission method or we otherwise request an alternate submission method. (See proposed § 514.80(b)(1).)
We are proposing that 15-day alert reports and followup reports would be required to be submitted to us electronically, unless we grant a waiver permitting an alternate submission method (see section IV.B.2 of this document) or we otherwise request an alternate submission method (see section IV.B.3 of this document). (See proposed § 514.80(b)(2)(i) and (ii).)
We are proposing that nonapplicants would continue to have the obligation of forwarding reports of adverse drug experiences to the applicant within 3 working days of first receiving the information. Nonapplicants would also continue to have the option of choosing to report directly to us in addition to reporting to the applicant. However, if nonapplicants opt to report directly to us, they would be required to submit the report electronically, unless we grant a waiver permitting an alternate submission method or we otherwise request an alternate submission method. (See proposed § 514.80(b)(3).)
We are proposing that reports of product/manufacturing defects and adverse drug experiences required to be submitted as part of the periodic drug experience report would be required to be submitted to us electronically, unless we grant a waiver permitting an alternate submission method or we otherwise request an alternate submission method. (See proposed § 514.80(b)(4)(iv)(A) and (C).) This includes reports of defects and experiences not previously reported under § 514.80(b)(1) and (2) and previously not reported adverse drug experiences that occur in postapproval studies. These reports could be submitted individually at any time within the timeframe for submitting the periodic drug experience report under current § 514.80(b)(4).
We are proposing that reports submitted to us under § 514.80(b)(1), (b)(2)(i) and (ii), (b)(3), and (b)(4)(iv)(A) and (C) be submitted in an electronic format that FDA can process, review, and archive, and that data submitted in electronic submissions conform to the data elements in Form FDA 1932 and our technical documents on how to provide electronic submissions (
We are proposing to allow applicants or nonapplicants to request a temporary waiver from the electronic submission requirement for “good cause” shown. Examples of circumstances that could constitute “good cause” for granting waivers of the electronic submission requirement include crisis situations that impact an applicant's or nonapplicant's ability to report electronically, such as natural disasters, pandemics, and terrorism. The proposed rule would require applicants and nonapplicants to submit a waiver request to us in writing. The initial request, however, could be made by telephone or email to CVM's Division of Veterinary Product Safety, with prompt written followup submitted as a letter to the application. If we grant the request for a temporary waiver, the applicant or nonapplicant would be required to follow the conditions for reporting that we specify upon granting the waiver. (See proposed § 514.80(d)(2).)
We anticipate that temporary waivers of the electronic submission requirement will only be needed in rare circumstances such as natural disasters, pandemics, and terrorism, as noted. An applicant or nonapplicant experiencing technical difficulties that temporarily prevent use of the Electronic Submission Gateway could, as a backup, electronically submit reports using the Safety Reporting Portal. An applicant or nonapplicant that relies on the Safety Reporting Portal but experiences a short-term, temporary interruption of internet services could, as a backup, electronically submit reports from any other computer with access to a working internet connection.
We may require an applicant or nonapplicant to submit reports that would otherwise be required to be submitted electronically to be submitted in an alternate format, such as on paper using Form FDA 1932. We anticipate that we would request the submission of reports through an alternate method only in the event that we experience a prolonged system outage or other major technical problem. During such an event, we would provide advice on the desired method for submission (most likely on paper using Form FDA 1932) and the types of reports that should be submitted using the alternate method. Applicants and nonapplicants should be prepared to comply with such a request by maintaining the capability to submit paper reports using Form FDA 1932 if needed. (See proposed § 514.80(b)(1) to (3), and (b)(4)(iv)(A) and (C).)
Finally, we propose to clarify where to submit reports not required to be submitted electronically. Under the proposed rule, we would continue to require 3-day alert reports to be submitted to the appropriate FDA District Office or local FDA resident post. (See proposed § 514.80(g).)
We propose that any final rule based on this proposal become effective 30 days after the date on which it is published in the
We have examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13771, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13771 requires that the costs associated with significant new regulations “shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.” We believe that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because the costs of the rule are minimal in both absolute value and in comparison to average yearly sales of small firms in this industry, we propose to certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $148 million, using the most current (2016) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This proposed rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to require electronic submission of certain postmarketing safety reports for approved new animal drugs. The rule, if finalized, would also provide a procedure for requesting a temporary waiver of the electronic reporting requirement for “good cause” shown, such as a natural disaster. As currently proposed, this rule would not change the content of the postmarketing safety reports or the frequency of the reporting requirements.
The major benefits of this proposed rule, if finalized, would be to animal health and the Agency in the form of quicker access to postmarketing safety information; the annual cost savings to the Agency is estimated at $7,535. The present value of these benefits over 10 years is $64,272 at a 3 percent discount rate, and $52,920 at a 7 percent discount rate.
Total one-time costs to industry would be $61,311 for changing SOPs and training employees to electronically submit postmarketing safety reports in accordance with the new SOPs. Recurring costs to the Agency would be $153 per year, for processing the waivers to the electronic reporting requirement. Annualizing these costs over a 10-year period, we estimate total annualized costs to be $7,131 at a 3 percent discount rate, and $8,310 at a 7 percent discount rate. The present value of these costs over 10 years is $60,823 at a 3 percent discount rate, and $58,368 at a 7 percent discount rate.
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This proposed rule contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by OMB under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). A description of these provisions is given in the
FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
The proposed rule will revise these requirements to require electronic submission of the following postmarketing safety reports for approved new animal drugs:
• Three-day alert reports that applicants elect to submit directly to CVM in addition to the requirement that they have to submit these reports on paper Form FDA 1932 to the appropriate FDA District Office or local FDA resident post (§ 514.80(b)(1);
• Fifteen-day alert reports (§ 514.80(b)(2)(i)) and followup reports (§ 514.80(b)(2)(ii));
• Product/manufacturing defects and adverse drug experience reports submitted by nonapplicants who elect to report adverse drug experiences directly to FDA under § 514.80(b)(3) in addition to providing these reports to the applicant; and
• Product/manufacturing defects and adverse drug experience reports (including reports of previously not reported adverse drug experiences that occur in postapproval studies) required to be submitted as part of the periodic drug experience report (§ 514.80(b)(4)(iv)(A) and (C)).
At this time, we are not proposing to require electronic submission of 3-day field alert reports (§ 514.80(b)(1)) to the appropriate FDA District Office or local resident post because, as noted previously, we currently do not have the information technology systems in place to share with the FDA District Office or local resident post reports submitted electronically through the Electronic Submission Gateway or Safety Reporting Portal. These reports would continue to be submitted on paper Form FDA 1932 directly to the appropriate FDA District Office or local resident post. CVM will continue to collaborate with the FDA District Office or local resident post to follow up as appropriate in response to 3-day field alert reports submitted directly to the FDA District Office or local resident post. However, as noted, if an applicant elects to submit a 3-day field alert report directly to CVM, the applicant would be required to submit the report electronically. This would not alleviate the applicant's responsibility to submit this report to the FDA District Field Office or local FDA resident post on paper Form FDA 1932.
The proposed rule will also revise these requirements to allow applicants or nonapplicants to request a temporary waiver from the electronic submission requirement for “good cause” shown. Examples of circumstances that could constitute “good cause” for granting waivers of the electronic submission requirement include crisis situations that impact an applicant's or nonapplicant's ability to report electronically, such as natural disasters, pandemics, and terrorism. The proposed rule would require applicants and nonapplicants to submit a waiver request to us in writing. The initial request, however, could be made by telephone or email to CVM's Division of Veterinary Product Safety, with prompt
The continuous monitoring of new animal drugs affords the primary means by which we obtain information regarding problems with the safety and efficacy of marketed approved new animal drugs, as well as product/manufacturing problems. Postapproval marketing surveillance is important to ensure the continued safety and effectiveness of new animal drugs. Drug effects can change over time and other effects may not manifest until years after the approval.
We estimate the reporting burden of this collection of information as follows:
Table 1 shows the estimated recurring reporting burden associated with the proposed rule. In section II.C. of the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA), we estimated that 15 firms submitted a paper Form FDA 1932 report from 2011 to 2015 and thus would be affected by the proposed rule's requirement to submit electronically. As stated in the PRIA, we estimate that in 2016 CVM received 270 of the affected postmarketing safety reports on paper. We calculate the number of responses per respondent as the total annual responses divided by the number of respondents. We estimate that, on average, it will take 1 hour to submit electronic postmarketing safety reports for approved new animal drugs, for a total of 270 hours. We base our estimate of 1 hour per report on our experience with electronic postmarketing safety reporting. In the PRIA, we also estimated the burdens associated with submission of waiver requests. We expect very few waiver requests (see section II.E. of the PRIA), estimating that approximately one firm would request a waiver annually under proposed § 514.80(d)(2). We estimate that a waiver request would take approximately 1 hour to prepare and submit to us. Together, this results in a total of 271 hours and 271 responses. If this rule is finalized as proposed, we would reduce the paper reporting collection approved under OMB control number 0910-0284 by 270 hours and increase the electronic reporting collection approved under OMB control number 0910-0645 by 270 hours.
Table 2 shows the estimated one-time recordkeeping burden associated with the proposed rule. This burden includes both the one-time burden of creating new SOPs to submit the reports electronically and the one-time cost of training employees to electronically submit postmarketing safety reports to CVM in accordance with the new SOPs. In section II.E. of the PRIA, we estimated that approximately 15 firms would be affected by this proposed rule, if finalized. We also estimated that it would take approximately 20 hours per firm to create new SOPs for electronic submission of postmarketing safety reports and approximately 20 hours per firm to complete the training of employees to electronically submit postmarketing safety reports in accordance with the new SOPs. Together, this results in a total of 600 hours and 30 records. We assume that there are no capital costs associated with firms implementing this proposed rule (
To ensure that comments on information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see
In compliance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3407(d)), the Agency has submitted the information collection provisions of this proposed rule to OMB for review. These requirements will not be effective until FDA obtains OMB approval. FDA will publish a notice concerning OMB approval of these requirements in the
We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. We have determined that this proposed rule does not contain policies that have
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Confidential business information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, we propose that 21 CFR part 514 be amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 354, 356a, 360b, 360ccc, 371, 379e, 381.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * * If the applicant elects to also report directly to the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), the applicant must submit the report to CVM in electronic format as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, unless the applicant obtains a waiver under paragraph (d)(2) of this section or FDA requests the report in an alternate format.
(2) * * *
(i) * * * The report must be submitted to FDA in electronic format as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, unless the applicant obtains a waiver under paragraph (d)(2) of this section or FDA requests the report in an alternate format.
(ii) * * * A followup report must be submitted to FDA in electronic format as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, unless the applicant obtains a waiver under paragraph (d)(2) of this section or FDA requests the report in an alternate format. * * *
(3) * * * If the nonapplicant elects to also report directly to FDA, the nonapplicant must submit the report to FDA in electronic format as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, unless the nonapplicant obtains a waiver under paragraph (d)(2) of this section or FDA requests the report in an alternate format.
(4) * * *
(iv) * * *
(A) Product/manufacturing defects and adverse drug experiences not previously reported under § 514.80(b)(1) and (b)(2) must be reported individually to FDA in electronic format as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, unless the applicant obtains a waiver under paragraph (d)(2) of this section or FDA requests the report in an alternate format.
(B) * * *
(C) Reports of previously not reported adverse drug experiences that occur in postapproval studies must be reported individually to FDA in electronic format as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, unless the applicant obtains a waiver under paragraph (d)(2) of this section or FDA requests the report in an alternate format.
(v) * * * The summaries must state the time period on which the increased frequency is based, time period comparisons in determining increased frequency, references to any reports previously submitted under paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4)(iv)(A) and (C) of this section, the method of analysis, and the interpretation of the results. The summaries must be submitted in a separate section within the periodic drug experience report.
(d)
(2)
(3)
(g)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public hearing.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that a public hearing will be held on the EPA's proposed response to a June 1, 2016, petition submitted by the state of Connecticut pursuant to section 126 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The petition requests that the EPA make a finding that the Brunner Island Steam Electric Station located in York County, Pennsylvania, emits air pollution in amounts that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in Connecticut. The hearing will be held on February 23, 2018, in Washington, DC. The EPA will issue its proposed response in the near future.
The public hearing will be held on February 23, 2018, in Washington, DC. Please refer to
If you would like to speak at the public hearing, please contact Ms. Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Air Quality Planning Division (C504-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-0641, fax number (919) 541-5509, email address
If you have questions concerning the June 1, 2016 petition, please contact Mr. Lev Gabrilovich, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Air Quality Planning Division, (C539-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-1496, email address
The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the EPA's proposed response to the June 1, 2016, petition. The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information that are submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as any oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. Written comments must be postmarked by the last day of the comment period.
The public hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. and end at 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) or at least two hours after the last registered speaker has spoken. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all individuals interested in providing oral testimony. A lunch break is scheduled from 12:00 p.m. until 1:00 p.m. Please note that this hearing will be held at a U.S. government facility. Individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the
If you would like to present oral testimony at the hearing, please notify Ms. Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS, Air Quality Planning Division, (C504-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-0641, fax number (919) 541-5509, email address
Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes for each commenter. The EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral testimony electronically (via email) or in hard copy form. The EPA will not provide audiovisual equipment for presentations unless we receive special requests in advance. Commenters should notify Ms. Long if they will need specific equipment. Commenters should also notify Ms. Long if they need specific translation services for non-English speaking commenters.
The hearing schedule, including the list of speakers, will be posted on the EPA's Web at site
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0347 (available at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve four revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) on December 12, 2016 and February 21, 2017, specific to air quality permitting and public notice for air quality permit applications.
Written comments should be received on or before March 16, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0124, at
Adina Wiley, 214-665-2115,
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
The Act at Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop and submit to EPA for approval into the SIP, preconstruction review and permitting programs applicable to certain new and modified stationary sources of air pollutants for attainment and nonattainment areas that cover both major and minor new sources and modifications, collectively referred to as the NSR SIP. The CAA NSR SIP program is composed of three separate programs: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR), and Minor NSR. The EPA codified minimum requirements for these State permitting programs including public participation and notification requirements at 40 CFR 51.160-51.164. Requirements specific to construction of new stationary sources and major modifications in nonattainment areas are codified at 40 CFR 51.165 for the NNSR program. Requirements for permitting of new stationary sources and major modifications in attainment areas subject to PSD, including additional public participation requirements, are found at 40 CFR 51.166. This proposed approval action will address four separate revisions to the Texas NSR SIP submitted on December 12, 2016 and February 21, 2017. On December 12, 2016, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted a revision to the major NSR program to remove from the Texas SIP the Compliance History provisions at 30
The accompanying Technical Support Documents for this action include a detailed analysis of the submitted revisions to the Texas SIP. In many instances the revisions are minor or non-substantive in nature and do not change the intent of the originally approved SIP requirements. Following is a summary of our analysis for the submitted revisions.
The Chapter 116 Compliance History provisions were initially adopted by the State on June 17, 1998, at 30 TAC Sections 116.120-116.126. These revisions were submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision on July 22, 1998. The EPA approved these requirements into the SIP on September 18, 2002 at 67 FR 58697.
The TCEQ repealed the requirements of 30 TAC Section 116.124 on September 2, 1999. The EPA approved this repeal on January 6, 2014 at 79 FR 551. The TCEQ repealed the remaining provisions at 30 TAC Sections 116.120-116.123, 116.125 and 116.126 on August 7, 2002 and replaced the requirements with media neutral compliance history requirements under 30 TAC Chapter 60 pursuant to the requirements of Texas House Bill 2912. The TCEQ did not submit the repeal of 30 TAC Sections 116.120-116.123, 116.125 and 116.126 at the time of the state rulemaking. The repeal of these requirements was submitted on December 12, 2016 as Rule Project Number 2016-028-SIP-NR.
The repeal of the remaining compliance history provisions at 30 TAC Sections 116.120-116.123, 116.125 and 116.126 is approvable. This repeal was developed in accordance with the CAA and the State provided reasonable notice and public hearing. The repeal of these provisions will remove obsolete requirements from the Texas SIP. The EPA has determined it is appropriate to approve the repeal and removal of these provisions from the SIP since there are no federal requirements to include comparable provisions in a SIP. This repeal will have no negative impact on the Texas New Source Review program because the SIP-approved permit programs do not rely on the repealed Compliance History provisions. Therefore, we conclude that this repeal maintains consistency with federal requirements for SIP development and New Source Review permitting, and therefore, will not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress.
On February 21, 2017, the TCEQ submitted three separate revisions to the Texas SIP revising the public notice provisions applicable to air quality permit applications. The revisions to 30 TAC Chapters 39 and 55 submitted under Rule Project No 2015-018-080-LS make non-substantive revisions to the existing SIP requirements. The revisions to repeal the Chapter 116 public notice provisions submitted under Rule Project No. 2016-026-116-AI remove obsolete requirements that have been replaced with the existing SIP public notice provisions in Chapter 39. The revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 39 and 55 submitted under Rule Project No. 2016-030-039-LS substantively revise the existing public notice SIP requirements for concrete batch plant standard permits such that the notice requirements are consolidated into one 30-day notice period that satisfies the requirements of minor NSR public participation. The EPA has determined it is appropriate to approve these three revisions to the Texas SIP because these revisions continue to be consistent with federal requirements for public notice and therefore, will not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress.
We are proposing to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that revise the NSR permitting and public notice requirements. We have determined that the revisions submitted on December 12, 2016 were developed in accordance with the CAA and EPA's regulations, policy and guidance for NSR permitting. Therefore, under section 110 of the Act, the EPA proposes approval of the following revisions to the Texas SIP:
• Repeal of 30 TAC Section 116.120—Applicability—adopted on November 2, 2016, and submitted on December 12, 2016;
• Repeal of 30 TAC Section 116.121—Exemptions—adopted on November 2, 2016, and submitted on December 12, 2016;
• Repeal of 30 TAC Section 116.122—Contents of Compliance History—adopted on November 2, 2016, and submitted on December 12, 2016;
• Repeal of 30 TAC Section 116.123—Effective Dates—adopted on November 2, 2016, and submitted on December 12, 2016;
• Repeal of 30 TAC Section 116.125—Preservation of Existing Rights and Procedures—adopted on November 2, 2016, and submitted on December 12, 2016; and
• Repeal of 30 TAC Section 116.126—Voidance of Permit Applications—adopted on November 2, 2016, and submitted on December 12, 2016.
Additionally, we have determined that the revisions submitted on February 21, 2017, were developed in accordance with the CAA and EPA's regulations, policy and guidance for public notice for air permitting. Under section 110 of the Act, the EPA proposes to approve the following revisions into the Texas SIP:
• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 39.405 adopted on December 9, 2015, and submitted on February 21, 2017;
• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 39.411 adopted on December 7, 2016, and submitted on February 21, 2017;
• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 39.419 adopted on December 9, 2015, and submitted on February 21, 2017;
• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 39.603 adopted on December 7, 2016, and submitted on February 21, 2017;
• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 55.152 adopted on December 7, 2016, and submitted on February 21, 2017;
• Withdrawal of 30 TAC Section 55.156(e) from the Texas SIP as adopted on December 9, 2015, and submitted on February 21, 2017; and the
• Repeal of 30 TAC Sections 116.130-116.134, 116.136, and 116.137 from the Texas SIP as adopted on November 2, 2016 and submitted on February 21, 2017.
We also propose to revise the amendatory language at 40 CFR 52.2270(c) to identify specific provisions adopted by the State were not submitted for inclusion in the Texas SIP. We propose to revise the language at 40 CFR 52.2270(c) to clearly indicate that the Texas SIP does not include the revisions to 30 TAC Sections 39.405(h(1)(A) and 39.602(c) as adopted on December 9, 2015, or 30 TAC Section 39.411(e)(10) as adopted on December 7, 2016.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the revisions to the Texas regulations as described in the Final Action section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of three Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals pertaining to CAA requirements to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before March 16, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0716, at
Carl Young, 214-665-6645,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
Under section 109 of the CAA, we establish NAAQS to protect human health and public welfare. In 1997, we established a new annual NAAQS for PM
The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to PM
CSAPR replaced the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was promulgated in 2005 for the 1997 PM
To address Texas' transport obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 annual PM
Relevant to this proposed action, Texas made the following SIP submittals to address CAA requirements to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM
For the reasons described below, this action proposes to approve the state's three SIP submittals with respect to the state's conclusions regarding the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 and 2006 PM
Each of the above-referenced Texas SIP submittals relied on the State's participation in the CAIR allowance trading programs to support a conclusion that the Texas SIP had adequate provisions to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM
Air quality modeling conducted for the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking projected the effect of emissions on ambient air quality monitors (receptors). The modeling projected that a receptor located in Madison County, Illinois (monitor ID 171191007) would have difficulty attaining and maintaining both the 1997 and 2006 PM
In CSAPR we used air quality projections for the year 2012, which was also the intended start year for implementation of the CSAPR Phase 1 EGU emission budgets, to identify receptors projected to have air quality problems. The CSAPR final rule record also contained air quality projections for 2014, which was the intended start year for implementation of the CSAPR Phase 2 EGU emission budgets. The 2014 modeling results projected that the Madison County receptor would have maximum “design values” of 15.02 μg/m
As noted above, in our September 29, 2017 final rule addressing the remand for the annual SO
Based on our analysis of the modeling data from the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking provided above, we are proposing to approve the relevant portions of the Texas SIP submittals that Texas emissions will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM
We are proposing to approve portions of three Texas SIP submittals pertaining to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements based on our conclusion, which is consistent with the state's ultimate conclusion, that emissions from Texas will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted on September 13, 2017, by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ) in support of the Commonwealth's separate petition requesting that EPA remove the federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) requirements for Boone, Campbell, and Kenton counties in the Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana 2008 8-hr ozone maintenance area (hereinafter referred to as the “Northern Kentucky Area” or “Area”). The SIP revision revises the Commonwealth's maintenance plan emissions inventory and associated motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) to remove reliance on emissions reductions from the federal RFG program requirements; a program that the Commonwealth voluntarily opted into in 1995. The SIP revision also includes a non-interference demonstration evaluating whether removing reliance on the RFG requirements in the Northern Kentucky Area would interfere with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision and the corresponding non-interference demonstration because EPA has preliminarily determined that the revision is consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA.
Comments must be received on or before March 7, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0389 at
Dianna Myers, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Myers can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9207 or via electronic mail at
This rulemaking proposes to approve Kentucky's September 13, 2017, SIP revision in support of Kentucky's petition to opt-out of the federal RFG requirements in Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties.
On August 26, 2016, Kentucky submitted a 2008 8-hour ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Cincinnati-Hamilton Area, which EPA approved on July 5, 2017 (82 FR 30976).
In support of the September 13, 2017, SIP revision, Kentucky has evaluated whether removing reliance on the federal RFG requirements would interfere with air quality in the Area. To make this demonstration of noninterference, Kentucky completed a technical analysis, including modeling, to estimate the change in emissions that would result from removing RFG from Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties in the Northern Kentucky Area.
In the noninterference demonstration, Kentucky used EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) to develop its projected emissions inventory according to EPA's guidance for on-road mobile sources using
In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the revision to the Commonwealth's maintenance plan emissions inventory and associated MVEBs to remove reliance on emissions reductions from the federal RFG program requirements, and to find that Kentucky's noninterference demonstration supports the conclusion that removal of reliance on federal RFG requirements in Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties in the Northern Kentucky Area will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
Northern Kentucky was included in the Cincinnati-Hamilton Area which was originally designated as a moderate nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694). In 1995, Kentucky voluntarily opted into the RFG program under Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program to reduce the volatility of commercial gasoline during the summer ozone season. Kentucky elected to stay in the program under Phase II which was more stringent than Phase I.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hr ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This standard was more stringent than the 1-hour ozone standard. On June 19, 2000 (65 FR 37879), the Cincinnati-Hamilton 1-hour nonattainment Area was redesignated as attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and was considered to be a maintenance area subject to a CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN Area under subpart 1 as a “basic” 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area (69 FR 23857).
Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated any area that was violating the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years (2008-2010) of air monitoring data as a nonattainment area.
The 1990 amendments to the CAA designed the RFG program to reduce ozone levels in the largest metropolitan areas in the country with the worst ground-level ozone or smog problems by reducing vehicle emissions of compounds that form ozone, specifically VOC. The 1990 CAA amendments, specifically section 211(k)(5), directed EPA to issue regulations that specify how gasoline can be “reformulated” so as to result in significant reductions in vehicle emissions of ozone-forming and toxic air pollutants relative to the 1990 baseline fuel, and to require the use of such reformulated gasoline in certain “covered areas.” The Act defined certain nonattainment areas as “covered areas” which are required to use RFG and provided other areas with an ability to “opt-in” to the federal RFG program.
EPA first published regulations for the federal RFG program on February 16, 1994 (59 FR 7716). These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program. A current listing of the RFG requirements for states can be found on EPA's website at:
On April 18, 2017, Kentucky submitted a petition to the EPA Administrator requesting to opt-out of the federal RFG program in the Northern Kentucky Area and as stated above, this SIP revision is submitted in support of that petition (particularly the requirements of 40 CFR 80.72(b)(3) and (b)(4)).
The modeling associated with KDAQ's maintenance plan for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is premised upon the future-year emissions estimates for 2017, 2020, and 2030, which are based on the RFG requirement. To support Kentucky's requested SIP revision to remove the maintenance plan's reliance on the federal RFG requirements in Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties, the Commonwealth must demonstrate that the requested change will satisfy section 110(l) of the CAA. Section 110(l) requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Kentucky submitted a non-interference demonstration with this SIP revision and EPA is proposing to find that the analysis demonstrates noninterference based on an evaluation of current air quality monitoring data and the information provided in the noninterference demonstration.
EPA evaluates each section 110(l) noninterference demonstration on a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets section 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those that have been promulgated but for which EPA has not yet made designations. The degree of analysis focused on any particular NAAQS in a noninterference demonstration varies depending on the nature of the emissions associated with the proposed SIP revision. EPA's section 110(l) analysis of the noninterference demonstration included as part of Kentucky's September 13, 2017, SIP revision is provided below.
The RFG program is designed to reduce ozone levels and air toxics in areas that are required to or volunteered to adopt the program. RFG gasoline reduces motor vehicle emissions of the ozone precursors, NO
KDAQ's noninterference analysis utilized EPA's MOVES2014a emission modeling system to estimate emissions for years 2017, 2020, and 2030 for on-road and non-road mobile sources.
As summarized in Tables 1 and 2, below, the MOVES model projects small increases in on-road mobile source VOC and NO
Emissions reported for 2014 assume the use of RFG for Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties whereas emissions from 2017 through 2030 assume no RFG.
There were little to no changes in NO
Area sources are small emission stationary sources which, due to their large number, collectively have significant emissions (
Non-road mobile sources include vehicles, engines, and equipment used for construction, agriculture, recreation, and other purposes that do not use roadways (
Overall, the modeling shows VOC emissions decrease from the 2014 attainment year to the 2030 “out year” by 3.66 tsd which is a 20.5 percent reduction. NO
As a previous 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, Kentucky opted Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties into the federal RFG requirements for high ozone season gasoline to help bring the area into attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. This control measure
EPA also evaluated the potential increase in the VOC and NO
EPA initially established NAAQS for CO on April 30, 1971 (36 FR 8186). The standards were set at 9 ppm as an 8-hour average and 35 ppm as a 1-hour average, neither to be exceeded more than once per year. On November 6, 1971 (56 FR 56694), EPA designated areas for the 8-hour CO NAAQS. The Northern Kentucky counties of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton have never been designated nonattainment for any CO NAAQS. EPA retained the 1-hour and 8-hour CO NAAQS on August 31, 2011, and Kentucky has continued to maintain compliance with the NAAQS due to non-RFG federal control measures put in place. RFG requirements will have little to no impacts on CO emissions because, as mentioned earlier, the RFG program was developed to address emissions of the ozone precursors, NO
The main precursor pollutants for PM
PM
Based on this information and the current attainment status of the Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-KY-IN 2012 p.m.
On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), EPA strengthen the NO
Based on the amount of NO
On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA revised the SO
Based on the monitoring/modeling data, EPA is proposing to find that removing reliance on RFG requirements in Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties will not interfere with Kentucky's ability to maintain the SO
EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's revision to its maintenance plan and corresponding noninterference demonstration, submitted on September 13, 2017, in support of Kentucky's separate petition to opt-out of the federal RFG requirements for Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties. Specifically, EPA is proposing to find that this change in removing reliance on the federal RFG requirements for Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Kentucky's September 13, 2017, SIP revision updates its maintenance plan and the associated MVEBs related to Kentucky's redesignation request for the Kentucky portion of the 2008 Cincinnati-Hamilton OH-IN-KY 8-hour Ozone Area to reflect emissions changes for opting out of the federal RFG requirements. EPA is proposing to approve the changes to update the 2008 maintenance plan and associated 2020 and 2030 MVEBs. The same criteria used to develop the MVEBs in the original SIP are used for this SIP revision.
EPA has preliminarily determined that Kentucky's September 13, 2017, SIP revision is consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA, including section 110(l). In this action, EPA is not proposing to act on the Commonwealth's opt-out petition to the EPA Administrator to remove the federal RFG requirement for Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties. Any decision by the Administrator on the opt-out petition would occur in a separate action.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing its proposed rule to disapprove the portion of the November 23, 2009 Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal that intended to demonstrate that the SIP met Clean Act (CAA) requirements to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM
The proposed rule published on April 13, 2011 (76 FR 20602) is withdrawn as of February 14, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0335. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Carl Young, (214) 665-6645,
In an April 13, 2011 action EPA proposed to disapprove the portion of a November 23, 2009 Texas SIP submittal that intended to demonstrate that the SIP met the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM
Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for comments; re-issue.
OHS issues this request for comments to invite public feedback on information we inadvertently omitted from the “CLASS Condition of the Head Start Designation Renewal System,” request for comments, published on December 8, 2017. The document withdrawing the “CLASS Condition of the Head Start Designation Renewal System” request for comments is published elsewhere in this issue of the
Submit comments by March 16, 2018.
You may send comments, identified by [docket number and/or RIN number], by either of the following methods:
•
•
Colleen Rathgeb, Director, Division of Planning, Oversight and Policy, Office of Head Start, [
Consistent with the December 8, 2017, publication (82 FR 57905), OHS invites public comment on several specific changes being considered for the CLASS condition of the DRS as outlined in the Head Start Program Performance Standards. We also invite public comment on other improvements to the DRS based on feedback from stakeholders, grantees, and the results of the DRS implementation evaluation. In particular, we are considering changes to the CLASS condition with a goal of improving implementation and transparency of the DRS. Changes being considered include removal of the “lowest 10 percent” provision of the CLASS condition, an increase of the minimum thresholds for the Emotional Support and Classroom Organization domains to a score of 5, removal of the minimum threshold for the Instructional Support domain, and establishment of authority for the Secretary to set an absolute minimum threshold for the Instructional Support domain prior to the start of each fiscal year to be applied for DRS CLASS reviews in the same fiscal year. OHS requests feedback on these possible changes and alternative changes to the CLASS condition. Particularly in ways the Instructional Support and other thresholds could be set and/or adjusted that would incentivize continuous program improvement while acknowledging the current state of the field. OHS also invites feedback on other conditions of the DRS and the way it is implemented.
The Head Start program provides grants to local public and private non-profit and for-profit agencies to provide comprehensive education and child development services to economically disadvantaged children, from birth to age five, and families and to help young children develop the skills they need to be successful in school. Our agencies provide these families comprehensive services to support children's cognitive, social, and emotional development. In addition to education services, agencies provide children and their families with health, nutrition, social, and other services.
To drive program quality improvement, the
To meet the requirement in the Act, HHS established the DRS, which is described in 45 CFR 1304.10 through 16. The DRS includes seven conditions. If an agency meets any of the seven conditions, it must compete with other providers in the community for renewed grant funding. The seven conditions are: (1) A deficiency under section 641A(c)(1)(A), (C), or (D) of the Act; (2) failure to establish, utilize, and analyze children's progress on agency-established School Readiness goals; (3) scores below minimum thresholds in the Classroom Assessment Scoring System: Pre-K (CLASS) domains or in the lowest 10 percent in any of the three domains of the agencies monitored in a given year unless the average score is equal to or above the standard of excellence; (4) revocation of a license to operate a center or program; (5) suspension from the program; (6) debarment from receiving federal or state funds or disqualified from the Child and Adult Care Food Program; or (7) an audit finding of at risk for failing to continue as “a going concern.” The Act also requires HHS to periodically evaluate whether or not the DRS criteria are applied in a manner that is transparent, reliable, and valid.
Section 641(c)(1)(D) of the Act requires the DRS to be based in part on classroom quality as measured under section 641A(c)(2)(F), which refers to a valid and reliable research-based observational instrument, implemented by qualified individuals with demonstrated reliability that assesses classroom quality. To include assessing multiple dimensions of teacher-child interactions that is linked to positive child development and later achievement. The third condition of the DRS is based on use of the CLASS, which is an observational measurement tool for assessing the quality of teacher-child interactions and classroom processes in three broad domains that support children's learning and development: Emotional Support, Classroom Organization, and Instructional Support.
Since HHS established the DRS, all grantees that had indefinite project periods have completed the DRS process. Based on CLASS data, observations collected throughout these cohorts, results of a recent evaluation, and feedback from the community, we are considering changes to the DRS in order to better improve implementation of the system, including changes to the CLASS condition.
There are concerns about some aspects of the CLASS condition of the DRS that have been raised by Head Start grantees as well as in the recent evaluation. First, the requirement for grantees with the lowest 10 percent of scores on any of the three CLASS domains to compete may not be optimally targeting the grantees for competition with the lowest measures of classroom quality. For example, grantees have been required to compete due to an Emotional Support score of
Second, we understand that the delay between completion of the CLASS review and grantees knowing their DRS designation status, due to the need to collect and analyze a full monitoring year's CLASS scores to determine the lowest 10 percent. This creates uncertainty, stress, and concern among grantees, grantee staff, and families. Because classroom quality in Head Start programs is improving as demonstrated by recent analysis of data from the 2006, 2009, and 2014, cohorts of the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES),
To inform our development of a notice of proposed rulemaking to change the DRS CLASS condition to meet the objectives described above, we are requesting public comments on several specific changes being considered. The changes under consideration are as follows:
1. Remove the “lowest 10 percent” provision of the CLASS condition described in 45 CFR 1304.11(c)(2).
2. Increase the minimum threshold described in 45 CFR 1304.11(c)(1)(i) for the Emotional Support domain from 4 to 5.
3. Increase the minimum threshold described in 45 CFR 1304.11(c)(1)(ii) for Classroom Organization from 3 to 5.
4. Remove the minimum threshold for the Instructional Support domain described in 45 CFR 1304.11(c)(1)(iii) and instead provide authority for the Secretary to set an absolute minimum threshold for the Instructional Support domain, considering the most recent CLASS data, by August 1 of each year to be used for CLASS Reviews conducted in the following fiscal year (October 1 through September 30).
Together, these changes would allow grantees to know by August 1, before CLASS Reviews are conducted for the coming fiscal year, the exact threshold of classroom quality in each of the three domains that will be used to determine which grantees will be subject to an open competition for funding and which grantees will receive renewed funding non-competitively. Grantees would no longer have to wait until several months following the conclusion of the CLASS reviews for the fiscal year (September 30) to learn the lowest 10 percent cutoff in each of the 3 domains. Setting minimum thresholds of 5 in the Emotional Support and Classroom Organization domains would set a clear and consistent expectation of quality for all Head Start programs. Allowing the Secretary to set the minimum threshold in the Instructional Support domain prior to the start of each program year and monitoring year would allow for consideration of the most recent CLASS data for Head Start grantees while still supporting continuous quality improvement across the program as a whole.
In addition to the CLASS condition, we are interested in receiving feedback about other conditions and improvements that could be made to DRS. This includes actions we can take without regulatory changes to ensure the DRS process is transparent, timely, and results in higher quality programs.
To inform our development of a notice of proposed rulemaking and continue improving the DRS, we are specifically requesting comments on:
• Changes OHS can make to incentivize robust competition, including ways OHS can ensure there are new and quality applicants at the local level;
• Changes OHS can make to facilitate an orderly transition between grantees without disrupting services for children (when recompetition is required and the incumbent does not regain its grant); and,
• Any other administrative changes OHS can make to the system that do not require regulatory changes, including changes to monitoring processes and timing of notifications and awards.
We invite comments about the specific changes being considered for the DRS CLASS condition as well as alternatives to these changes that would continue to improve program quality, while balancing the need to continue to provide transparency to grantees about what they will be measured on and being mindful of burden on grantees. We also invite comments about any unintended consequences of removing the lowest 10 percent condition and whether an absolute threshold could influence scores. We are particularly interested in recommendations related to how the Secretary would consider establishing the minimum threshold for Instructional Support, including in what increments to raise the threshold, what data to base the absolute thresholds on, and how often to revise the threshold. For example, the regulation could establish an initial Instructional Support threshold (
If commenters do not support the changes being considered, comments offering alternative proposals to the CLASS condition, whether changes to the absolute thresholds or the relative 10 percent threshold, or to other conditions of the DRS would be particularly helpful.
We are also particularly interested in soliciting feedback on other changes to DRS implementation that would spur
Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for comments; withdrawal
OHS withdraws the “CLASS Condition of the Head Start Designation Renewal System” request for comments, published in the
As of February 14, 2018, the proposed rule published December 8, 2017, at 82 FR 57905, is withdrawn.
Division of Planning, Oversight and Policy, Office of Head Start, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20024.
Colleen Rathgeb, Director, Division of Planning, Oversight and Policy, Office of Head Start, [
OHS published the “CLASS Condition of the Head Start Designation Renewal System” request for comments on December 8, 2017, to solicit comments from the public on changes we are considering to the Designation Renewal System (DRS). We unintentionally omitted language from the document that specifically asks the public to consider what changes OHS can make to incentivize robust competition and to facilitate orderly transitions between grantees when an incumbent does not regain its grant after competition, as well as any other administrative changes that do not require regulatory action.
We believe public feedback on the omitted language is important and can help us make better informed decisions about the DRS. For that reason, we withdraw the “CLASS Condition of the Head Start Designation Renewal System” request for comments, and we are publishing a new request for comments, titled “Head Start Designation Renewal System Improvements,” elsewhere in this issue of the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of an 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 eggplant from Israel into the continental United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 16, 2018.
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 importation of eggplant from Israel, contact Mr. Hesham Abuelnaga, Trade Director, Africa and the Middle East, PIM, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2010. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Section 319.56-49 of the regulations provides the requirements for the importation of eggplant from Israel into the continental United States under specified conditions intended to prevent the introduction of certain quarantine pests. These requirements include the use of information collection activities such as trapping records, box labeling, grower registration and approval of production sites, inspection of pest-exclusionary structures, treatment approval, pest detection notification, and a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Israel with an additional declaration confirming that the eggplant has been produced in accordance with the regulations.
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.
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 reinstatement of an information collection, the Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (FRIS). Revision to previous burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and questionnaire length.
Comments on this notice must be received by April 16, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0234, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kevin L. Barnes, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-2707. 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.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture.
Notice of intent to deauthorize Federal funding.
Pursuant to the Flood Control Act and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Guidelines (7 CFR part 622), NRCS gives notice of the intent to deauthorize Federal funding for the South Branch Potomac River Subwatershed of the Potomac River Watershed project, Highland County, Virginia and Pendleton and Grant Counties, West Virginia.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments within 60 days of this notice being published in the
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be sent to either John Bricker, VA State Conservationist, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 209, Richmond, Virginia 23229. Telephone: (804) 287-1691 or email:
For specific questions about this notice, please contact Wade Biddix, (804) 287-1675 or
A determination has been made by John Bricker, NRCS State Conservationist in Virginia, and Louis Aspey, NRCS State Conservationist in West Virginia, that the proposed works of improvement for the South Branch Potomac River Subwatershed of the Potomac River Watershed project will not be installed. The sponsoring local organizations have concurred in this determination and agree that Federal funding should be deauthorized for the project. Information regarding this determination may be obtained from John Bricker, NRCS State Conservationist in Virginia, and Louis Aspey, NRCS State Conservationist in West Virginia, at the above addresses and telephone numbers.
No administrative action on implementation of the proposed deauthorization will be taken until 60 days after the date of this publication in the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Montana Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 11:00 a.m. (Mountain Time) Wednesday, February 21, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to discuss preparations to hear testimony on border town discrimination.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. MT.
Public Call Information: Dial: 888-713-3590, Conference ID: 2355188.
Angelica Trevino at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-713-3590, conference ID number: 2355188. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed to Angelica Trevino at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Bridgeport Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 76, requesting subzone status for the facilities of SDI USA, LLC, located in Meriden, Connecticut. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on February 8, 2018.
The proposed subzone (27 acres) is located at 160 Corporate Court, Meriden, Connecticut. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 76.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is March 26, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 10, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at
On October 13, 2017, Volkswagen Group of America—Chattanooga Operations, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 134—Site 3, in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the St. Louis County Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 102, requesting subzone status for the facility of Orgill, Inc., located in Sikeston, Missouri. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on February 9, 2018.
The proposed subzone (73 acres) is located at 2727 North Main Street in Sikeston, Missouri. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 102. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is March 26, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 10, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
On November 21, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Justin Gage Jangraw (“Jangraw”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Jangraw was convicted of knowingly and willfully exporting, attempting to export, and causing to be exported from the United States to Austria three Magpul angled fore grips and two Magpul battery-assisted device levers designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, without the required U.S. Department of State licenses. Jangraw was sentenced to eight months in prison, one year of supervised release, and a $125 assessment.
Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”)
BIS has received notice of Jangraw's conviction for violating Section 38 of the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Jangraw to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Jangraw.
Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Jangraw's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five years from the date of Jangraw's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Jangraw had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has completed its administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. We have determined that Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Borusan), the only mandatory respondent, received countervailable subsidies at
Applicable February 14, 2018.
Jennifer Shore or Aimee Phelan, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
On October 6, 2017, Commerce published the
The merchandise covered by the order is certain OCTG, which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
The only issue raised by interested parties, “Whether to Include Exchange Rate Income or Loss in the Sales Denominator,” is addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
We conducted this 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 to be countervailable during the POR, we find that there is a subsidy,
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we determine the following net countervailable subsidy rate for Borusan, for the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015:
We will disclose to the parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for these final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after publication of these final results of review, to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced by Borusan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, without regard to countervailing duties.
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, we intend to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits at a rate of zero percent, because the rate calculated for Borusan in these final results is
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of 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 sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Deosen Biochemical Ltd./Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) Ltd. (collectively, Deosen) made sales of xanthan gum from the People's Republic of China (China) at prices below normal value (NV) and that Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd./Shandong Fufeng Fermentation Co., Ltd./Xinjiang Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd. (collectively, Fufeng) did not. We continue to find that the four companies which were not selected for individual examination have demonstrated their eligibility for separate rates in the final results. These four companies are CP Kelco (Shandong) Biological Company Limited (CP Kelco Shandong, Jianlong Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (a.k.a. Inner Mongolia Jianlong Biochemical Co., Ltd.) (Jianlong), Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) Limited/Xinjiang Meihua Amino Acid Co., Ltd./Langfang Meihua Bio-Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively, Meihua), and Shanghai Smart Chemicals Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Smart). We also continue to find that A.H.A. International Co., Ltd. (AHA) made no shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review (POR),
Applicable February 14, 2018.
Brian Smith or Michael Bowen, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 and (202) 482-0768, respectively.
On August 7, 2017, Commerce published the
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final results of this review is now February 6, 2018.
The product covered by the order includes dry xanthan gum, whether or not coated or blended with other products. Xanthan gum is included in this order regardless of physical form, including, but not limited to, solutions, slurries, dry powders of any particle size, or unground fiber.
Merchandise covered by the scope of the order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheading 3913.90.20. This tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by interested parties are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, follows as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document, and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
In the
In the
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016:
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with these final results of review. We intend to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of these final results.
For Deosen, which has a weighted-average dumping margin above zero or
For the respondents which were not selected for individual examination in this administrative review and which qualified for a separate rate, the assessment rate is equal to the weighted-average dumping margin assigned to Deosen, or 9.30 percent.
Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice in non-market economy cases, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by Deosen or Fufeng, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the China-wide rate.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice serves as the only 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 the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On October 11, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published its
Applicable February 14, 2018.
Eli Lovely, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1593.
On October 11, 2017, Commerce published its
Commerce has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final results of this review is now February 15, 2018.
The product covered by the
As noted above, no parties commented on the
For additional details,
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. Commerce intends to instruct CBP to liquidate any entries of subject merchandise exported during this POR by Decca and the other three companies noted above which did not qualify for separate rate status, at the China-wide rate.
Additionally, pursuant to Commerce's practice in NME cases, if there are any suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR under the case numbers of the eight companies that claimed no shipments of subject merchandise, they will be liquidated at the China-wide rate.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date in the
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final 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 the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction.
This notice of the final results of this antidumping duty administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Mutlu Makarnacilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Mutlu), an exporter of certain pasta (pasta) from Turkey and the sole respondent subject to this administrative review, had no
Applicable February 14, 2018.
Fred Baker, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2924.
On August 7, 2017, Commerce published the
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice,
Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Imports covered by this order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastases, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
For the
Because we have determined that Mutlu had no
As Commerce is rescinding this administrative review, we have not calculated a company-specific dumping margin for Mutlu. Mutlu's entries will be liquidated at the “all-others” rate applicable to Turkish exporters who do not have their own company-specific rate. That rate is 51.49 percent.
Because we did not calculate a dumping margin for Mutlu, Mutlu continues to be subject to the “all-others” rate. The all-others cash deposit rate is 51.49 percent.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to Administrative Protective Order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in these segments 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.
This notice serves as a final 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 the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Under the Fishery Management Plan for United States (U.S.) West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP) U.S. fishermen, participating in the Pacific Hook and Line fishery (also known as the albacore troll and pole-and-line fishery), are required to obtain a Highly Migratory Species (HMS) permit. Permit holders are required to complete and submit logbooks documenting their daily fishing activities, including catch and effort for each fishing trip. Logbook forms must be completed within 24 hours of the completion of each fishing day and submitted to the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) within 30 days of the end of each trip. These data and associated analyses help the SWFSC provide fisheries information to researchers and the needed management advice to the U.S. in its negotiations with foreign fishing nations exploiting HMS.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of open public meeting.
The Hydrographic Services Review Panel (HSRP) will hold a meeting that will be open to the public and public comments are requested in advance and/or during the meeting. Information about the HSRP meeting, agenda, presentations, webinar registration, and other background documents will be posted online at:
The meeting is April 4-5, 2018. The dates, agenda, and times are subject to change. For updates, please check online at:
Miami, Florida, with meeting venue to be announced online in March at:
Lynne Mersfelder-Lewis, HSRP program manager, National Ocean Service, Office of Coast Survey, NOAA (N/NSD), 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3 #6305, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; telephone: 301-533-0064; email:
The meeting is open to the public, seating will be available on a first-come, first-served basis, and public comment is encouraged. There are public comment periods scheduled each day and noted in the agenda. Each individual or group making verbal comments will be limited to a total time of five (5) minutes and will be recorded. For those not onsite, comments can be submitted via the webinar chat function or via email in writing. Individuals who would like to submit written statements in advance, during or after the meeting should email their comments to
The Hydrographic Services Review Panel (HSRP) is a Federal Advisory Committee established to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, the NOAA Administrator, on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 303 of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998, as amended, and such other appropriate matters that the Under Secretary refers to the Panel for review and advice. The charter and other information are located online at:
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of membership solicitation for Hydrographic Services Review Panel.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is seeking nominations for members to serve on the Hydrographic Services Review Panel.
Nominations are sought to fill five vacancies that occur on January 1, 2019. Nominations should be submitted by no later than May 25, 2018. Nominations will be accepted and kept on file on an ongoing basis regardless of date submitted for use with current and future vacancies. HSRP maintains a pool of candidates and advertises once a year to fulfill the HSIA requirements on membership solicitation. Current members who may be eligible for a second term must reapply.
Nominations will be accepted by email and should be sent to:
Lynne Mersfelder-Lewis, NOAA HSRP program manager, email
In accordance with the Hydrographic Service Improvements Act Amendments of 2002, Public Law 107-372, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is required to solicit nominations for membership at least once a year for the Hydrographic Services Review Panel (HSRP). The HSRP, a Federal advisory committee, advises the Administrator on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 303 of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act and such other appropriate matters as the Administrator refers to the Panel for review and advice. Those responsibilities and authorities include, but are not limited to: Acquiring and disseminating hydrographic data and providing hydrographic services, as those terms are defined in the Act; promulgating standards for hydrographic data and services; ensuring comprehensive geographic coverage of hydrographic services; and testing, developing, and operating vessels, equipment, and technologies necessary to ensure safe navigation and maintain operational expertise in hydrographic data acquisition and hydrographic services.
The Act states “the voting members of the Panel shall be individuals who, by reason of knowledge, experience, or training, are especially qualified in one or more of the disciplines and fields relating to hydrographic data and hydrographic services, marine transportation, port administration, vessel pilotage, coastal and fishery management, and other disciplines as determined appropriate by the Administrator.” The NOAA Administrator seeks and encourages individuals with expertise in marine navigation and technology, port administration, marine shipping or other intermodal transportation industries, cartography and geographic information systems, geodesy, physical oceanography, coastal resource management, including coastal preparedness and emergency response, and other related fields. To apply for membership, applicants are requested to submit five items including a cover letter that responds to the five questions below. The entire package should be a maximum length of eight pages or fewer. NOAA is an equal opportunity employer.
(1) A cover letter that responds to the five questions listed below and serves as a statement of interest to serve on the panel. Please see “Short Response Questions” below.
(2) Highlight the nominee's specific area(s) of expertise relevant to the purpose of the Panel from the list in the
(3) A short biography of 300 to 400 words.
(4) A current resume.
(5) The nominee's full name, title, institutional affiliation, mailing address, email, phone, fax and contact information.
(1) List the area(s) of expertise, as listed above, which you would best represent on this Panel.
(2) List the geographic region(s) of the country with which you primarily associate your expertise.
(3) Describe your leadership or professional experiences which you believe will contribute to the effectiveness of this panel.
(4) Describe your familiarity and experience with NOAA NOS navigation data, products, and services.
(5) Generally describe the breadth and scope of your knowledge of stakeholders, users, or other groups who interact with NOAA and whose views and input you believe you can share with the panel.
Under 33 U.S.C. 883a,
(a) Hydrographic surveying;
(b) Shoreline surveying;
(c) Nautical charting;
(d) Water level measurements;
(e) Current measurements;
(f) Geodetic measurements;
(g) Geospatial measurements;
(h) Geomagnetic measurements; and
(i) Other oceanographic/marine related sciences.
The Panel has fifteen voting members appointed by the NOAA Administrator in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 892c. Members are selected on a standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance. The Co-Directors of the Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping/Joint Hydrographic Center and two other NOAA employees serve as nonvoting members of the Panel. The Director, NOAA Office of Coast Survey, serves as the Designated Federal Official (DFO).
Voting members are individuals who, by reason of knowledge, experience, or training, are especially qualified in one or more disciplines relating to hydrographic surveying, tides, currents, geodetic and geospatial measurements, marine transportation, port administration, vessel pilotage, coastal
Voting members of the Panel serve a four-year term, except that vacancy appointments are for the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacancy. Members serve at the discretion of the Administrator and are subject to government ethics standards. Any individual appointed to a partial or full term may be reappointed for one additional full term. A voting member may serve until his or her successor has taken office. The Panel selects one voting member to serve as the Chair and another to serve as the Vice Chair. The Vice Chair acts as Chair in the absence or incapacity of the Chair but will not automatically become the Chair if the Chair resigns. Meetings occur at least twice a year, and at the call of the Chair or upon the request of a majority of the voting members or of the Administrator. Voting members receive compensation at a rate established by the Administrator, not to exceed the maximum daily rate payable under section 5376 of title 5, United States Code, when engaged in performing duties for the Panel. Members are reimbursed for actual and reasonable expenses incurred in performing such duties.
Past HSRP public meeting summary reports, agendas, presentations, transcripts, webinars, and other information is available online at:
Upon selection and agreement to serve on the HSRP Panel, you become a Special Government Employee (SGE) of the United States Government. 18 U.S.C. 202(a) an SGE (s) is an officer or employee of an agency who is retained, designated, appointed, or employed to perform temporary duties, with or without compensation, not to exceed 130 days during any period of 365 consecutive days, either on a fulltime or intermittent basis. After the selection process is complete, applicants selected to serve on the Panel must complete the following actions before they can be appointed as a Panel member:
(a) Security Clearance (on-line Background Security Check process and fingerprinting conducted through NOAA Workforce Management); and
(b) Confidential Financial Disclosure Report—As an SGE, you are required to file a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report to avoid involvement in a real or apparent conflict of interest. You may find the Confidential Financial Disclosure Report at the following website.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Advisory Committee meeting.
The Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Section to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) announces its annual spring meeting to be held March 5-6, 2018.
The open sessions of the Committee meeting will be held on March 5, 2018, 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. and March 6, 2018, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Closed sessions will be held on March 5, 2018, 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., and on March 6, 2018, 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Silver Spring Hotel, 8777 Georgia Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Terra Lederhouse at (301) 427-8360.
The Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT will meet in open session to receive and discuss information on recreational fisheries in ICCAT; management strategy evaluation and harvest control rules; ICCAT stock assessment methods; the 2017 ICCAT meeting results and U.S. implementation of ICCAT decisions; NMFS research and monitoring activities; global and domestic initiatives related to ICCAT; the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act-required consultation on any identification of countries that are diminishing the effectiveness of ICCAT; the results of the meetings of the Committee's Species Working Groups; and other matters relating to the international management of ICCAT species. The public will have access to the open sessions of the meeting, but there will be no opportunity for public comment. The agenda is available from the Committee's Executive Secretary upon request (see
The Committee will meet in its Species Working Groups for part of the afternoon of March 5, 2018, and for one hour on the morning of March 6, 2018. These sessions are not open to the public, but the results of the Species Working Group discussions will be reported to the full Advisory Committee during the Committee's open session on March 6, 2018.
The meeting location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Terra Lederhouse at (301) 427-8360 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 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
Written comments must be submitted by April 16, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Adam Bailey, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection. The seafood dealers who process red porgy, greater amberjack, gag grouper, black grouper, red grouper, scamp, red hind, rock hind, yellowmouth grouper, yellowfin grouper, graysby or coney during seasonal fishery closures for applicable species must maintain documentation, as specified in 50 CFR part 300 subpart K and 50 CFR 622.192(i), that such fish were harvested from areas other than state or Federal waters in the South Atlantic. The documentation includes information on the vessel that harvested the fish, and where and when the fish were offloaded. NMFS requires the information for the enforcement of fishery regulations.
The information is in the form of a paper affidavit, which remains with the respondent.
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 of SEDAR 56 Assessment Webinars III.
The SEDAR 56 assessment of the South Atlantic stock of Black Seabass will consist of a series webinars. See
SEDAR 56 Assessment webinar III will be held on Friday, March 2, 2018 from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m.
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366; email
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. The product of the SEDAR webinar series will be a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses, and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion in the Assessment webinars are as follows:
1. Participants will continue discussions to develop population models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks, and project future conditions, as specified in the Terms of Reference.
2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.
3. Participants will prepare a workshop report and determine whether the assessment(s) are adequate for submission for review.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) will hold a meeting.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 13, 2018, from 1 p.m. through 5:30 p.m. and on Wednesday, March 14, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. See
The meeting will take place at the Royal Sonesta Harbor Court Baltimore, 550 Light Street, Baltimore, MD 21202; telephone: (410) 234-0550.
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The purpose of this meeting is to make multi-year ABC recommendations for the blueline tilefish stock north of the VA/NC border based on updated stock assessment results and recommendations from the blueline tilefish Working Group. A review the most recent survey, fishery data, and the currently implemented 2019 ABC for golden tilefish will also be conducted. The SSC will also review and provide recommendations regarding the Northeast Fisheries Science Center clam dredge survey redesign, approve the OFL CV discussion document that would establish decision rules for specifying the CV of the OFL distribution, and review the most recent Mid-Atlantic State of the Ecosystem report. In addition, other topics the SSC may discuss include outcomes from the most recent National SSC meeting, SSC species and topic leads and any other business as necessary.
A detailed agenda and background documents will be made available on the Council's website (
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the United States Department of the Navy (Navy) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment, marine mammals during Ice Exercise 2018 (ICEX18) activities within the Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. The Navy's activities are considered a military readiness activity pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (NDAA).
This authorization is applicable from February 1, 2018 through May 1, 2018.
Rob Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8408. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
The MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).The NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated above and amended the definition of “harassment” as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment).
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
The Navy has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) titled
On April 12, 2017, NMFS received a request from the Navy for the taking of marine mammals incidental to submarine training and testing activities including establishment of a tracking range on an ice floe in the Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. The Navy's request is for take of ringed seals (
The Navy proposes to conduct submarine training and testing activities from an ice camp stationed on an ice floe in the Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean for six weeks between February and April 2018. Submarine activities associated with ICEX18 are classified, but generally entail safety maneuvers, active sonar use and exercise torpedo use. These maneuvers and sonar use are similar to submarine activities conducted in other undersea environments. They are being conducted in the Arctic to test their performance in a cold environment. A detailed description of the planned project is provided in the
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to the Navy was published in the
As stated in the Criteria and Thresholds Technical Report (Navy, 2017a), Southall
Furthermore, the Navy is funding Duke University to develop species density models for the Arctic region and would welcome any data the NSB and Arctic research community have available to incorporate into density models and impacts analysis.
The Navy uses the best available science when analyzing the impacts of training and testing on the environment, including animals. To do this the Navy continually reviews published scientific literature, incorporates data from regulatory agencies such as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and funds or conducts research where data gaps exist. Furthermore, NMFS utilizes the best available science when making determinations regarding the issuance of IHAs and concluded that there was adequate information available to support the findings.
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of ringed seals (
The effects of underwater noise from Navy's testing and training activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes anticipated to occur and therefore authorized through this IHA, which will inform the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns and TTS, for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to acoustic transmissions. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor authorized. In addition, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Source levels of acoustic transmission will not be at levels which would cause serious injury, or mortality. Deployment of the ice camp could potentially affect ringed seal habitat by physically damaging or crushing subnivean lairs, resulting in seal injury or mortality. However, seals usually choose to locate lairs near pressure ridges and the ice camp will be deployed in an area without pressure ridges in order to allow operation of an aircraft runway. Further, portable tents will be erected for lodging and operations purposes. Tents do not require building materials or typical construction methods. The tents are relatively easy to mobilize and will not be situated near areas featuring pressure ridges. Finally, the camp buildup will be gradual, with activity increasing over the first five days. This approach allows seals to move to different lair locations outside the ice camp area. Based on this information, we do not anticipate any damage to subnivean lairs that could result in ringed seal injury or mortality.
Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. For the proposed IHA, the Navy employed a sophisticated model known as the Navy Acoustic Effects Model (NAEMO) for assessing the impacts of underwater sound.
Using the best available science, NMFS recommends acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment), TTS, or behavioral harassment (Level B harassment). The thresholds used to predict occurrences of each type of take are described below.
Behavioral harassment—In coordination with NMFS, the Navy developed behavioral harassment thresholds to support Phase III environmental analyses for the Navy's testing and training military readiness activities; these behavioral harassment thresholds are used here to evaluate the potential effects of this planned action. The response of a marine mammal to an anthropogenic sound will depend on the frequency, duration, temporal pattern and amplitude of the sound as well as the animal's prior experience with the sound and the context in which the sound is encountered (
Southall
The Navy's Phase III proposed pinniped behavioral threshold has been updated based on controlled exposure experiments on the following captive animals: hooded seal, gray seal, and California sea lion (Götz
Level A harassment and TTS—NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
The PTS/TTS analyses begins with mathematical modeling to predict the sound transmission patterns from Navy sources, including sonar. These data are then coupled with marine species distribution and abundance data to determine the sound levels likely to be received by various marine species. These criteria and thresholds are applied to estimate specific effects that animals exposed to Navy-generated sound may experience. For weighting function derivation, the most critical data required are TTS onset exposure levels as a function of exposure frequency. These values can be estimated from published literature by examining TTS as a function of sound
To estimate TTS onset values, only TTS data from behavioral hearing tests were used. To determine TTS onset for each subject, the amount of TTS observed after exposures with different SPLs and durations were combined to create a single TTS growth curve as a function of SEL. The use of (cumulative) SEL is a simplifying assumption to accommodate sounds of various SPLs, durations, and duty cycles. This is referred to as an “equal energy” approach, since SEL is related to the energy of the sound and this approach assumes exposures with equal SEL result in equal effects, regardless of the duration or duty cycle of the sound. It is well known that the equal energy rule will over-estimate the effects of intermittent noise, since the quiet periods between noise exposures will allow some recovery of hearing compared to noise that is continuously present with the same total SEL (Ward 1997). For continuous exposures with the same SEL but different durations, the exposure with the longer duration will also tend to produce more TTS (Finneran
As in previous acoustic effects analysis (Finneran and Jenkins 2012; Southall
Table 3 below provides the weighted criteria and thresholds used in this analysis for estimating quantitative acoustic exposures of marine mammals from the planned action.
The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number of mammals that could be harassed by the underwater acoustic transmissions during the planned action. Inputs to the quantitative analysis included marine mammal density estimates, marine mammal depth occurrence distributions (Navy 2017a), oceanographic and environmental data, marine mammal hearing data, and criteria and thresholds for levels of potential effects.
The density estimate used to estimate take is derived from habitat-based modeling by Kaschner
Note that while other surveys by Frost
The quantitative analysis consists of computer modeled estimates and a post-model analysis to determine the number of potential animal exposures. The model calculates sound energy propagation from the planned active acoustic sources, the sound received by animat (virtual animal) dosimeters representing marine mammals distributed in the area around the
The Navy developed a set of software tools and compiled data for estimating acoustic effects on marine mammals without consideration of behavioral avoidance or Navy's standard mitigations. These tools and data sets serve are integral components of NAEMO. In NAEMO, animats are distributed non-uniformly based on species-specific density, depth distribution, and group size information and animats record energy received at their location in the water column. A fully three-dimensional environment is used for calculating sound propagation and animat exposure in NAEMO. Site-specific bathymetry, sound speed profiles, wind speed, and bottom properties are incorporated into the propagation modeling process. NAEMO calculates the likely propagation for various levels of energy (sound or pressure) resulting from each source used during the training event.
NAEMO then records the energy received by each animat within the energy footprint of the event and calculates the number of animats having received levels of energy exposures that fall within defined impact thresholds. Predicted effects on the animats within a scenario are then tallied and the highest order effect (based on severity of criteria;
There are limitations to the data used in the acoustic effects model, and the results must be interpreted within these context. While the most accurate data and input assumptions have been used in the modeling, when there is a lack of definitive data to support an aspect of the modeling, modeling assumptions believed to overestimate the number of exposures have been chosen:
• Animats are modeled as being underwater, stationary, and facing the source and therefore always predicted to receive the maximum sound level (
• Animats do not move horizontally (but change their position vertically within the water column), which may overestimate physiological effects such as hearing loss, especially for slow moving or stationary sound sources in the model;
• Animats are stationary horizontally and therefore do not avoid the sound source, unlike in the wild where animals would most often avoid exposures at higher sound levels, especially those exposures that may result in PTS;
• Multiple exposures within any 24-hour period are considered one continuous exposure for the purposes of calculating the temporary or permanent hearing loss, because there are not sufficient data to estimate a hearing recovery function for the time between exposures; and
• Mitigation measures that are implemented were not considered in the model. In reality, sound-producing activities would be reduced, stopped, or delayed if marine mammals are detected by submarines via passive acoustic monitoring.
Because of these inherent model limitations and simplifications, model-estimated results must be further analyzed, considering such factors as the range to specific effects, avoidance, and the likelihood of successfully implementing mitigation measures. This analysis uses a number of factors in addition to the acoustic model results to predict acoustic effects on marine mammals.
For non-impulsive sources, NAEMO calculates the sound pressure level (SPL) and SEL for each active emission over the entire duration of an event. These data are then processed using a bootstrapping routine to compute the number of animats exposed to SPL and SEL in 1 dB bins across all track iterations and population draws. (Bootstrapping is a type of resampling where large numbers of smaller samples of the same size are repeatedly drawn, with replacement, from a single original sample.) SEL is checked during this process to ensure that all animats are grouped in either an SPL or SEL category. A mean number of SPL and SEL exposures are computed for each 1 dB bin. The mean value is based on the number of animats exposed at that dB level from each track iteration and population draw. The behavioral risk function curve is applied to each 1 dB bin to compute the number of behaviorally exposed animats per bin. The number of behaviorally exposed animats per bin is summed to produce the total number of behavior exposures.
Mean 1 dB bin SEL exposures are then summed to determine the number of PTS and TTS exposures. PTS exposures represent the cumulative number of animats exposed at or above the PTS threshold. The number of TTS exposures represents the cumulative number of animats exposed at or above the TTS threshold and below the PTS threshold. Animats exposed below the TTS threshold were grouped in the SPL category.
Platforms such as a submarine using one or more sound sources are modeled in accordance with relevant vehicle dynamics and time durations by moving them across an area whose size is representative of the training event's operational area. For analysis purposes, the Navy uses distance cutoffs, which is the maximum distance a Level B take would occur, beyond which the potential for significant behavioral responses is considered unlikely. For animals located beyond the range to effects, no significant behavioral responses are predicted. This is based on the Navy's Phase III environmental analysis (Navy 2017a). The Navy referenced Southall
For ICEX18 unclassified sources (
As discussed above, within NAEMO animats do not move horizontally or react in any way to avoid sound. Furthermore, mitigation measures that are implemented during training or testing activities that reduce the likelihood of physiological impacts are not considered in quantitative analysis. Therefore, the current model overestimates acoustic impacts, especially physiological impacts near the sound source. The behavioral criteria used as a part of this analysis acknowledges that a behavioral reaction is likely to occur at levels below those required to cause hearing loss (TTS or PTS). At close ranges and high sound levels approaching those that could cause PTS, avoidance of the area immediately around the sound source is the assumed behavioral response for most cases.
In previous environmental analyses, the Navy has implemented analytical factors to account for avoidance behavior and the implementation of mitigation measures. The application of avoidance and mitigation factors has only been applied to model-estimated PTS exposures given the short distance over which PTS is estimated. Given that no PTS exposures were estimated during the modeling process for this planned action, the implementation of avoidance and mitigation factors were not included in this analysis.
Utilizing the NAEMO model, the Navy projected that there will be 1,665 behavioral Level B harassment takes and an additional 11 Level B takes due to TTS for a total of 1,676 takes of ringed seals. All takes would be underwater. Note that these quantitative results should be regarded as conservative estimates that are strongly influenced by limited marine mammal population data.
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses. NMFS' regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)). The NDAA for FY 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness activities and the incidental take authorization process such that “least practicable adverse impact” shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, we carefully weigh two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammal species or stocks, their habitat, and their availability for subsistence uses (where relevant). This analysis will consider such things as the nature of the potential adverse impact (such as likelihood, scope, and range), the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented, and the likelihood of successful implementation; and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation. Practicability of implementation may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, specifically considers personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)(ii)).
The following general mitigation actions are planned for ICEX18 to avoid any take of ringed seals on the ice floe:
• Camp deployment would begin in mid-February and would be completed by March 15. Based on the best available science, Arctic ringed seal whelping is not expected to occur prior to mid-March. Construction of the ice camp would be completed prior to whelping in the area of ICEX18. As such, pups are not anticipated to be in the vicinity of the camp at commencement, and mothers would not need to move newborn pups due to construction of the camp. Additionally, if a seal had a lair in the area they would be able to relocate. Completing camp deployment before ringed seal pupping begins will allow ringed seals to avoid the camp area prior to pupping and mating seasons, reducing potential impacts;
• Camp location will not be in proximity to pressure ridges in order to allow camp deployment and operation of an aircraft runway. This will minimize physical impacts to subnivean lairs;
• Camp deployment will gradually increase over five days, allowing seals to relocate to lairs that are not in the immediate vicinity of the camp;
• Passengers on all on-ice vehicles would observe for marine and terrestrial animals; any marine or terrestrial animal observed on the ice would be avoided by 328 ft (100 m). On-ice vehicles would not be used to follow any animal, with the exception of actively deterring polar bears if the situation requires;
• Personnel operating on-ice vehicles would avoid areas of deep snowdrifts near pressure ridges, which are preferred areas for subnivean lair development; and
• All material (
The following mitigation actions are planned for ICEX18 activities involving acoustic transmissions:
For activities involving active acoustic transmissions from submarines and torpedoes, passive acoustic sensors on the submarines will listen for vocalizing marine mammals for 15 minutes prior to the initiation of exercise activities. If a marine mammal is detected, the submarine will delay active transmissions, including the launching of torpedoes, and not restart until after 15 minutes have passed with no marine mammal detections. If there are no animal detections, it is assumed that the vocalizing animal is no longer in the immediate area and is unlikely to be subject to harassment. Ramp up procedures will not be required as they would result in an unacceptable impact on readiness and on the realism of training.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's planned measures, NMFS has determined that the planned mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as to ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The U.S. Navy has coordinated with NMFS to develop an overarching program plan in which specific monitoring would occur. This plan is called the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP) (U.S. Department of the Navy 2011). The ICMP has been created in direct response to Navy permitting requirements established in various MMPA Final Rules, ESA consultations, Biological Opinions, and applicable regulations. As a framework document, the ICMP applies by regulation to those activities on ranges and operating areas for which the Navy is seeking or has sought incidental take authorizations. The ICMP is intended to coordinate monitoring efforts across all regions and to allocate the most appropriate level and type of effort based on set of standardized research goals, and in acknowledgement of regional scientific value and resource availability.
The ICMP is focused on Navy training and testing ranges where the majority of Navy activities occur regularly as those areas have the greatest potential for being impacted. ICEX18 in comparison is a short duration exercise that occurs approximately every other year. Due to the location and expeditionary nature of the ice camp, the number of personnel onsite is extremely limited and is constrained by the requirement to be able to evacuate all personnel in a single day with small planes. As such, a dedicated monitoring project would not be feasible as it would require additional personnel and equipment to locate, tag and monitor the seals.
The Navy is committed to documenting and reporting relevant aspects of training and research activities to verify implementation of mitigation, comply with current permits, and improve future environmental assessments. All sonar usage will be collected via the Navy's Sonar Positional Reporting System database and reported. If any injury or death of a marine mammal is observed during the ICEX18 activity, the Navy will immediately halt the activity and report the incident consistent with the stranding and reporting protocol in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing stranding response plan (Navy 2013). This approach is also consistent with other Navy documents including the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement.
The Navy will provide NMFS with a draft exercise monitoring report within 90 days of the conclusion of the planned activity. The draft exercise monitoring report will include data regarding sonar use and any mammal sightings or detection will be documented. The report will also include information on the number of sonar shutdowns recorded. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days of submission of the draft final report, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
Underwater acoustic transmissions associated with ICEX18, as outlined previously, have the potential to result in Level B harassment of ringed seals in the form of TTS and behavioral disturbance. No serious injury, mortality or Level A takes are anticipated to result from this activity. At close ranges and high sound levels approaching those that could cause PTS, avoidance of the area immediately around the sound source would be ringed seals' likely behavioral response. NMFS anticipates that there will be 11 Level B takes due to TTS and 1,665 Level B behavioral harassment takes, for a total of 1,676 ringed seal takes.
Note that there are only 11 Level B takes due to TTS since the TTS range to effects is small at only 100 meters or less while the behavioral effects range is significantly larger extending up to 10 km. TTS is a temporary impairment of hearing and TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many cases, however, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. Though TTS may occur in up to 11 animals out of a stock of 170,000 animals, the overall fitness of these individuals is unlikely to be affected and negative impacts to the entire stock are not anticipated.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment could include alteration of dive behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing, interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight. More severe behavioral responses are not anticipated due to the localized, intermittent use of active acoustic sources and mitigation by passive acoustic monitoring which will limit exposure to sound sources. Most likely, individuals will simply be temporarily displaced by moving away from the sound source. As described previously in the behavioral effects section seals exposed to non-impulsive sources with a received sound pressure level within the range of calculated exposures, (142-193 dB re 1 μPa), have been shown to change their behavior by modifying diving activity and avoidance of the sound source (Götz
The Navy's planned activities are localized and of relatively short duration. While the total project area is large, the Navy expects that most activities will occur within the ice camp action area in relatively close proximity to the ice camp. The larger study area depicts the range where submarines may maneuver during the exercise. The ice camp will be in existence for up to six weeks with acoustic transmission occurring intermittently over four weeks. The Autonomous Reverberation Measurement System would be active for up to 30 days; the vertical line array would be active for up to four hours per day for no more than eight days, and; the unmanned underwater vehicle used for the deployment of a synthetic aperture source would transmit for 24 hours per day for up to eight days.
The project is not expected to have significant adverse effects on marine mammal habitat. The project activities are limited in time and would not modify physical marine mammal habitat. While the activities may cause some fish to leave a specific area ensonified by acoustic transmissions, temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities, these fish would likely return to the affected area.. As such, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
For on-ice activity, serious injury and mortality are not anticipated. Level B harassment could occur but is unlikely due to mitigation measures followed during the exercise. Foot and snowmobile movement on the ice will be designed to avoid pressure ridges, where ringed seals build their lairs; runways will be built in areas without pressure ridges; snowmobiles will follow established routes; and camp buildup is gradual, with activity increasing over the first five days providing seals the opportunity to move to a different lair outside the ice camp area. The Navy will also employ its standard 100-meter avoidance distance from any arctic animals. Implementation of these measures should ensure that ringed seal lairs are not crushed or damaged during ICEX18 activities and minimize the potential for seals and pups to abandon lairs and relocate.
The ringed seal pupping season on the ice lasts for five to nine weeks during late winter and spring. Ice camp deployment would begin in mid-February and be completed by March 15, before the pupping season. This will allow ringed seals to avoid the ice camp area once the pupping season begins, thereby reducing potential impacts to nursing mothers and pups. Furthermore, ringed seal mothers are known to physically move pups from the birth lair to an alternate lair to avoid predation. If a ringed seal mother perceives the acoustic transmissions as a threat, the local network of multiple birth and haul-out lairs would allow the mother and pup to move to a new lair.
The estimated population of the Alaska stock of ringed seals in the Bering Sea is 170,000 animals (Muto
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• Impacts will be limited to Level B harassment;
• A small percentage (<1 percent) of the Alaska stock of ringed seals would be subject to Level B harassment;
• TTS is expected to affect only a limited number of animals;
• There will be no loss or modification of ringed seal habitat and minimal, temporary impacts on prey;
• Physical impacts to ringed seal subnivean lairs will be avoided; and
• Mitigation requirements for ice camp activities would minimize impacts to animals during the pupping season.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the planned monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Impacts to subsistence uses of marine mammals resulting from the planned action are not anticipated. The planned action would occur outside of the primary subsistence use season (
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
NMFS has issued an IHA to the Navy for the potential harassment of ringed seals incidental to the ICEX18 submarine test and training activities in the Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean, provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), invites comments on a proposed extension of an existing information collection: 0651-0058 (Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Program).
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-7728; or by email to
The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) is a framework in which an application whose claims have been determined to be patentable by an Office of Earlier Examination (OEE) is eligible to go through an accelerated examination in an Office of Later Examination with a simple procedure upon an applicant's request. By leveraging the search and examination work product of the OEE, PPH programs (1) deliver lower prosecution costs, (2) support applicants in their efforts to obtain stable patent rights efficiently around the world, and (3) reduce the search and examination burden, while improving the examination quality, of participating patent offices.
Originally, the PPH programs were limited to the utilization of search and examination results of national applications between cross filings under the Paris Convention. Later, the potential of the PPH was greatly expanded by Patent Cooperation Treaty-Patent Prosecution Highway (PCT-PPH) programs, which permitted participating patent offices to draw upon the positive results of the PCT work product from another participating office. The PCT-PPH programs used international written opinions and international preliminary examination reports developed within the framework of the PCT, thereby making the PPH available to a larger number of applicants. Information collected for the PCT is approved under OMB control number 0651-0021.
In 2014, the USPTO and several other offices acted to consolidate and replace existing PPH and PCT-PPH programs, with the goal of streamlining the PPH process for both offices and applicants. To that end, the USPTO and other offices established the Global PPH pilot program and the IP5 PPH pilot program. The Global PPH and IP5 PPH pilot programs are running concurrently and are substantially identical, differing only with regard to their respective participating offices. The USPTO is participating in both the Global PPH pilot program and the IP5 PPH pilot program. For USPTO applications, the Global PPH and IP5 PPH pilot programs supersede any prior PPH program between the USPTO and each Global PPH and IP5 PPH participating office. Any existing PPH programs between the USPTO and offices that are not participating in either the Global PPH pilot program or the IP5 PPH pilot program remain in effect. Regardless of the pilot program used, the Global PPH pilot program, the IP5 PPH pilot program, and the other existing PPH programs, all provide pathways for patent applications to receive the benefits of coordinated patent review across intellectual property offices.
The information gathered in this collection is integral to the PPH programs that USPTO participates in by identifying patent applications being
The ten forms used to gather the information described above are: The Global Form (PTO/SB/20GLBL) and nine individual country forms allowing participants to file in a U.S. application to request to make the U.S. applicants special under a PPH or PCT-PPH program. The thirty-four forms in this collection that previously operated under individual countries' Requests for Participation are being removed as they have been consolidated under the Global Form (PTO/SB/20GLBL).
For more complete information on the PPH, including (1) a complete identification of participating countries and offices and the programs under which each country's patent office is participating, (2) the forms needed to request entry into the PPH, both at the USPTO and other participating offices, and (3) information as to which of the PPH program remain pilots and which have been made permanent, please visit
Requests to participate in the PPH program must be submitted online under EFS-Web, the USPTO's web-based electronic filing system.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
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,
Proposed collection; comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on a proposed extension of an existing information collection: 0651-0060 (National Medal of Technology and Innovation Nomination Application).
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to John Palafoutas, Program Manager, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, by telephone at 571-272-8400, or by email at
The National Medal of Technology and Innovation is the highest honor for technological achievement bestowed by the President of the United States of America's leading innovations. Established by an Act of Congress in 1980, the medal of Technology was first awarded in 1985. The Medal is awarded annually to individuals, teams (of up to four individuals), companies, or divisions of companies. The Medal recognizes outstanding contributions to the Nation's economic, environmental and social well-being through the development and commercialization of technology products, processes and concepts, technological innovation, and development of the Nation's technological workforce.
The purpose of the National Medal of Technology and Innovation is to recognize those who have made lasting contributions to America's competitiveness, standard of living, and quality of life through technological innovation, and to recognize those who have made substantial contributions to strengthening the Nation's technological workforce. By highlighting the national importance of technological innovation, the Medal also seeks to inspire future generations of Americans to prepare for and pursue technical careers to keep America at the forefront of global technology and economic leadership.
The National Medal of Technology and Innovation Nomination Evaluation Committee, a distinguished independent committee appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, reviews and evaluates the merit of all candidates nominated through an open, competitive solicitation process. The committee makes its recommendations for Medal candidates to the Secretary of Commerce who, in turn, makes recommendations to the President for final selection. The National Medal of Technology and Innovation Laureates are announced by the White House once the Medalists are notified of their selection.
The public uses the online National Medal of Technology and Innovation Nomination Application to nominate an individual's, team's, or company's extraordinary leadership and innovation in technological achievement and outstanding contribution to strengthening the nation's technological workforce. The application collects general and biographical information about the nominee, general information about the nominator, and a discussion of the nominee's contribution/achievements, and must be accompanied by six letters of recommendation or support from individuals who have first-hand knowledge of the cited achievement(s).
The nomination application and instructions can be accessed from the USPTO website. All nominations should be submitted via the online portal on
There are no filing fees, capital start-up, maintenance, or operation costs associated with this collection. As the USPTO expects that 100% percent of the responses in this collection will be submitted electronically there are no postage costs associated with the collection.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They also will become a matter of public record.
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,
Department for Deployment Health, Naval Health Research Center, DON.
60-day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 16, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Naval Health Research Center, DoD Center for Deployment Health Research, Department 164, ATTN: Millennium Cohort Program Principal Investigators, 140 Sylvester Rd., San Diego, CA, 92106-3521, or call (619) 553-7335.
Persons eligible to respond to this survey are those civilians now separated from military service who initially enrolled, gave consent and participated in the Millennium Cohort Study while on active duty in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or US Coast Guard during the first, second, third, or fourth panel enrollment periods in 2001-2003, 2004-2006, 2007-2008, or 2011-2012 respectively, as well as those civilians that choose to participate in the Millennium Cohort Family Study.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 16, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Melinda Giancola, 202-245-7312.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 16, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Patricia Wright, 202-245-7620.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 16, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Sara Starke, 202-453-7681.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education (Department).
Notice.
The Department announces the process for designation of eligible institutions and invites applications for waiver of eligibility requirements for fiscal year (FY) 2018, for the following programs:
1.
2.
3.
Christopher Smith, Institutional Service, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 250-10, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202)453-7946, or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Since 2004, the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) has calculated Core Expenses per FTE of institutions, a statistic similar to E&G per FTE. Both E&G per FTE and Core Expenses per FTE are based on regular operational expenditures of institutions (excluding auxiliary enterprises, independent operations, and hospital expenses). They differ only in that E&G per FTE is based on fall undergraduate enrollment, while Core Expenses per FTE is based on 12-month undergraduate enrollment for the academic year.
To avoid inconsistency in the data submitted to, and produced by, the Department, for the purpose of section 312(b)(1)(B) of the HEA, E&G per FTE is calculated using the same methodology as Core Expenses per FTE. Accordingly, with regard to this and future notices inviting applications for waivers of eligibility requirements, to calculate E&G per FTE for the purpose of determining institutional eligibility for programs under Title V and Part A and Part F of Title III of the HEA, the Department will apply the NCES methodology for calculating Core Expenses per FTE. Institutions requesting an eligibility waiver determination must use the Core Expenses per FTE data reported to NCES' Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for the most currently available academic year, in this case academic year 2015-2016.
The Part A SIP, Part A ANNH, Part A PBI, Part A NASNTI, and Part A AANAPISI programs are authorized under Title III, Part A, of the HEA. The HSI and PPOHA programs are authorized under Title V of the HEA. The Part F, HSI STEM and Articulation, Part F PBI, Part F AANAPISI, Part F ANNH, and Part F NASNTI programs are authorized under Title III, Part F of the HEA. Please note that certain programs in this notice have the same or similar names as other programs that are authorized under a different statutory authority. For this reason, we specify the statutory authority as part of the acronym for certain programs.
Under the programs discussed above, institutions are eligible to apply for grants if they meet specific statutory and regulatory eligibility requirements. An IHE that is designated as an eligible institution may also receive a waiver of certain non-Federal cost-sharing requirements for one year under the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) program authorized by Part A, Title IV of the HEA and the Federal Work-Study (FWS) program authorized by section 443 of the HEA. Qualified institutions may receive the FSEOG and FWS waivers for one year even if they do not receive a grant under the Title III or Title V programs. An applicant that receives a grant from the Student Support Services (SSS) program that is authorized under section 402D of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14, may receive a waiver of the required non-Federal cost share for institutions for the duration of the grant. An applicant that receives a grant from the Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language (UISFL) program that is authorized under section 604 of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1124, may receive a waiver or reduction of the required non-Federal cost share for institutions for the duration of the grant.
Accordingly, all institutions interested in either applying for a new grant under the Title III or Title V programs addressed in this notice, or requesting a waiver of the non-Federal cost share, must be designated as an eligible institution for FY 2018. Under the HEA, any IHE interested in applying for a grant under any of these programs must first be designated as an eligible institution. (34 CFR 606.5 and 607.5).
The eligibility requirements for the programs authorized under Part A of Title III of the HEA are in sections 312 and 317-320 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1058, 1059d-1059g) and in 34 CFR 607.2 through 607.5. The regulations may be accessed at:
The eligibility requirements for the programs authorized by Part F of Title III of the HEA are in section 371 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1067q). There are currently no specific regulations for these programs.
The eligibility requirements for the Title V HSI program are in Part A of Title V of the HEA and in 34 CFR 606.2 through 34 CFR 606.5. The regulations may be accessed at:
The requirements for the PPOHA program are in Part B of Title V of the HEA and in the notice of final requirements published in the
The Department has instituted a process known as the Eligibility Matrix (EM), under which we will use information submitted by IHEs to IPEDS to determine which institutions meet the basic eligibility requirements for the programs authorized by Title III or Title V of the HEA listed above. We will use enrollment and fiscal data for the 2015-2016 year submitted by institutions to IPEDS to make eligibility determinations for FY 2018. Beginning February 14, 2018, an institution will be able to review the Department's decision on whether it is eligible for the grant programs authorized by Titles III or V of the HEA through this process by checking the institution's eligibility in the Eligibility system linked through the Department's Institutional Service Eligibility website at:
The EM is part of the Department's Eligibility system. The EM is a read-only worksheet that lists all potentially eligible postsecondary institutions, as determined by the Department using the data described above. If the entry for your institution in the EM shows that your institution is eligible to apply for a grant for a particular program, and you plan to submit an application for a grant in that program, you will not need to apply for eligibility or for a waiver through the process described in this notice. Rather, you may print out the eligibility letter directly. However, if the EM does not show that your institution is eligible for a program in which you plan to apply for a grant, you must submit a waiver request as discussed in this notice before the March 16, 2018 deadline.
To check your institution's eligibility in the EM, go to the website
If the EM does not show that your institution is eligible for a program, or if your institution does not appear in the EM data system, or if you disagree with the eligibility determination reflected in the EM data system, you can apply for a waiver or reconsideration through the process described in this notice. The waiver application process is the same as in previous years; you will choose the waiver option on the website at
To qualify under this latter criterion, an institution's Federal Pell Grant percentage for base year 2015-2016 must be more than the average for its category of comparable institutions provided in the 2015-2016 Average Pell Grant and Core Expenses per FTE Student table in this notice. If your institution qualifies under the first criterion, under which at least 50 percent of its degree-seeking students received financial assistance under one of several Federal student aid programs (the Federal Pell Grant, FSEOG, FWS, or the Federal Perkins Loan programs), but not the second criterion, under which an institution's Federal Pell Grant percentage for base year 2015-2016 must be more than the average for its category of comparable institutions provided in the 2015-2016 Average Pell Grant and Core Expenses per FTE Student table in this notice, you must submit a waiver request including the requested data, which is not available in IPEDS.
For the definition of “Enrollment of Needy Students,” for purposes of the Part A PBI program see section 318(b)(2) of the HEA, and for purposes of the Part F PBI program see section 371(c)(9)of the HEA.
Core Expenses are defined as the total expenses for the essential education activities of the institution. Core Expenses for public institutions reporting under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requirements include expenses for instruction, research, public service, academic support, student services, institutional support, operation and maintenance of plant, depreciation, scholarships and fellowships, interest, and other operating and non-operating expenses. Core Expenses for institutions reporting under the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) standards (primarily private, not-for-profit, and for-profit) include expenses for instruction, research, public service, academic support, student services, institutional support, net grant aid to students, and other expenses. Do NOT include Federal student financial aid. For both FASB and GASB institutions, core expenses exclude expenses for auxiliary enterprises (
IHEs requesting a waiver of the needy student enrollment requirement or the Core Expenses per FTE requirement must include in their application detailed information supporting the waiver request, as described in the instructions for completing the application.
The regulations governing the Secretary's authority to waive the needy student requirement, 34 CFR 606.3(b)(2) and (3) and 607.3(b)(2) and (3), refer to “low-income” students or families. The regulations at 34 CFR 606.3(c) and 607.3(c) define “low-income” as an amount that does not exceed 150 percent of the amount equal to the poverty level, as established by the U.S. Census Bureau.
For the purposes of this waiver provision, the following table sets forth the low-income levels (at 150%) for various sizes of families:
The figures shown under family income represent amounts equal to 150 percent of the family income levels established by the U.S. Census Bureau for determining poverty status. The poverty guidelines were published on January 25, 2016, in the
Information about “metropolitan statistical areas” referenced in 34 CFR 606.3(b)(4) and 607.3(b)(4) may be obtained at:
If your institution does not appear in the EM data system as one that is eligible for the program under which you plan to apply for a grant, you must submit an application for a waiver of the eligibility requirements. To request a waiver, you must upload a waiver narrative at:
• You do not have access to the internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload documents to the website;
• No later than two weeks before the waiver application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the internet to submit your application. If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Your paper waiver application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: Christopher Smith, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 250-10, Washington, DC 20202.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
We will not consider waiver applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: Christopher Smith, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 250-10, Washington, DC 20202.
We accept hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.
There are no program-specific regulations for the Part A AANAPISI, Part A NASNTI, and Part A PBI programs or any of the Part F, Title III programs. Also, there have been amendments to the HEA since the Department last issued regulations for the programs established under Titles III and V of the statute. Accordingly, we encourage each potential applicant to read the applicable sections of the HEA in order to fully understand the eligibility requirements for the program for which they are applying.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Hanford. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Red Lion Hanford House, 802 George Washington Way, Richland, WA 99352.
Mark Heeter, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, P.O. Box 550, H5-20, Richland, WA, 99352; Phone: (509) 373-1970; or Email:
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a combined meeting of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee and Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico (known locally as the Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board [NNMCAB]). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, February 28, 2018, 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
NNMCAB Office, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Pojoaque, NM 87506.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email:
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, March 1, 2018, 6:00 p.m.
Ohio State University, Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661.
Greg Simonton, Alternate Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, Post Office Box 700, Piketon, Ohio 45661, (740) 897-3737,
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l.
The existing Ludington Project is operated to generate during peak demand periods. Generation usually occurs during the day with the upper reservoir partially replenished at night during pumping. The project has an installed capacity of 1,785 megawatts with an average annual generation of approximately 2,624,189 megawatt hours.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Register online at
n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title PROTEST, MOTION TO INTERVENE, COMMENTS, REPLY COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS, or PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
o.
p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
q.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, REPLY COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS, or PRESCRIPTIONS; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
You may also register online at
n. Public notice of the filing of the initial development application, which has already been given, established the due date for filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the initial development application. No competing applications or notices of intent may be filed in response to this notice.
o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
p.
Commission issues draft EIS, October 2018.
Comments on draft EIS, December 2018.
Commission issues final EIS, April 2019.
On Wednesday, February 14, 2018, Commission staff will hold a conference call with Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) beginning at 1:30 p.m. (Eastern Time). The call is intended to address factual questions related to the identification of replacement suppliers for the Nicor Energy, L.L.C., Engage Energy America LLC, and New Power Company Seams Elimination Charge/Cost Adjustments/Assignments (SECA) sub-zones and the calculation of MISO-assessed “Variable SECA” charges. The discussion at the conference call will be limited to informational, factual questions.
Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to listen to the conference call. Persons wishing to become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
The conference call will not be webcasted or transcribed. However, an audio listen-only line will be provided. Those wishing to access the listen-only line must email Andre Goodson (
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For additional information, please contact Andre Goodson at (202) 502-8560,
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 November 29, 2017, BM Energy Park, LLC filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Banner Mountain Pumped Storage Hydro Project (project) to be located near Casper in Converse County, Wyoming. On January 19 and 29, 2018, the application was amended with a new project boundary. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project will be closed-loop. Water to initially fill the reservoirs will be diverted from Deer Creek via a temporary diversion, pump system, and pipeline. Required make-up water will be provided from a new well that will be drilled near the lower reservoir. The proposed project would consist of upper and lower reservoirs, a penstock connecting the two reservoirs, a powerhouse, a transmission line, and an access road to each reservoir. Both reservoirs would be formed by earthen and/or roller compacted concrete embankments with a maximum height of 50-75 feet, and would be lined with impervious geotextile or pavement. The lower reservoir would have a storage capacity of 4,050 acre-feet at its normal maximum water surface elevation of 6,000 feet, and surface area of 80 acres. The upper reservoir would have a storage capacity of 4,050 acre-feet at its normal maximum water surface elevation of 7,125 feet and surface area of 50 acres. Water would be conveyed from the upper reservoir to the lower reservoir via a 5,000-foot-long, 18-foot diameter steel-lined penstock. The powerhouse would contain three Ternary turbine generator units with a total installed capacity of 400 MW. Project power would be transmitted through either a new single circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line from the proposed powerhouse 0.4 miles northwest to a new substation on the planned Energy Gateway West 500-kV transmission line, or via a new 230-kV transmission line running 16 miles north to PacifiCorp's Windstar substation.
The estimated average annual generation of the project would be 1,300 gigawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of Commission's website at
Take notice that on January 26, 2018, Tristate NLA, LLC (Tristate), 9901 Valley Ranch Parkway East, Suite 2000, Irving, Texas 75063, filed in Docket No. CP18-69-000 a petition for declaratory order pursuant to Rule 207 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.207), seeking a ruling that upon the abandonment and sale to Tristate of approximately 189.8 miles of various diameter pipelines and appurtenant facilities proposed by Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) in Docket No. CP18-66-000 approximately (i) 155.8 miles of pipelines and appurtenant facilities will perform a gathering function, and therefore will be exempt from the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA); (ii) 15.2 miles of pipelines and appurtenant facilities will be operated as Hinshaw, and therefore will be exempt from the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to section 1(c) of the NGA; and (iii) 18.8 miles as intrastate pipelines subject to the jurisdiction of the Texas Railroad Commission, all as more fully set forth in the petition which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
The filing may also be viewed on the web at
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit five copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link 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:
Take notice that on January 30, 2018, ISO New England Inc. submitted its tariff filing: ISO-NE and VEC Service Agreement under Schedule 21-VEC of ISO-NE OATT to be effective 1/1/2018.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on January 26, 2018, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, filed in Docket No. CP18-66-000 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the
The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to J. Kyle Stephens, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046; by telephone at (713) 479-8033; by fax at (713) 479-1846; or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit five copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. EONY filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on December 13, 2017. EONY provided public notice of its request on December 10, 2017. In a letter dated February 8, 2018, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved EONY's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 C.F.R. part 402. We also are initiating consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating EONY as the Commission's non-Federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. EONY filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website (
o. Register online at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l. The existing project works are as follows:
The Upper Beaver Falls Project consists of: (1) A 328-foot-long, 25-foot-high concrete gravity dam with an uncontrolled overflow spillway; (2) a 48-acre reservoir with a storage capacity of 800 acre-feet at elevation 799.4 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88); (3) a 17-foot-high, 26.5-foot-wide, 27.5-foot-long intake structure with a steel trash rack ; (4) a 90-foot-long, 16-foot-wide, 8-foot-high concrete penstock; (5) a powerhouse containing one turbine-generator with a nameplate rating of 1,500 kilowatts (kW); (6) a tailrace excavated in the riverbed; (7) a 2,120-foot-long, 2.4-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line connecting to an existing National Grid substation; and (8) other appurtenances. The project generates about 8,685 megawatt-hours (MWh) annually.
The Lower Beaver Falls Project consists of: (1) A 400-foot-long concrete gravity dam with a maximum height of 14 feet, including: (i) a 240-foot-long non-overflow section containing an 8-foot-wide spillway topped with flashboards ranging from 6 to 8 inches in height and (ii) a 160-foot-long overflow section with an ice sluice opening; (2) a 4-acre reservoir with a storage capacity of 27.9 acre-feet at a normal elevation of 769.6 feet NAVD 88; (3) an intake structure with a steel trash rack, integral with a powerhouse containing two 500-kW turbine and generator units; (4) a tailrace; (5) a 250-foot-long, 2.4-kV transmission line connected to the Upper Beaver Falls powerhouse; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The project generates about 5,617 MWh annually.
The Lower Beaver Falls Project is located approximately 600 feet downstream of the Upper Beaver Falls Project. The dams and existing project facilities for both projects are owned by the applicant. As described in its August 24, 2017, settlement agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (New York DEC), the applicant proposes the following changes to project facilities and operation: (1) both projects would be consolidated under a single license; (2) the consolidated project would operate in strict run-of-river mode; (3) a year-round minimum flow of 30 cubic feet per second (cfs) would be maintained in the Upper Project bypassed reach and at the Lower Project; (4) trash racks would be replaced at the Upper Project to provide 1-inch clear spacing, and a seasonal overlay system would be placed at the Lower Project; and (5) recreational enhancements, including a boat launch, fishing access, canoe take-out, and parking area, would be provided at a location determined through consultation with FWS and New York DEC.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title PROTEST, MOTION TO INTERVENE, COMMENTS, REPLY COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS, or PRESCRIPTIONS; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
You may also register online at
o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
p. Procedural Schedule:
The application will be processed according to the following revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Carlsbad Energy Center LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 28, 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 on January 29, 2018, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in Docket No. CP18-70-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.213(b) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Columbia's blanket authorizations issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000. Columbia seeks authorization to construct and operate two new horizontal wells, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Columbia proposes to construct and operate in Ashland County, Ohio, two new horizontal storage wells, designated Well 12601 and Well 12602, and related pipelines and appurtenances at Columbia's Pavonia Storage Field, located in Ashland and Richland Counties, Ohio. Columbia states that the new wells are focused on improving the field's late season deliverability. There will be no change in the certificated physical parameters of the field, including existing boundary, total inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer boundaries, or the certificated storage capacity, as a result of the proposed project. The total cost is approximately $6,000,000.
Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to Linda Farquhar, Manager, Project Determinations & Regulatory Administration, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, by phone (832) 320-5685,
Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website (
Take notice that the filing instructions for the
The updated filing instructions are available at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA 210(m)(3) filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding ColGreen North Shore, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 28, 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 on January 30, 2018, Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C. (CIG), Post Office (P.O.) Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, filed in Docket No. CP18-71-000 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to abandon by sale to El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. approximately 40.4 miles of three interconnected pipeline segments, certain metering stations, and ancillary facilities as part of its CIG-Big Blue South Abandonment Project located in Moore and Potter Counties, Texas, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Francisco Tarin, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C., P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, by telephone at (719) 667-7517, or by fax at (719) 520-4697; or Dave Dewey, Assistant General Counsel, Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C., P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, by telephone at (719) 520-4227, or by fax at (719) 520-4898.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
On October 27, 2017, East Cheyenne Gas Storage, LLC (East Cheyenne) filed an application in Docket No. CP18-11-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project, known as the Lewis Creek Amendment Project (Project), would combine the working gas capacity and cushion gas capacity for the West Peetz and Lewis Creek Storage Fields and utilize the same maximum bottom-hole pressure, thus eliminating separately certified capacities for each field. East Cheyenne requests this amendment because recent geologic information shows that the West Peetz and Lewis Creek D-sands in the storage field are a single integrated reservoir. As part of this consolidation, East Cheyenne would reconfigure certain natural gas facilities in the Lewis Creek Storage Field; and expand the authorized buffer zone of the East Cheyenne Project.
On November 8, 2017, 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.
Issuance of EA, March 30, 2018.
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline, June 28, 2018.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
East Cheyenne is requesting authorization to amend its certificate previously issued in Docket No. CP10-34-000, for the East Cheyenne Gas Storage Project in Logan County, Colorado. As part of the West Peetz and Lewis Creek Field consolidation, East Cheyenne would reconfigure the well layout on the Lewis Creek portion of the Project by reducing the number of injection/withdrawal (I/W) wells by consolidating the wells on a single well pad, and reconfiguring the currently certificated Lewis Creek monitoring wells. Specifically, East Cheyenne would reconfigure the I/W well in the Lewis Creek portion of the project by converting one existing non-jurisdictional well to an I/W well (LC-D021) and collocating five directionally drilled I/W wells (LC-D022, LC-D023, LC-D024, LC-D025, and LC-D026) on the LC-2021 well pad. Additionally, East Cheyenne would decrease the total cushion gas capacity to 12.1 billion cubic feet and increase the total working gas capacity to 22.5 billion cubic feet. East Cheyenne would also reconfigure its existing pipelines and reduce the diameter of the existing 20-inch-diameter natural gas mainline to a 16-inch-diameter pipeline. Furthermore, East Cheyenne would reconfigure the existing 16-inch diameter Lewis Creek natural gas mainline and the 6-inch-diameter water disposal pipeline to connect directly to the reconfigured I/W wells LC-D021 through LC-D026 on a single well pad.
On December 8, 2017, 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
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
The eLibrary link on the FERC website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Southern Trail Pipeline Abandonment Project (Project) involving abandonment in place and by sale of facilities by Questar Southern Trail Pipeline Company (Questar). On December 22, 2017, Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company (Questar), filed an application, in Docket No. CP18-39-000, pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to abandon its certificate of public convenience and necessity, including its blanket certificate authorities. Questar also requests to abandon, part by sale and part in-place, all of its certificated facilities dedicated to providing jurisdictional transportation service including approximately 488 miles of natural gas pipeline and related facilities located in California, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico.
In a related filing, on December 22, 2017, the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA), filed an application, in Docket No. CP18-40-000, pursuant to section 7(f) of the NGA and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, requesting a service area determination within which NTUA may, without further Commission authorization, enlarge or expand its natural gas distribution facilities and a waiver of all reporting, accounting, and other rules and regulations normally applicable to natural gas companies. NTUA would utilize those acquired facilities to provide its own service, replacing the service historically provided to it by Questar. The remaining facilities not sold to the NTUA would be abandoned in-place.
About 220 miles of pipeline facilities that would be abandoned in place are in San Bernardino County, California; Mohave, Yavapai, Coconino and Apache Counties, Arizona; and San Yuan, Utah. About 268 miles would be abandoned by sale and are in Coconino, Navajo and Apache Counties, Arizona; San Yuan County, Utah; and San Yuan County, New Mexico. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before March 5, 2018.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on December 22, 2017, of the CP filing, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP18-39-000 and CP18-40-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the abandonment by sale and in place of the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement.
Questar provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC website (
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(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 (CP18-39-000 and CP18-40-000 with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The Project would consist of abandonment by sale approximately 268 miles of pipeline facilities and abandon in-place another approximately 220 miles of pipeline facilities, totaling approximately 488 miles of existing mainline natural gas pipeline located between the Essex Meter Facility with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) in San
• Abandon in place the following:
Abandon by sale to NTUA approximately 268 miles of its interstate pipeline, three compressor stations, and related facilities. Specifically, Questar proposes to:
• Abandon by sale the following:
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
There is no construction involved in this project. About 27.25 acres of land would be disturbed during removal of minor aboveground facilities and all work would be limited to existing permanent right-of way and existing access roads. All disturbed areas would be restored to preexisting conditions.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the facilities to be abandoned in place and removal of minor facilities proposed under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s) (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies/Copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an intervenor which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's website. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
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
Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
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 April 16, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
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 Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
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 April 16, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
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 Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Commission staff will use the information to assign licenses for interoperability and General Use channels, as well as renewal of State licenses. The information will also be used to determine whether prospective licensees operate in compliance with the Commission's rules. Without such information, the Commission could not accommodate State interoperability or regional planning requirements or provide for the efficient use of State frequencies. This information collection includes rules to govern the operation and licensing of 700 MHz band systems to ensure that licensees continue to fulfill their statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Such information will continue to be used to verify that applicants are legally and technically qualified to hold licenses, and to determine compliance with Commission rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 16, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
47 CFR 73.1212 requires a broadcast station to identify at the time of broadcast the sponsor of any matter for which consideration is provided. For advertising commercial products or services, generally the mention of the name of the product or service constitutes sponsorship identification. In the case of television political advertisements concerning candidates for public office, the sponsor shall be identified with letters equal to or greater than four (4) percent of the vertical height of the television screen that airs for no less than four (4) seconds. In addition, when an entity rather than an individual sponsors the broadcast of matter that is of a political or controversial nature, licensee is required to retain a list of the executive officers, or board of directors, or executive committee, etc., of the organization paying for such matter. Sponsorship announcements are waived with respect to the broadcast of “want ads” sponsored by an individual but the licensee shall maintain a list showing the name, address and telephone
47 CFR 73.1212(e) states that, when an entity rather than an individual sponsors the broadcast of matter that is of a political or controversial nature, the licensee is required to retain a list of the executive officers, or board of directors, or executive committee, etc., of the organization paying for such matter in its public file. Pursuant to the changes contained in 47 CFR 73.1212(e) and 47 CFR 73.3526(e)(19), this list, which could contain personally identifiable information, would be located in a public inspection file to be located on the Commission's website instead of being maintained in the public file at the station. Burden estimates for this change are included in OMB Control Number 3060-0214.
47 CFR 76.1615 states that, when a cable operator engaged in origination cablecasting presents any matter for which money, service or other valuable consideration is provided to such cable television system operator, the cable television system operator, at the time of the telecast, shall identify the sponsor. Under this rule section, when advertising commercial products or services, an announcement stating the sponsor's corporate or trade name, or the name of the sponsor's product is sufficient when it is clear that the mention of the name of the product constitutes a sponsorship identification. In the case of television political advertisements concerning candidates for public office, the sponsor shall be identified with letters equal to or greater than four (4) percent of the vertical height of the television screen that airs for no less than four (4) seconds.
47 CFR 76.1715 state that, with respect to sponsorship announcements that are waived when the broadcast/origination cablecast of “want ads” sponsored by an individual, the licensee/operator shall maintain a list showing the name, address and telephone number of each such advertiser. These lists shall be made available for public inspection.
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 March 16, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or
The information sought in this collection is necessary and vital to the effective implementation of improved location accuracy, which will enable Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) to dispatch to and first responders to respond to emergencies.
Section 20.18(i)(2)(ii)(A) requires that, within three years of the effective date of rules, CMRS providers shall deliver to uncompensated barometric pressure data from any device capable of delivering such data to PSAPs. This requirement is necessary to ensure that PSAPs are receiving all location information possible to be used for dispatch. This requirement is also necessary to ensure that CMRS providers implement a vertical location solution in the event that the proposed “dispatchable location” solution does not function as intended by the three-year mark and beyond.
Section 20.18(i)(2)(ii)(B) requires that the four nationwide providers submit to the Commission for review and approval a reasonable metric for z-axis (vertical) location accuracy no later than 3 years from the effective date of rules. The requirement is critical to ensure that the vertical location framework adopted in the Fourth Report and Order is effectively implemented.
Section 20.18(i)(2)(iii) requires CMRS providers to certify compliance with the Commission's rules at various benchmarks throughout implementation of improved location accuracy. This requirement is necessary to ensure that CMRS providers remain “on track” to reach the goals that they themselves agreed to.
Section 20.18(i)(3)(i) requires that within 12 months of the effective date, the four nationwide CMRS providers must establish the test bed described in the Fourth Report and Order, which will validate technologies intended for indoor location. The test bed is necessary for the compliance certification framework adopted in the Fourth Report and Order.
Section 20.18(i)(3)(ii) requires that beginning 18 months from the effective date of the rules, CMRS providers providing service in any of the six Test Cities identified by ATIS (Atlanta, Denver/Front Range, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Manhattan Borough of New York City) or portions thereof must collect and report aggregate data on the location technologies used for live 911 calls. Nationwide CMRS providers must submit call data on a quarterly basis; non-nationwide CMRS providers need only submit this data every six months. Non-nationwide providers that do not provide service in any of the Test Cities may satisfy this requirement by collecting and reporting data based on the largest county within the carrier's footprint. This reporting requirement is necessary to validate and verify the compliance certifications made by CMRS providers.
The Commission has developed a proposed reporting template to assist CMRS providers in collecting, formatting, and submitting aggregate live 911 call data in accordance with the requirements in the rules. The proposed template will also assist the Commission in evaluating the progress CMRS providers have made toward meeting the 911 location accuracy benchmarks. The proposed template is an Excel spreadsheet and will be available for downloading on the Commission's website. The Commission may also develop an online filing mechanism for these reports in the future.
Section 20.18(i)(4)(ii) requires that no later than 18 months from the effective date, each CMRS provider shall submit to the Commission a report on its progress toward implementing improved indoor location accuracy. Non-nationwide CMRS providers will have an additional 6 months to submit their progress reports. All CMRS providers shall provide an additional progress report no later than 36 months from the effective date of the adoption of this rule. The 36-month reports shall indicate what progress the provider has made consistent with its implementation plan.
Section 20.18(i)(4)(iii) requires that prior to activation of the NEAD but no later than 18 months from the effective date of the adoption of this rule, the nationwide CMRS providers shall file with the Commission and request approval for a security and privacy plan
Section 20.18(i)(4)(iv) requires that before use of the NEAD or any information contained therein, CMRS providers must certify that they will not use the NEAD or associated data for any non-911 purpose, except as otherwise required by law. This requirement is necessary to ensure the privacy and security of any personally identifiable information that may be collected by the NEAD.
Section 20.18(j) requires CMRS providers to provide standardized confidence and uncertainty (C/U) data for all wireless 911 calls, whether from outdoor or indoor locations, on a per-call basis upon the request of a PSAP. This requirement will serve to make the use of C/U data easier for PSAPs
Section 20.18(k) requires that CMRS providers must record information on all live 911 calls, including, but not limited to, the positioning source method used to provide a location fix associated with the call, as well as confidence and uncertainty data. This information must be made available to PSAPs upon request, as a measure to promote transparency and accountability for this set of rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval, on an emergency basis, for a new, one-time information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, and no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Comments concerning the accuracy of the burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the person listed in the
Contact Cathy Williams,
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
In its August 2017
A challenger seeking to initiate a challenge of one or more areas initially deemed ineligible in the Commission's map of areas presumptively eligible for MF-II support may do via the online challenge portal developed by USAC for this purpose (the USAC portal). For each state, a challenger must (1) identify the area(s) it seeks to challenge, (2) submit detailed proof of a lack of unsubsidized, qualified 4G LTE coverage in each challenged area in the form of actual outdoor speed test data collected using the standardized parameters specified by the Commission in the
In conjunction with the qualified 4G LTE data separately collected pursuant to OMB 3060-1242 that will be used to create the map of areas presumptively eligible for MF-II support, the information collected under this MF-II challenge process collection will enable the Commission to efficiently resolve disputes concerning the eligibility or ineligibility of an area initially deemed ineligible for MF-II support and establish the final map of areas eligible for such support, thereby furthering the Commission's goal of targeting MF-II support to areas that lack adequate mobile voice and broadband coverage absent subsidies through a transparent process.
The Commission received approval from OMB for the information collection requirements contained in OMB 3060-1251 on February 7, 2018.
Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW, Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This Meeting, open to the public, has been cancelled.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
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 March 7, 2018.
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.
Notice of draft document available for public comment.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability for public comment on the drugs proposed for placement on the
Comments must be received by April 16, 2018.
Comments may be submitted, identified by docket numbers CDC-2018-0004 and NIOSH-233-B, by either of the following two methods:
•
•
Barbara MacKenzie, NIOSH, Robert A. Taft Laboratories, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS-C26, Cincinnati, OH 45226, telephone (513) 533-8132 (not a toll free number), Email:
Interested parties are invited to participate in this action by submitting written views, opinions, recommendation, and/or data. Comments are invited on any topic related to the drugs identified in this notice, including those evaluated for
1. Has NIOSH appropriately identified and categorized the drugs considered for placement on the
2. Is information available from FDA or other Federal agencies or in the published, peer-reviewed scientific literature about a specific drug or drugs identified in this notice that would justify the reconsideration of NIOSH's categorization decision?
3. Does the draft
In September 2004, NIOSH published
The NIOSH Director has developed draft policy and procedures, entitled
According to the draft hazardous drugs policy and procedures, NIOSH defines a hazardous drug as a drug that is:
1. Approved for use in humans
2. Not otherwise regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
3. Either:
a. Accompanied by prescribing information in the “package insert”
b. Exhibits one or more of the following types of toxicity in humans, animal models, or
In accordance with the draft hazardous drugs policy and procedures, NIOSH uses FDA databases to identify new drug approvals and drugs with new safety warnings.
Information pertaining to each new drug and drugs with new safety warnings is screened to determine whether a specific drug is potentially hazardous. Potentially hazardous drugs are those for which the manufacturer has provided special handling information intended to protect workers, or for which available toxicity information suggests that a drug may exhibit one of the types of toxicity in the NIOSH definition of a hazardous drug. Drugs for which insufficient toxicity information is available and drugs for which the available information suggests no toxic effect or a toxic effect that does not meet the NIOSH definition of a hazardous drug are not proposed for placement on the List and are not further considered. Drugs for which special handling information is available are published on the NIOSH website and proposed for placement on the List; these drugs are not further evaluated.
Drugs for which the available information suggests that the drug exhibits one or more toxic effects that meet the NIOSH definition of a hazardous drug are further evaluated to determine whether the drug should be proposed for placement on the List. To conduct the evaluation of drugs for which information suggests a toxic effect, NIOSH may consult the following sources of information to determine whether each screened drug might exhibit at least one type of toxicity in the NIOSH definition of a hazardous drug:
a. Information in the drug package insert;
b. FDA information pertaining to new drug safety labeling changes;
c. When available, relevant information about carcinogenicity from:
(1) The National Toxicology Program (NTP) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services;
(2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
(3) World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC);
(4) NIOSH.
d. When available, relevant information about reproductive toxicity, teratogenicity, or developmental toxicity from the NTP Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR), and from its successor, the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT);
e. When available, published, peer-reviewed scientific literature about the hazard potential of a particular drug for workers in a healthcare setting, including any relevant studies cited in the drug package insert; and
f. When available, toxicity information from Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) provided by the manufacturer.
Reviewing the available human, animal, and
After consideration of the peer reviews, NIOSH sorts all screened and evaluated drugs into one of five categories:
The categorized drugs are identified in a
After consideration of all public and stakeholder comments received, NIOSH makes a final determination about the disposition of all identified drugs and publishes a notice in the
Consistent with the hazardous drugs policy and procedures described above, NIOSH consulted two FDA databases on a monthly basis since the 2016 Update to identify newly-approved drugs and biologics
Upon identification by NIOSH, each drug was screened to determine whether the manufacturer specified special handling information in the package insert or if information in the package insert suggests that a drug may exhibit at least one of the types of toxicity in the NIOSH definition of a hazardous drug. For 18 drugs, existing toxicity information did not support placement on the List (
Finally, the information available for 44 drugs suggests one or more toxic effects; those drugs were evaluated by NIOSH, as discussed below, and were shared with peer reviewers and stakeholders.
Consistent with the draft hazardous drugs policy and procedures, NIOSH evaluated the 44 drugs identified as potentially hazardous to determine whether each meets the NIOSH definition of a hazardous drug by exhibiting one or more of the following types of toxicity in humans, animal models, or
NIOSH conducted peer and stakeholder review of all evaluated drugs.
After consideration of the peer and stakeholder reviews, NIOSH determined that the available toxicity information for 23 drugs does not meet the NIOSH definition of a hazardous drug (Category
NIOSH determined that the available toxicity information for 20 drugs and one class of drug demonstrates or supports a NIOSH determination that they meet the NIOSH definition of a hazardous drug are proposed for placement on the List (Category 5). These drugs are proposed for placement on the list and are identified in Table 4.
Two additional drugs have special handling information specified by the manufacturer and are proposed for placement on the List (
In a petition to NIOSH in February 2017, the pharmaceutical company Theravance Biopharma requested the removal of the drug telavancin from the
After consideration of all public comments received in the docket for this action, NIOSH will develop a final list of drugs to be placed on the
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
Through the proposed information collection, the researchers will obtain information about the characteristics, qualifications, and career trajectories of home visiting staff. The study will include a national survey of the MIECHV workforce, interviews with training and technical assistance experts, and site visits to home visiting programs in eight states that vary in terms of geography, population demographics, labor markets, and home visiting program offerings.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for JUVEDERM VOLUMA XC and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the medical device JUVEDERM VOLUMA XC. JUVEDERM VOLUMA XC is indicated for deep (subcutaneous and/or supraperiosteal) injection for cheek augmentation to correct age-related volume deficit in the midface in adults over the age of 21. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for JUVEDERM VOLUMA XC (U.S. Patent No. 7,741,476) from Pierre Lebreton, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 30, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of JUVEDERM VOLUMA XC represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for JUVEDERM VOLUMA XC is 1,896 days. Of this time, 1,110 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 786 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 567 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see DATES), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for BELEODAQ and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product BELEODAQ (belinostat). BELEODAQ is a histone deacetylase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma. This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on tumor response rate and duration of response. An improvement in survival or disease-related symptoms has not been established. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in the confirmatory trial. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for BELEODAQ (U.S. Patent No. 6,888,027) from Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 15, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of BELEODAQ represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for BELEODAQ is 3,488 days. Of this time, 3,281 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 207 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,779 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for OSURNIA and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For animal drug products, the testing phase begins on the earlier date when either a major environmental effects test was initiated for the drug or when an exemption under section 512(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(j)) became effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the animal drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for an animal drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(4)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the animal drug product OSURNIA (terbinafine, florfenicol and betamethasone acetate). OSURNIA is indicated for the treatment of otitis externa in dogs associated with susceptible strains of bacteria (
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for OSURNIA is 4,034 days. Of this time, 3,980 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 54 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 235 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for KERYDIN and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the 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
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product KERYDIN (tavaborole). KERYDIN is indicated for the topical treatment of onychomycosis of the toenails due to
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for KERYDIN is 3,112 days. Of this time, 2,768 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 344 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 408 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for IBRANCE and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product IBRANCE (palbociclib). IBRANCE is indicated for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in combination with:
• An aromatase inhibitor as initial endocrine based therapy in postmenopausal women; or
• fulvestrant in women with disease progression following endocrine therapy.
Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for IBRANCE (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,936,612 and 7,208,489) from Warner-Lambert Company, LLC, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated July 12, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of IBRANCE represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for IBRANCE is 3,954 days. Of this time, 3,779 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 175 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,810 days or 1,509 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following 1-day public workshop entitled “Utilizing Innovative Statistical Methods and Trial Designs in Rare Disease Settings.” This workshop is convened by the Duke-Robert J. Margolis, MD, Center for Health Policy at Duke University and supported by a cooperative agreement with FDA. The purpose of the public workshop is to bring rare disease stakeholders together to discuss the challenges associated with the development and regulatory decision-making for rare disease treatments and to also discuss promising study designs and analytical methods that can help overcome these challenges.
The public workshop will be held on March 19, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). See the
The public workshop will be held at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Washington DC-Silver Spring, 8727 Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD 20910. For additional travel and hotel information, please refer to the Duke Margolis Center for Health Policy website at:
Robyn Bent, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-2572,
Rare disease settings pose several significant challenges for clinical
During the public workshop, speakers and participants will discuss a range of tools and methods that can be used in the development of treatments for rare diseases and small patient populations. The meeting will include both presentations by panelists and dedicated time for questions and comments from attendees. Topics will include: Master protocols, use of external controls in single-arm trials, analytical tools for trials with multiple or novel endpoints, and best practices for leveraging Bayesian statistics and adaptive study designs.
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register by 5 p.m. EDT on Thursday, March 15, 2018. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Sarah Supsiri at the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy (phone: 202-791-9561, email:
All event materials will be provided to registered attendees via email prior to the workshop and will be publicly available at the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy website (
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for JARDIANCE and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product JARDIANCE (empagliflozin). JARDIANCE is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for JARDIANCE (U.S. Patent No. 7,579,449) from Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 15, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of JARDIANCE represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for JARDIANCE is 2,275 days. Of this time, 1,760 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 515 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,001 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
In compliance with of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than March 16, 2018.
Submit your comments, including the ICR Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Lisa Wright-Solomon, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
HPSL data includes active and closing Loans for Disadvantaged Students (LDS) program schools.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of a New System of Records.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposes to establish a new system of records subject to the Privacy Act, System No. 09-70-0539, titled “Quality Payment Program (QPP).” The new system of records will cover quality and performance data collected and used by CMS in determining merit-based payment adjustments for health care services provided by clinicians to Medicare beneficiaries, and in providing expert feedback to clinicians and third party data submitters for the purpose of helping clinicians provide high-value care to patients.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this notice is effective upon publication, subject to a 30-day period in which to comment on the routine uses, described below. Please submit any comments by March 16, 2018.
Written comments should be submitted by mail or email to: CMS Privacy Act Officer, Division of Security, Privacy Policy & Governance, Information Security & Privacy Group, Office of Information Technology, CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1870, Location N1-14-56, or
General questions about the new system of records should be submitted by mail or email to: Michelle Peterman, Health Insurance Specialist, Division of Electronic Clinician and Quality, Quality Measurement and Value-Based Incentives Group, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1870, Mailstop: S3-02-01, or
The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) amended title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act) to repeal the way physicians were paid under the previous Sustainable Growth Rate (SOR) formula and replaced it with a new approach known as the Quality Payment Program. The Quality Payment Program streamlines and consolidates components of three existing incentive programs that reward high-value patient centered care: (1) Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) (§ 1848(k) and (m) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4)), (2) Medicare Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Program for Eligible Professionals (§ 1848(0) of the Act), and (3) Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier (VM) (§ 1848(p) of the Act). For more information, see rulemakings implementing the existing programs, at 80 Fed. Reg. 71135 (November 16, 2015) (PQRS); 80 FR 62761 (October 16, 2015) (EHR); and 80 FR 71273 (November 16, 2015) (VM).
There are two separate pathways within the Quality Payment Program, Advanced Alternative Payment Models (Advanced APM) and Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), both of which contribute toward the goal of seamless integration of the Quality Payment Program into clinical practice workflows. MIPS provides clinicians measures and activities to assist them in providing high-value, patient-centered care to Medicare patients, and to encourage and reward their use of the same. The participants generate and submit to CMS data on health care coordination. The data will be submitted to CMS by eligible clinicians and approved third party data submitters (for example, registries which collect and submit disease tracking data; health information technology (IT) vendors which submit data from clinicians' Certified Electronic Health Record Technology (CEHRT) systems). The data will include information about, and will be retrieved by personal identifiers for: (1) The clinicians, (2) any third party data submitters who are individuals (
The data submission process will require that clinicians and third party submitters use their identifying and contact information, tax identification number (TIN/EIN), national provider identifier (NPI), and information about health care services provided to patients for the performance categories of the MIPS including (1) quality-including a set of evidence-based, specialty-specific standards; (2) cost of services provided; (3) improvement activities that improved or are likely to improve clinical practice or care delivery; and (4) advancing care information which focuses on the use of CEHRT to support interoperability and avoid
The PQRS, EHR, and VM programs each maintain records subject to the Privacy Act which are maintained in existing systems of records; these systems of records will necessarily overlap with this system of records until the existing programs fully sunset. Therefore, these SORNs cover the Quality Payment Program Privacy Act records until the QPP SORN is finalized:
1. PQRS: “Performance Measurement and Reporting System (PMRS),” System No. 09-70-0584, last published at 73 FR 80412 (December 31, 2008);
2. EHR: “Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program National Level Repository” System No. 09-70-0587, last published at 75 FR 73095 (November 29, 2010);
3. VM: “Medicare Multi-Carrier Claims System (MCS),” System No. 09-70-0501, last published at 71 FR 64968 (November 6, 2006); and
4. VM: “Fiscal Intermediary Shared System (FISS),” System No. 09-70-0503, last published at 71 FR 64961 (November 6, 2006).
The Performance Measurement and Reporting System (PMRS) SORN covers the Better Quality Information (BQI) to Improve Care for Medicare Beneficiaries Project, the Electronic Prescribing (E-Prescribing) Incentive Program, and the PQRS. The BQI to Improve Care for Medicare Beneficiaries Project and the E-Prescribing Incentive Program have fully sunsetted. The PQRS program's last reporting year was CY 2016. However, Privacy Act records related to the PQRS program will continue to be utilized for several additional years to assess payment adjustments in CY 2018 and data as needed. The Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program National Level Repository SORN covers the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs. The Medicare EHR Incentive program's last payment year was CY 2016. However, Privacy Act records related to the Medicare EHR Incentive program will continue to be utilized for several additional years to assess data as needed. In addition, the Medicare EHR Incentive for eligible hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAHs) and the Medicaid EHR Incentive program are active programs. Therefore, the EHR SORN will not be rescinded. The SORNs that cover the VM program will not be rescinded as they are applicable to many CMS programs.
The Quality Payment Program will continue to evolve over multiple years to accommodate payment policy implementations and take advantage of new system capabilities. This SORN will be similarly reviewed and updated to reflect significant changes, including the sunsetting of the existing programs and disposition of the records covered by the existing SORNs, when they occur.
Requirements for submitting data about improvement activities did not exist in the legacy programs replaced by MIPS, and CMS does not have historical data which is directly relevant. However, the Privacy Act records collected through these legacy programs are the same data elements that are used for the Quality Payment Program in CY 2017 and 2018 although the specific uses for the previous programs may be more expansive. To date, participants in the Quality Payment Program have registered, have selected measures and are submitting data beginning in 2018 as individuals, as part of a group or as part of a virtual group—a scenario not provided through the legacy SORNs.
The primary purpose of the PMRS system of records, entitled “Performance Measurement and Reporting System (PMRS),” is to support the collection, maintenance, and processing of information to promote the delivery of high quality, efficient, effective, and economical health care services, and promote the quality and efficiency of services of the type for which payment may be made under title XVIII by allowing for the establishment and implementation of performance measures, the provision of feedback to physicians, and public reporting of performance information.
The primary purpose of the EHR system of records, entitled “Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program National Level Repository,” called the National Level Repository or NLR, is to collect, maintain, and process information that is required for the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs.
The primary purpose of the VM program covered by the systems of records entitled, “Medicare Multi-Carrier Claims System (MCS) and the Fiscal Intermediary Shared System (FISS),” is to identify and associate a provider (physician or individual provider) to their registration and their reports, known as the Quality and Resource Use Report (QRUR). QRUR is a report given to providers on quality of care and cost performance. In most cases, systems of records maintain Tax Identification Number (TIN) and the name of the organization. In very few cases, providers may be using their Social Security number (SSN) as Billing TIN.
As discussed above the programs covered by the PMRS SORN have sunsetted; however, the final payment year for the PQRS program is CY 2018 requiring the PMRS SORN to remain in effect until all pertinent data has been utilized. The EHR SORN and VM SORNs will not be rescinded as there are programs covered by these SORNs that are currently active and have no plans to sunset.
Once the PQRS program sunsets the records will be dispositioned entirely into the QPP system of records under NARA CMS Records Schedule: DAA-0440-2015-0009-003. The retention period for these records is 10 years.
Because the PMRS and the QPP systems of records maintain identical records for the categories of individuals covered by the respective system of records and also overlap for purposes of
All of the routine uses either are necessary and proper or are compatible with the original collection purpose of encouraging and rewarding clinicians' use of measures and activities that help them provide high-value, patient-centered care to Medicare beneficiaries.
“Quality Payment Program (QPP)”, HHS/CMS/CCSQ System No. 09-70-0539.
Unclassified.
The address of the agency component responsible for the system of records is: CMS Data Center, 7500 Security Boulevard, North Building, First Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
The agency official who is responsible for the system of records is: Director, Quality Measurement and Value-based Incentives Group, CCSQ, CMS, Room C1-23-14, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1870.
Provisions of the Social Security Act codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320c-3,
The purposes for which HHS/CMS will use the records are:
• To be utilized for program management and administration purposes;
• To determine payment adjustments for health care services provided by clinicians to Medicare beneficiaries;
• To provide expert feedback to clinicians and third party data submitters, in order to help clinicians provide high-value, patient-centered care to Medicare beneficiaries;
• To make clinician-level performance measure results available to Medicare patients and caregivers through Physician Compare, as defined via regulation, either on public profile pages or via the Downloadable Database housed on
• To provide relevant records to other Federal and state agencies which administer federally-funded health benefit programs; Quality Improvement Networks that review claims and conduct outreach and reviews; and individuals and organizations that assist consumers, to use for program administrative purposes and in health, disease, and payment-related research, evaluation, outreach, and transparency projects.
The records will be about these categories of individuals involved in the Quality Payment Program:
• Eligible clinicians (such as, physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners) who submit quality and performance data to CMS under the Program;
• Any third party data submitters of the types described in 42 CFR 414.1400 who are individuals (
• Individuals who submit data for clinicians and third party data submitters (
• Medicare beneficiaries (and any non-Medicare beneficiaries) receiving the health care services referenced in the data submitted to CMS under the Program.
The system will include these categories of records:
•
•
•
•
•
The sources of the records covered by this system of records are (1) clinicians, (2) third party data submitters, and (3) individuals who submit data for clinicians or third party data submitters.
A. These routine uses specify circumstances, in addition to those provided by statute in the Privacy Act of 1974, under which CMS may disclose records from the Quality Payment Program to a party outside HHS without the prior, written consent of the individual to whom such information pertains.
1. Records may be disclosed to agency contractors (including, but not limited to, Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs), fiscal intermediaries, and carriers) that assist in the health operations of a CMS-administered health benefits program, to CMS consultants, or to a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program, who have been engaged by the agency to assist in accomplishment of a CMS function relating to the purposes for this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to assist CMS. Such disclosures include (but are not limited to) disclosures deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct,
2. Records may be disclosed to another Federal or state agency to the extent deemed necessary to: (a) Contribute to the accuracy of CMS' proper payment of Medicare benefits; (b) enable such agency to administer a Federal health benefits program, or as necessary to enable such agency to fulfill a requirement of a Federal statute or regulation that implements health benefit programs funded in whole or in part with Federal funds; and/or (c) assist state Medicaid programs which may require Quality Payment Program information.
3. Clinician-level performance measurement results may be made available to the public, through Physician Compare, as defined via regulation, either on public profile pages or via the Downloadable Database housed on
4. Records may be disclosed to MIPS-eligible clinicians and eligible entities in order to provide them with expert feedback, and records may be disclosed to CMS authorized entities participating in health care transparency projects.
5. Records may be disclosed to organizations that assist consumers in comparing the quality and price of health care services, and/or that use such information for purposes related to prevention of disease or disability, or restoration or maintenance of health.
6. Records may be disclosed to organizations for research, evaluation, and projects involving payment issues.
7. Records may be disclosed to Beneficiary and Family Centered Care (BFCC)-QIOs, Quality Innovation Network-QIOs (QIN-QIOs), the Small, Underserved, and Rural Support (SURS) technical assistance contractors, and the Practice Transformation Networks (PTNs) under the Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative (TCPI) for purposes of: (a) Identifying clinicians who are included in the Quality Payment Program, specifically the MIPS track, based on the low-volume threshold; (b) determining the appropriate form of Technical Assistance based on practice size and clinician need; (c) providing eligibility information to clinicians interested in forming a virtual group; (d) transitioning clinician referrals from the Quality Payment Program Service Center to the appropriate Technical Assistance channel; (e) performing proactive outreach and engagement activities for the purpose of helping MIPS eligible clinicians participate in the program; (f) developing educational tools and resources; (g) monitoring annual MIPS eligible clinician performance; (h) assessing future need based on a MIPS eligible clinician's Final Score; (i) tracking non-MIPS eligible clinicians who voluntarily report measures and activities to MIPS; and (j) assisting MIPS eligible clinicians transition into an Advanced APM.
8. Records may be disclosed to the Department of Justice (DOJ), a court, or an adjudicatory body when: (a) The Agency or any component thereof, (b) any employee of the Agency in his or her official capacity, (c) any employee of the Agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or (d) the United States Government, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, CMS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation.
9. Records may be disclosed to another Federal agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States (including any state or local governmental agency), that administers, or that has the authority to investigate potential fraud, waste, or abuse in, a health benefits program funded in whole or in part by Federal funds, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste, or abuse in such programs.
10. Records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (a) HHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (b) HHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, HHS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal government, or national security; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HHS' efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
11. Records may be disclosed to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when HHS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to as.sist the recipient agency or entity in (a) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
12. Records may be disclosed to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (OHS) if captured in an intrusion detection system used by HHS and OHS pursuant to a OHS cybersecurity program that monitors internet traffic to and from Federal government computer networks to prevent a variety of types of cybersecurity incidents.
B. Additional Circumstances Affecting Routine Use Disclosures: To the extent this system contains Protected Health Information (PHI) as defined by HHS regulation “Standards for Privacy oflndividually Identifiable Health Information” (45 CFR parts 160 and 164, Subparts A and E), disclosures of such PHI that are otherwise authorized by these routine uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (see 45 CFR 164.512(a)(l)).
The records will be stored electronically or on magnetic media or paper.
The data collected on clinicians will be retrieved by the clinician's name, address, NPI, TIN/EIN and other identifying provider numbers. Information about third party data submitters who are individuals will be retrieved by name, address, and TIN/EIN. Records about contact persons will be retrieved by name, email address and business address. The data collected on Medicare beneficiaries (and any non-Medicare beneficiaries) will be retrieved by the beneficiary's name, Medicare beneficiary identifier (MBI), health insurance claim number (HICN), SSN, address, and date of birth.
A records disposition schedule for the Quality Payment Program is pending submission to and approval by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); until NARA approval is obtained, CMS will retain the records indefinitely. CMS is proposing a retention period of approximately 10 years for these records under the NARA CMS Records Schedule: DAA-0440-2015-0009-0003. Any claims-related records that become encompassed by a document preservation order may be retained longer (
Safeguards will conform to the HHS Information Security and Privacy Program,
An individual seeking access to a record about him or her in this system should write to tbe System Manager indicated above, who will require the individual's name and particulars necessary to distinguish between records on subject individuals with the same name, such as NPI or TIN. The requestor should also reasonably specify the record(s) to which access is sought. (These procedures are in accordance with Department regulation 45 CFR 5b.5(a)(2)).
Any subject individual may request that his record be corrected or amended if he believes that the record is not accurate, timely, complete, or relevant or necessary to accomplish a Department function. A subject individual making a request to amend or correct his record shall address his request to the responsible System Manager as stated above, in writing. The subject individual shall specify in each request: (I) The system of records from which the record is retrieved; (2) The particular record which he is seeking to correct or amend; (3) Whether he is seeking an addition to or a deletion or substitution of the record; and, (4) His reasons for requesting correction or amendment of the record. (These procedures are in accordance with Department regulation 45 CFR Sb.7).
Individuals wishing to know if this system contains records about them should write to the System Manager indicated above and follow the same instructions under Record Access Procedures.
None.
None.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of modified systems of records.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposes to modify all of its systems of records to add two security-related routine uses which are needed to improve federal agencies' ability to detect and address actual and suspected breaches of personally identifiable information (PII) in Privacy Act systems of records. The routine uses are explained in the Supplementary Information section of this notice.
This notice will become effective 30 days after publication, unless the Department makes changes based on comments received. Written comments should be submitted on or before the effective date.
The public should address written comments to Beth Kramer, HHS Privacy Act Officer, by mail or email, at
General questions may be submitted to Beth Kramer, HHS Privacy Act Officer, by mail or email, at
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), at subsection (b)(3), requires each agency to publish, for public notice and comment, routine uses describing any disclosures of information about an individual that the agency intends to make from a Privacy Act system of records without the individual's prior written consent, other than those which are authorized directly in the Privacy Act at subsections (b)(1)-(2) and (b)(4)-(12). The Privacy Act defines “routine use” at subsection (a)(7) to mean a disclosure for a purpose compatible with the purpose for which the record was collected.
In accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-17-12, issued January 3, 2017, titled “Preparing for and Responding to a Breach of Personally Identifiable Information,” HHS is adding the following two routine uses to all of its system of records notices (SORNs) to authorize HHS to disclose information from each system of records when necessary to obtain assistance with a suspected or confirmed breach of PII or to assist another agency in its response to a breach. The first routine use is a revised version of a routine use prescribed in 2007, in former OMB Memorandum M-07-16. The second routine use is new:
“To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) HHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) HHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, HHS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.”
“To another federal agency or federal entity, when HHS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.”
Both routine uses are compatible with the purposes for which PII is collected in the affected systems of records, because individuals whose PII is included in any federal record system
• The Privacy Act, which requires that PII be secured against potential misuse by unauthorized persons (
• The Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA), enacted as Title III of the E-Government Act of 2002 (
Adding these routine uses would constitute a significant change to the affected systems of records; therefore, HHS has provided a report on the establishment of the routine uses to OMB and Congress in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r).
For the reasons set forth above, the following two routine uses are added to all HHS systems of records listed in the tables at the end of this Notice, and will be effective upon completion of the public comment period provided in this Notice. The first routine use will replace any previously-published version of that routine use:
To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) HHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) HHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, HHS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
To another federal agency or federal entity, when HHS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
See below table for the publication history of each affected SORN.
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, which requires 60 days for public comment on proposed information collection projects, the Indian Health Service (IHS) invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the information collection Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 0917-XXXX, titled, Information Security Ticketing and Incident Reporting. This proposed information collection project was recently published in the
March 16, 2018. Your comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having full effect if received within 30 days of the date of this publication.
Send your comments and suggestions regarding the proposed information collection contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for IHS.
To request additional information, please contact Evonne Bennett-Barnes by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The IHS Office of Information Technology is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the PRA of 1995. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (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
IHS is responsible for maintaining an information security program that provides protection for information collected or maintained by or on behalf of the Agency, and protection for information systems used or operated by the Agency or by another organization on behalf of the Agency.
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice and request for comments. Request for extension of approval.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Indian Health Service (IHS) is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for an extension of a previously approved collection of information titled, “IHS Loan Repayment Program (LRP)” (OMB Control Number 0917-0014), which expires July 31, 2018. This proposed information collection project was recently published in the
A copy of the supporting statement is available at
March 16, 2018. Your comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having full effect if received within 30 days of the date of this publication.
Send your comments and suggestions regarding the proposed information collection contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for IHS.
To request additional information, please contact Evonne Bennett-Barnes by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The IHS is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the PRA of 1995. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies as required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A) concerning the proposed collection of information to: (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; (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 collection techniques of other forms of information technology,
Any health professional wishing to have their health education loans repaid may apply to the IHS LRP. A two-year contract obligation is signed by both parties, and the individual agrees to work at an eligible Indian health program location and provide health services to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals.
The information collected via the on-line application from individuals is analyzed and a score is given to each applicant. This score will determine which applicants will be awarded each fiscal year. The administrative scoring system assigns a score to the geographic location according to vacancy rates for that fiscal year and also considers whether the location is in an isolated area. When an applicant accepts employment at a location, the applicant in turn “picks-up” the score of that location.
There are no Capital Costs, Operating Costs, and/or Maintenance Costs to report.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(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.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee and its Working Groups will meet to discuss matters relating to medical certification determinations for issuance of licenses, certificates of registry, and merchant mariners' documents, medical standards and guidelines for the physical qualifications of operators of commercial vessels, medical examiner education, and medical research. The meetings will be open to the public.
The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee and its working groups are scheduled to meet on Tuesday, March 6, 2018, and on Wednesday, March 7, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. These meetings may adjourn early if the Committee has completed its business.
The meetings will be held at Vanderbilt University in the Sarratt Student Center, Room 216/220, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, TN 37212 (
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the Alternate Designated Federal Officer as soon as possible using the contact information provided in the
Mr. Davis Breyer, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1445, fax 202-372-8382 or
Notice of this meeting is pursuant with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5 United States Code Appendix.
The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee Meeting is authorized by section 210 of the U.S.
The agenda for the March 6, 2018, meeting is as follows:
(1) The full Committee will meet briefly to discuss the Working Groups' business/task statements, which are listed under paragraph 2(a)-(b) below.
(2) Working Groups will separately address the following task statements which are available for viewing at
(a) Task statement 16-24, requesting recommendations on appropriate diets and wellness for mariners while aboard merchant vessels; and
(b) Task statement 17-26, Input to Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations-Executive Orders 13771 and 13783.
(3) Public comment period.
(4) Reports of Working Groups. At the end of the day, the Working Groups will report to the full Committee on what was accomplished in their meetings. The full Committee will not take action on these reports on this date. Any official action taken as a result of these Working Group meetings will be taken on day two of the meeting.
(5) Adjournment of meeting.
The agenda for the March 7, 2018 meeting is as follows:
(1) Introduction.
(2) Designated Federal Officer announcements.
(3) Remarks from U.S. Coast Guard Leadership.
(4) Swearing in of newly appointed Committee members.
(5) Roll call of Committee members and determination of a quorum.
(6) Reports from the following Working Groups:
(a) Task statement 16-24, requesting recommendations on appropriate diets and wellness for mariners while aboard merchant vessels; and
(b) Task statement 17-26, Input to Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations-Executive Orders 13771 and 13783.
(7) Other items for discussion:
(a) Report on National Maritime Center activities from the National Maritime Center Commanding Officer;
(8) Public comment period.
(9) Discussion of Working Group recommendations.
The Committee will review the information presented on each issue, deliberate on any recommendations presented by the Working Groups, approve/formulate recommendations and close any completed tasks. Official action on these recommendations may be taken on this date.
(10) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.
(11) Adjournment of meeting.
A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at
A public comment period will be held during each Working Group and full Committee meeting concerning matters being discussed.
Please note that the meeting may adjourn early if the work is completed.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, 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 a new information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning post disaster research on the impacts on survivors of disasters including historically underserved communities in disasters such as the 2017 Hurricanes: Harvey, Irma, and Maria.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2018.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Jacqueline Snelling, Senior Advisor, U.S. Department of Homeland Security/FEMA/National Preparedness Directorate, Individual and Community Preparedness Division, Washington, DC 20472-3630,
The Stafford Act, Title VI, Emergency Preparedness (42 U.S.C. 5195-5195(a)) identifies the purpose of emergency preparedness “for the protection of life and property in the United States from hazards.” It directs that the Federal Government “provide necessary direction, coordination, and guidance” as authorized for a comprehensive emergency preparedness system for all hazards. Emergency preparedness is defined as all “activities and measures designed or undertaken to prepare or minimize the effects of a hazard upon the civilian population . . . .” The “conduct of research” is among the measures to be undertaken in preparation for hazards.
The FEMA Strategic Plan 2014-2018 references FEMA priorities for preparing individuals in Priority #1, to achieve a survivor-centric mission where “Individuals and communities know the steps to take, have the tools required, and take appropriate actions, before, during, and after disasters, and in Priority #3, to better prepare survivors and bystanders.
Presidential Policy Directive—8 (PPD-8) directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to “coordinate a comprehensive campaign to build and sustain national preparedness, including public outreach and community-based and private sector programs to enhance national resilience, the provision of Federal financial assistance, preparedness efforts by the Federal Government, and national research and development efforts.”
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of application deadline.
In this notice, the Office of Self-Governance (OSG) establishes a March 1, 2018, deadline for Indian Tribes/consortia to submit completed applications to begin participation in the Tribal self-governance program in fiscal year 2019 or calendar year 2019.
Completed application packages must be received by the Director, Office of Self-Governance, by March 1, 2018.
Application packages for inclusion in the applicant pool should be sent to Sharee M. Freeman, Director, Office of Self-Governance, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 2071-MIB, Washington, DC 20240.
Dr. Kenneth D. Reinfeld, Office of Self-Governance, Telephone (703) 390-6551.
Under the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-413), as amended by the Fiscal Year 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104-208), and 25 CFR 1000.15(a), the Director, Office of Self-Governance may select up to 50 additional participating Tribes/consortia per year for the Tribal self-governance program and negotiate and enter into a written funding agreement with each participating Tribe. The Act mandates that the Secretary of the Interior submit copies of the funding agreements at least 90 days before the proposed effective date to the appropriate committees of the Congress and to each Tribe that is served by the Bureau of Indian Affairs' agency that is serving the Tribe that is a party to the funding agreement. Initial negotiations with a Tribe/consortium located in a region and/or agency which has not previously been involved with self-governance negotiations will take approximately 2 months from start to finish. Agreements for an October 1 to September 30 funding year need to be signed and submitted by July 1. Agreements for a January 1 to December 31 funding year need to be signed and submitted by October 1.
The regulations at 25 CFR 1000.10 to 1000.31 will be used to govern the application and selection process for Tribes/consortia to begin their participation in the Tribal self-governance program in fiscal year 2019 and calendar year 2019. Applicants should be guided by the requirements in these subparts in preparing their applications. Copies of these subparts may be obtained from the information contact person identified in this notice.
Tribes/consortia wishing to be considered for participation in the Tribal self-governance program in fiscal year 2019 or calendar year 2019 must respond to this notice, except for those Tribes/consortia which are: (1) Currently involved in negotiations with the Department; or (2) one of the 123 Tribal entities with signed agreements.
This information collection is authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0143, Tribal Self-Governance Program, which expires December 31, 2019.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of reservation proclamation.
This notice informs the public that the Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs proclaimed approximately 121.01 acres, more or less, an addition to the reservation of the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi of Michigan on November 24, 2017.
Ms. Sharlene M. Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1849 C Street NW, MS-4642-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, telephone (202) 208-3615.
This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual.
A proclamation was issued according to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984; 25 U.S.C. 5110) for the lands described below. These lands are proclaimed to be part of Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Reservation, Calhoun County, Michigan.
The Northeast
The above described lands contain a total of 121.01 acres, more or less, which are subject to all valid rights, reservations, rights-of-way, and easements of record.
This proclamation does not affect title to the lands described above, nor does it affect any valid existing easements for public roads, highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines or any other
25 U.S.C. 5110.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice announces the extension of the Class III gaming compact between the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota.
This compact takes effect on February 14, 2018.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
An extension to an existing tribal-state Class III gaming compact does not require approval by the Secretary if the extension does not modify any other terms of the compact. 25 CFR 293.5. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota have reached an agreement to extend the expiration date of their existing Tribal-State Class III gaming compact to July 27, 2018. This publishes notice of the new expiration date of the compact.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Interior.
Notice.
This notice announces the second meeting of the Royalty Policy Committee (Committee). This meeting is open to the public.
The Committee meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 28, 2018, in Houston, TX, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time.
The Committee meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel North Houston located at 425 North Sam Houston Parkway East, Houston, Texas 77060. Members of the public may attend in person or view documents and presentations under discussion via WebEx at
Mr. Chris Mentasti, Office of Natural Resources Revenue at (202) 513-0614 or email to
The U.S. Department of the Interior established the Committee on April 21, 2017, under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior and regulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the Committee is to ensure that the public receives the full value of resources produced from Federal lands. The duties of the Committee are solely advisory in nature. More information about the Committee, including its charter, is available at
Whenever possible, we encourage those participating by telephone to gather in conference rooms in order to share teleconference lines. Please plan to dial into the meeting and/or log into WebEx at least 10-15 minutes prior to the scheduled start time in order to avoid possible technical difficulties. We will accommodate individuals with special needs whenever possible. If you require special assistance (such as an interpreter for the hearing impaired), please notify Interior staff in advance of the meeting at 202-513-0614 or email to
We will post the minutes from these proceedings on the Committee website at
Members of the public may choose to make a public comment during the designated time for public comments. Members of the public may also choose to submit written comments by mailing them to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Attention: RPC, 1849 C Street NW, MS 5134, Washington, DC 20240. You also can email your written comments to
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Rovi Corporation; Rovi Guides, Inc., Rovi Technologies Corporation; and Veveo, Inc. on February 08, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain digital video receivers and related hardware and software components. The complaint names as respondents: Comcast Corporation of Philadelphia, PA; Comcast Cable Communications, LLC of Philadelphia, PA; Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC of Philadelphia, PA; Comcast Business Communications, LLC of Philadelphia, PA; Comcast Holdings Corporation of Philadelphia, PA; and Comcast Shared Services, LLC of Chicago, IL. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3294) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows:
All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW, Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW, Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975.
The National Council on Disability published a notice in the
Anne Sommers, NCD, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (V), 202-272-2074 (TTY).
In the
The Council will receive agency updates on policy projects, finance, governance, and other business. The Council will receive an update on the work done to date for its 2018 Progress Report to Congress and the President, which this year will focus on monitoring and enforcement efforts at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Access Board, and the U.S. Department of Labor. The Council will next release its latest report titled, “U.S. Foreign Policy and Disability 2017: Progress and Promise” with a summary of the report followed by a respondent panel. The Council will then revisit its policy project proposals from October 2017 in summaries of each proposal. Following this recap, the Council will hear from representatives from the U.S. Department of Justice Disability Rights Division, who have been asked to speak about recent ADA regulation rescissions as well as their work in the area of service animals. Following that presentation, the Council will receive public comments on which of the Council's proposed policy projects are of greatest priority to the disability community (including immigration; institutionalization following natural disasters; organ donation policies; a technology bill of rights; autonomous vehicle technology; guardianship due process concerns; and any others that may be raised during the course of the earlier summary of proposals).
Following the public comment, the Council will discuss and vote on the slate of projects it will move forward for external funding opportunities and internal work of staff.
In the
The times provided below are approximations for when each agenda item is anticipated to be discussed (all times Eastern):
In the
To better facilitate NCD's public comment, any individual interested in providing public comment is asked to register his or her intent to provide comment in advance by sending an email to
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice; request for comment.
The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) is soliciting public comments on the proposed information collection described below. The proposed information collection
Comments on this information collection must be submitted on or before April 16, 2018.
Submit comments by email to Mr. Joel Schwartz, Chief Guidelines Officer, at
NEH will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 35). This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies. NEH is particularly interested in comments which help the agency to: (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 electronic submissions of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection request. These comments will also become a matter of public record.
National Science Foundation.
Notice and request for comments.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the National Science Foundation (NSF) is inviting the general public or other Federal agencies to comment on this proposed continuing information collection.
Written comments on this notice must be received by April 16, 2018, to be assured consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. Send comments to address below.
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite W18200, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to
The Directorate for Engineering (ENG) requests of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) renewal of this clearance that will allow NSF-ENG to improve the rigor of our surveys for evaluations and program monitoring, as well as to initiate new data collections to monitor the immediate, intermediate and long-term outcomes of our investments by periodically surveying the grantees and their students involved in the research. The clearance will allow any program in the Directorate for Engineering at NSF to rigorously develop, test, and implement survey instruments and methodologies.
Some NSF-ENG programs regularly conduct a variety of data collection activities that include routine program monitoring, program evaluations, and education-related data collections from federally funded institutions of higher education. The primary objective of this clearance is to allow other programs in NSF-ENG to collect outcome and output data from grantees, their partners and students, which will enable the evaluation of the impact of its investments in engineering research over time. With that purpose, this clearance will allow us to use a bank of approved question items as needed as long as the resources consumed to do not exceed this request. The second related objective is to improve our questionnaires and/or data collection procedures through pilot tests and other survey methods used in these activities
In doing so, this request seeks approval for multiple data collections that have similar elements and purposes and will provide essential information for program monitoring purposes through multiple possible methods of collection. Data collected by ENG program outcome monitoring systems will be used for program planning, management, evaluation, and audit purposes. Summaries of output and outcome monitoring data are used to respond to queries from Congress, the public, NSF's external merit reviewers who serve as advisors, including Committees of Visitors (COVs), and NSF's Office of the Inspector General. These data are needed for effective administration, program and project monitoring, evaluation, strategic reviews and for measuring attainment of NSF's program and strategic goals, as identified by the President's Accountable Government Initiative, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization Act of 2010, and NSF's Strategic Plan.
Outcome and output monitoring data represented in this collection is complementary to the data collected in the RPPR both with respect to type of questions and indicators (content) and timeliness of the collection. All questions asked are questions that are NOT included in the final or annual report and the intention is to ask them even beyond the period of performance on voluntary basis in order to capture impacts of the research that occur beyond the life of the award. Questionnaire items fall into the category of general items that could be used across programs as well as items of interest to a particular division. We are seeking to collect additional information from the grantees about the outcomes of their research that go above and beyond the standard reporting requirements used by the NSF and could span a period of up to 10 years after the award.
The six (6) divisions or offices in NSF-ENG which oversee multiple programs are included in this request. They are designed to assist in management of specific programs, divisions, or multi-agency initiatives and to serve as data resources for current and future program evaluations.
ENG-funded projects could include research opportunities and mentoring for educators, scholars, and university students, as well as outreach programs that help stir the imagination of K-12 students, often with a focus on groups underrepresented in science and engineering. The surveys to be tested and implemented would be designed to assist in management of specific division programs, divisions, or multi-agency initiatives and to serve as data resources for current and future program evaluations.
This data collection effort will enable program officers to longitudinally monitor outputs and outcomes given the unique goals and purpose of their programs. This is very important to enable appropriate and accurate evidence-based management of the programs and to determine whether or not the specific goals of the programs are being met.
Grantees will be invited to submit this information on a periodic basis to support performance review and the management of ENG grants by ENG officers. Once the survey tool for a specific program is tested, ENG grantees will be invited to submit these indicators to NSF via data collection methods that include but are not limited to online surveys, interviews, focus groups, phone interviews, etc. These indicators are both quantitative and descriptive and may include, for example, the characteristics of project personnel and students; sources of complementary cash and in-kind support to the ENG project; characteristics of industrial and/or other sector participation; research activities; education activities; knowledge transfer activities; patents, licenses; publications; descriptions of significant advances and other outcomes of the ENG-funded effort.
Below is an example that shows how the hour burden was estimated for the monitoring system.
The estimated average number of annual respondents is 5,235, with an estimated annual response burden of 5,133.75 hours. For post-award monitoring systems, most divisions expect to collect data at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years post-award, in order to have the best chance of capturing the more immediate outcomes expected by 1-2 years post-award, intermediate outcomes at 5 years post-award, and long-term outcomes/impacts at 10 years post award. These four (4) data collections spread over the span of 10 years; this averages to 0.25 data collections/year. For the IIP division, many awards are made in translational research, such that we might expect a shorter and more condensed timeline of outcomes and impacts. Thus, some programs may wish to collect data quarterly for the first two years of the award, and then once annually at 5 and 10 years post-award. The annual number of responses for the first 2 years post award is included in this table.
For life-of-award monitoring, the data collection burden to awardees will be limited to no more than 2 hours of the respondents' time in each instance.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Scoping study; public meeting and request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is conducting a very low-level radioactive waste (VLLW) scoping study to identify possible options to improve and strengthen the NRC's regulatory framework for the disposal of the anticipated large volumes of VLLW associated with the decommissioning of nuclear power plants and material sites, as well as waste that might be generated by alternative waste streams that may be created by operating reprocessing facilities or a radiological event. The NRC is seeking stakeholder input and perspectives on this action. Respondents are asked to consider specific questions posed by the NRC staff and other Federal agencies in this notice when preparing their responses.
Submit comments by May 15, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Maurice Heath, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3137; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0026 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please reference Docket ID NRC-2018-0026 in your comment submission. If your comment contains proprietary or sensitive information, please contact the individual listed in the
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted 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 submissions into ADAMS.
In 2007, following developments in the national program for Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) disposal, as well as changes in the regulatory environment, the NRC conducted a strategic assessment of its regulatory program for LLRW. The results of this assessment were published in late 2007 in SECY-07-0180, “Strategic Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Regulatory Program” (ADAMS Accession No. ML071350299). The strategic assessment identified the need to coordinate with other agencies on consistency in regulating LAW disposal and to develop guidance that summarizes disposition options for low-end materials and waste.
In 2016, the NRC staff conducted a programmatic assessment of the LLRW program to identify and prioritize tasks that the NRC could undertake to ensure a stable, reliable, and adaptable regulatory framework for effective LLRW management. The results of this assessment were published in October 2016, in SECY-16-0118, “Programmatic Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Regulatory Program” (ADAMS Accession No. ML15243A192). The programmatic assessment identified the need to perform a LAW scoping study as a medium priority.
In International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safety Guide No. GSG-1, “Classification of Radioactive Waste” (
The LAW scoping study, later renamed the VLLW Scoping Study, will combine several tasks initially defined in the 2007 strategic assessment into one. These tasks include: (1) Coordinating with other agencies on consistency in regulating LAW; (2) developing guidance that summarizes disposition options for low-end materials and waste; and (3) promulgating a rule for disposal of LAW. As part of the scoping study, the NRC will also evaluate regulatory options that would define the conditions under which LAW, including mixed waste, could be disposed of in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C hazardous waste facilities.
Consistent with SECY-16-0118, the NRC is conducting this VLLW Scoping Study, which will consider disposal of waste as defined by 10 CFR part 61 as the isolation, by emplacement in a land disposal facility, of radioactive wastes from the biosphere that is inhabited by man and that contains his food chains. As such, the scoping study will not address non-disposal related disposition pathways including unrestricted release, clearance, reuse, or recycle of materials.
The purpose of the VLLW Scoping Study is to identify possible options to improve and strengthen the NRC's regulatory framework for the disposal of the anticipated large volumes of VLLW associated with the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, and waste that might be generated by alternative waste streams that may be created by fuel reprocessing or a radiological event. Additionally, the NRC plans to evaluate regulatory options that could define the conditions under which VLLW, including mixed waste, could be disposed of in RCRA hazardous waste facilities.
The NRC is interested in receiving comments from a broad range of stakeholders, including professional organizations, licensees, Agreement States, and members of the public. Likewise, respondents to this request with insight into relevant international initiatives are invited to provide their perspectives regarding international best practices related to VLLW disposal or other experiences that the NRC staff should consider. All comments will be considered and the results of the scoping study will be documented in a publicly available report, which will inform the Commission of the staff's recommendation for addressing VLLW disposal.
All comments that are to receive consideration in the VLLW Scoping Study must be submitted electronically or in writing as indicated in the
1. The United States does not have a formal regulatory definition of VLLW. What should the NRC consider in developing its own regulatory definition for VLLW? Is there another definition of VLLW that should be considered? Provide a basis for your response.
2. The existing regulatory framework within 10 CFR 61.55 divides low-level radioactive waste into four categories: Class A, Class B, Class C, and Greater Than Class C. Should the NRC revise the waste classification system to establish a new category for VLLW? What criteria should NRC consider in establishing the boundary between Class A and VLLW categories?
3. The NRC's alternative disposal request guidance entitled, “Review, Approval, and Documentation of Low-Activity Waste Disposals in Accordance with 10 CFR 20.2002 and 10 CFR 40.13(a),” which is undergoing a revision, allows for alternative disposal methods that are different from those already defined in the regulations and is most often used for burial of waste in hazardous or solid waste landfills permitted under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Should the NRC expand the existing guidance to include VLLW disposal or consider the development of a new guidance for VLLW disposal? Why or why not?
4. If the NRC were to create a new waste category for VLLW in 10 CFR part 61, what potential compatibility issues related to the approval of VLLW disposal by NRC Agreement States need to be considered and addressed? How might defining VLLW affect NRC Agreement State regulatory programs in terms of additional responsibilities or resources?
5. Following the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, states formed regional compacts for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. If the NRC were to create a new waste category for VLLW, does it fall within regional compact authority to control VLLW management and disposal? How might defining VLLW affect regional compacts in terms of additional responsibilities or resources?
6. Environmental Protection Agency-imposed waste analysis requirements for facilities that generate, treat, store, and dispose of hazardous wastes are defined in 40 CFR parts 264 through 270. How would NRC incorporate and apply waste analysis requirements for VLLW at RCRA Subtitle C and D facilities? Should the NRC impose concentration limits and/or treatment standards for VLLW disposal?
7. Are there any unintended consequences associated with developing a VLLW waste category?
8. What analytical methods/tools should be used to assess the risk of disposing of VLLW at licensed LLW disposal facilities or RCRA Subtitle C and D facilities? (
9. How should economic factors be considered in the VLLW Scoping Study?
To facilitate the understanding of the public and other stakeholders of the these issues and the submission of comments, the NRC staff has scheduled a public meeting for February 22, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (EST) in the NRC's Two White Flint Auditorium at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. In addition, those wishing to participate by webinar will be able to view the presentation slides prepared by the NRC staff and electronically submit comments over the internet. Participants must register to participate in the webinar. Registration information may be found in the meeting notice at
The NRC staff will also post the meeting notice on the Federal rulemaking website at
The final agenda for the public meeting will be posted no fewer than 10 days prior to the meeting date. Those who are unable to participate in person or via webinar may choose to participate via teleconference by dialing the bridge number (800) 857-9840 and entering the pass code 4975456.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and to petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of amendments to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16, issued on October 2, 2003, and held by Florida Power and Light Company (FPL or the licensee) for the operation of St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (St. Lucie), located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida. The proposed amendments would revise the Emergency Plan for St. Lucie to adopt a limited scope of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEl) Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme for the fire-related notification of unusual event.
Submit comments by March 16, 2018. Requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by April 16, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0025 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:
•
•
•
Perry Buckberg, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1383; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0025 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0025 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.
The NRC is considering issuance of amendments to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16 issued to FPL for operation of St. Lucie, located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida.
The proposed amendment would revise the Emergency Plan for St. Lucie to adopt a limited scope of the NEI EAL scheme for the fire-related notification of unusual event. Before any issuance of the proposed license amendments, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.
The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not impact the physical configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. No actual facility equipment or accident analyses are affected by the proposed changes.
The change revises the St. Lucie fire-related unusual event EAL scheme to be consistent with the NRC endorsed EAL scheme contained in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, “Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels,” but does not alter any of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical Specifications.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The proposed change does not create any new failure modes for existing equipment or any new limiting single failures. Additionally, the proposed change does not involve a change in the methods governing normal plant operation, and all safety functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in the accident analyses. Thus, the proposed change does not adversely affect the design function or operation of any structures, systems, and components important to safety.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. The proposed change does not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-related system.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of any accident is unchanged. The proposed change will have no effect on the availability, operability, or performance of safety-related systems and components. The proposed change will not adversely affect the operation of plant equipment or the function of equipment assumed in the accident analysis.
The proposed amendment does not involve changes to any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings. The changes do not adversely impact plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (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 of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the 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
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
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 by July 31, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (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, at 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 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,
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated January 31, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On December 22, 2017, the Depository Trust Corporation (“DTC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-DTC-2017-024, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would amend DTC's Settlement Service Guide (“Guide”)
DTC requires Participants to contribute an aggregate amount of $1.15 billion to the Participants Fund.
DTC sets the total value of the Core Fund at $450 million, which is collected through two underlying funds: The Base Fund and the Incremental Fund.
DTC sets the total value of the Liquidity Fund at $700 million.
The aggregate amount that a Participant is required to contribute to the Participants Fund is the Participant's Required Participants Fund Deposit (hereinafter, “Required Deposit”).
A Participant's deposits to the Participants Fund, including both Required Deposits and Voluntary Deposits, if any, are considered the Participant's Actual Participants Fund Deposits (hereinafter, “Actual Deposits”).
DTC calculates the Required Deposit of each Participant on a daily basis.
Notwithstanding the above, DTC will require a Participant to satisfy an intra-month Deficiency if, when considering the Reference Amount, described below, the Deficiency meets or exceeds either the Standard Threshold or the Watch List Threshold, also described below.
The Reference Amount is the most recent Required Deposit amount that the Participant deposited to the Participants Fund, as compared to the Required Deposit amount that DTC calculates on a daily basis but does not necessarily require an intra-month deposit.
The Standard Threshold for determining when a Participant must satisfy an intra-month Deficiency is when (1) the difference between the Participant's current Required Deposit calculation and the Reference Amount equals or exceeds $500,000 and (2) the difference is at least a 25 percent increase over the Reference Amount.
The Watch List Threshold for determining when a Participant must satisfy an intra-month Deficiency is when (1) the Participant is on DTC's “Watch List”
The Guide currently does not define the Reference Amount used for the purpose of determining the Standard Threshold and Watch List Threshold, nor does the Guide describe the Watch List Threshold.
DTC also proposes to modify the Guide to (1) revise and re-order text for enhanced readability and flow of content, (2) add subheadings, (3) revise informal references to terms already defined in the Rules to use the actual defined terms, and (4) make grammatical corrections.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules of the clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible.
By providing Participants with such enhanced transparency, the proposal is designed to enable Participants to better anticipate when an intra-month deposit may be necessary. This increased foresight would help improve the likelihood that Participants are ready and able to make the deposit. As such, the proposal would help ensure that the Participants Fund is adequately funded and, thus, the appropriate amount of Actual Deposits is available to DTC, if it should need to manage a Participant default. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change would help assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of DTC or for which it is responsible, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act also requires, in part, that the rules of the clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) under the Act requires DTC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide sufficient information to enable Participants to identify and evaluate the risks and material costs they incur by participating in DTC.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 6, 2017, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider and take action on the Exchange's proposed rule change.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 18, 2017, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”), and National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) (collectively, “Clearing Agencies”), each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the loss allocation rules and make other changes (SR-DTC-2017-022, SR-FICC-2017-022, and SR-NSCC-2017-018), respectively (“Proposed Rule Changes”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the Proposed Rule Changes. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the Proposed Rule Changes so that it has sufficient time to consider and take action on the Proposed Rule Changes.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges (“Fee Schedule”) to (i) modify the credits the Exchange provides for routing certain orders to the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”); (ii) delete a pricing tier; and (iii) delete certain obsolete dates from the Fee Schedule. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective February 1, 2018. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule, as described below, to (i) modify the credits the Exchange provides for routing certain orders to the NYSE; (ii) delete a pricing tier, the Large Order Tier; and (iii) delete certain obsolete dates from the Fee Schedule. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes on February 1, 2018.
A PO Order is designed to route to the primary listing market of the security underlying the order (
In a recent rule filing, the NYSE modified its fee structure for equities transactions by decreasing the level of rebate that it provides to its members that provide liquidity from $0.0014 per share to $0.0012 per share.
In April 2017, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to adopt a new pricing tier to incentivize large order flow (“Large Order Tier”).
In September 2017, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to adopt a second way by which an ETP Holder or Market Maker could qualify for the Step-Up Tier.
In March 2017, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to adopt the Exchange Traded Fund Liquidity Provider Program to incentivize ETP Holders and Market Makers (collectively, the “ELPs”) to provide displayed liquidity to the NYSE Arca Book in NYSE Arca-listed Tape B Securities (“ELP Program”).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to routing credits for PO Orders that provide liquidity to the NYSE are reasonable because the Exchange's credits for routing an order that does not rest on the Exchange's order book, but rather is designed to route to the primary listing market on arrival, are closely related to the NYSE's non-tier rebate for its members for providing liquidity, and the proposed change is consistent with the recent change to the NYSE Price List to lower its non-tier rebate for providing liquidity. While the proposed change would result in a decrease in the per share credit for PO Orders routed to the NYSE that provide liquidity to the NYSE, the rebate that the Exchange would provide to ETP Holders is competitive with the rate that NYSE provides to its members for providing liquidity and would maintain the same relationship between the rebate provided by the venue to which the PO Order is routed and the fees charged by the Exchange for such orders. Further, the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the rebate would apply uniformly across pricing tiers and all similarly situated ETP Holders would be subject to the same credit.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to delete obsolete pricing tiers from the Fee Schedule because ETP Holders and Market Makers have not increased their activity to qualify for the Large Order Tier as significantly as the Exchange anticipated they would. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to eliminate the Large Order Tier because, as proposed, the pricing tier would be eliminated entirely—ETP Holders and Market Makers would no longer be able to qualify for this pricing tier. This aspect of the proposed rule change would result in the removal of obsolete text from the Fee Schedule and therefore add greater clarity to the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to delete reference to obsolete dates from the Fee Schedule. The Step Up Tier and the ELP Program adopted specific requirements that were applicable for certain months in 2017. Given the months during which the lower requirements were applicable have passed, the Exchange believes deletion of the outdated language will bring clarity to the Fee Schedule.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Because
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 21, 2017, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-DTC-2017-023, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would modify DTC's Distributions Service Guide (“Guide”)
On a daily basis, DTC collects and allocates distributions on securities held by DTC.
Upon the receipt of a PPA, affected Participants would need to make adjustments to their affected customers' accounts for any misapplied principal or income and any associated interest.
Currently, DTC does not accept a request for a PPA, regardless of whether it would be a Debit PPA or a Credit PPA, beyond 90 calendar days after the initial payment date.
DTC proposes to extend the 90-day cutoff for PPA Credits to one year.
The proposed rule change would not alter the timeline for Debit PPAs. DTC states that Debit PPAs create significant credit risk exposure for Participants, customers, and investors as more time passes.
DTC also proposes some technical changes to the Guide. Specifically, DTC would modify the Guide to (i) remove an inaccurate statement that PPA adjustments appear on Participant statements—such adjustments do not appear on Participant statements; (ii) add the word “principal” to the list of payments that may be subject to a PPA—for consistency with the term “P&I;” and (iii) remove an incorrect reference to CMO/ABS securities.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules of the clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
The Commission also finds that DTC's technical changes to the Guide would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section (1)(a)(iii) of the Fee Schedule to modify the volume threshold calculation methodology, in connection with the additional $0.02 per contract rebate offered to Members
The Exchange currently offers Members the opportunity to qualify for an additional $0.02 per contract rebate in connection with certain types of executions on the Exchange if the Member or its Affiliates
The Exchange proposes to modify the volume threshold calculation methodology in connection with that additional $0.02 per contract rebate. The Exchange proposes to change the volume threshold calculation methodology from a fixed number of contracts per month (1,500,000 per month) to a percentage of national customer volume in multiply-listed options classes listed on MIAX Options per month. The proposed threshold is above 0.60% of national customer volume in multiply-listed options classes listed on MIAX Options during the relevant month. National customer volume is the total volume reported by the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in MIAX Options classes in the “customer” range. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that any Member or its Affiliate that qualifies for Priority Customer Rebate Program volume tiers 3 or higher will be credited an additional $0.02 per contract for each Priority Customer order executed in the PRIME Auction as a PRIME Agency Order over a threshold of above 0.60% of national customer volume in multiply-listed options classes listed on MIAX Options during the relevant month.
There are no other changes to this rebate program. In particular, the Exchange currently excludes from the calculation certain types of orders, and those same types of orders will continue to be excluded using the new calculation methodology. Specifically, the Exchange excludes orders executed as QCC and cQCC Orders, mini-options, Priority Customer-to-Priority Customer Orders, C2C and cC2C Orders, cPRIME Agency Orders, PRIME and cPRIME AOC Responses, PRIME and cPRIME Contra-side Orders, PRIME and cPRIME Orders for which both the Agency and Contra-side Order are Priority Customers, and executions related to contracts that are routed to one or more exchanges in connection with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan referenced in MIAX Options Rule 1400. The Exchange will continue to exclude those same orders from this rebate program. The Exchange further notes that these exclusions are identical to the exclusions that apply to other aspects of the Priority Customer Rebate Program as well. There is also no change to the additional rebate amount of $0.02 per contract.
The Exchange believes that changing the volume threshold calculation methodology from a fixed number of contracts per month (1,500,000 per month) to a percentage of national customer volume in multiply-listed options classes listed on MIAX Options per month (above 0.60% of national customer volume in multiply-listed options classes listed on MIAX Options during the relevant month) will result in a threshold that is more consistently proportional to national customer volume executed during the relevant month, as actual national customer volume often changes on a month-to-month basis. Since the Priority Customer Rebate Program is designed to encourage Members to execute greater Priority Customer volume on the Exchange, having a more consistent proportional measure in relation to the number of national customer volume executed in a given month will better align this particular rebate program to the core purpose of the Priority Customer Rebate Program. In turn, the Exchange believes that this change will further incentivize Members to execute a greater number of Priority Customer orders in the Exchange's PRIME Auction mechanism.
The Exchange believes that increased PRIME and Priority Customer volume will attract more liquidity to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants. Increased PRIME and Priority Customer order flow should
The credits paid out as part of the Priority Customer Rebate Program are drawn from the general revenues of the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
The Exchange believes that changing the volume threshold calculation methodology from a fixed number of contracts per month (1,500,000 per month) to a percentage of national customer volume in multiply-listed options classes listed on MIAX Options per month (above 0.60% of national customer volume in multiply-listed options classes listed on MIAX Options during the relevant month) in the Priority Customer Rebate Program for the additional $0.02 rebate for Priority Customer orders submitted into PRIME as PRIME Agency is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that it is fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The rebate program is reasonably designed because it incentivizes providers of Priority Customer order flow to send order flow to the Exchange and, upon meeting certain volume criteria, enables them to receive the credit in a manner that enables the Exchange to improve its overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market participants. The proposed change to the volume threshold calculation methodology is fair, equitable, and not unreasonably discriminatory because they will apply equally to all Priority Customer orders submitted as a PRIME Agency Order. All similarly situated Priority Customer orders are subject to the same rebate and volume calculations, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. In addition, the proposed volume threshold calculation is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because, while only Priority Customer order flow that is submitted as a PRIME Agency Order over the proposed threshold qualifies for the rebate, an increase in overall Priority Customer order flow will bring greater volume and liquidity, which benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. Market participants want to trade with Priority Customer order flow. To the extent Priority Customer order flow is increased by the proposal, market participants will increasingly compete for the opportunity to trade on the Exchange including sending more orders and providing narrower and larger sized quotations in the effort to trade with such Priority Customer order flow.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change modifying the volume threshold calculation methodology for the $0.02 rebate from a fixed number of contracts per month (1,500,000 per month) to a percentage of national customer volume in multiply-listed options classes listed on MIAX Options per month (above 0.60% of national customer volume in multiply-listed options classes listed on MIAX Options during the relevant month) is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it promotes just and equitable principles of trade since the Exchange believes that it will result in a threshold that is more consistently proportional to national customer volume executed during the relevant month, as actual national customer volume often changes on a month-to-month basis. To the extent Member volume in Priority Customer orders and PRIME Agency Orders is increased by the proposal, market participants will increasingly compete for the opportunity to trade on the Exchange which could result in more liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that offering all such market participants the opportunity to lower transaction fees by incentivizing them to transact Priority Customer order flow in turn benefits all market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with robust competition by increasing the intermarket competition for order flow from market participants. To the extent that there is additional competitive burden on market participants without Priority Customer order flow and those market participants that are not able to aggregate order flow with Affiliates, the Exchange believes that this should incent Members to direct volume to the Exchange in order to provide additional liquidity that enhances the quality of its markets and increases the volume of contracts traded here. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity. Enhanced market quality and increased transaction volume that results from the anticipated increase in order flow directed to the Exchange will benefit all market participants and improve competition on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow. The Exchange believes that the proposal reflects this competitive environment.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change would amend the NSCC By-Laws (“By-Laws”) to (i) revise titles or offices and the powers and duties of the Board of Directors (“Board”) and certain designated officers of NSCC, (ii) revise the section describing the compensation of officers, and (iii) make certain technical changes and corrections.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In NSCC's review of the By-Laws, NSCC has identified and is proposing the following changes to the By-Laws: (i) Revising certain Board and designated officer titles or offices and updating the related powers and duties, (ii) revising the section describing the compensation of officers, and (iii) making certain technical changes and corrections. Specifically, regarding the proposed changes to the Board and designated officer titles or offices and updating the related powers and duties, NSCC is proposing to: (1) Change the title of Chairman of the Board to Non-Executive Chairman of the Board and update the related powers and duties associated with that role due to personnel changes in NSCC's management, (2) add the office of the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), combine the office of the President and the office of the Chief Executive Officer into one office (President and Chief Executive Officer) and update the related powers and duties to reflect that the two positions are now combined and are held by one individual, (3) add the office of the Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) and delete the office of the Comptroller, (4) delete the office of the Chief Operating Officer (“COO”), (5) change the title of Vice President to Executive Director and update the related powers and duties, and (6) make other changes related to certain powers and duties of the Board and various
The Rules would also be amended to incorporate by reference the By-Laws and Certificate of Incorporation of NSCC, as further described below. The following describes the proposed changes to the By-Laws and the Rules.
NSCC proposes to revise the titles or offices and update the related powers and duties of various designated officers and the Board, as further described below.
NSCC proposes to replace the title of Chairman of the Board with the title Non-Executive Chairman of the Board (“Non-Executive Chairman of the Board”). This change in title reflects that this position is now held by an individual who is not part of NSCC's management (
Certain references to either Chairman or Chairman of the Board would be revised to Non-Executive Chairman of the Board in the sections of the By-Laws that would continue to apply to the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. Specifically, the following changes would be made:
a. In current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), the references to Chairman would be revised to Non-Executive Chairman of the Board by adding the word “Non-Executive” before the second reference to Chairman in the first sentence and the phrase “of the Board” after such reference. In addition, the phrase “by the Chairman” in the first sentence of current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings) would be deleted because it would be repetitive to the language that is currently included later in this section.
b. In current Section 1.8 (Presiding Officer and Secretary), current Section 2.6 (Meetings), and current Section 5.1 (Certificates for Shares), the word “Non-Executive” would be added before each reference to the Chairman of the Board.
Certain references to Chairman of the Board in the By-Laws would be deleted because such references are in the sections of the By-Laws that only apply to members of NSCC management. Because the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board would not be a management position, such sections of the By-Laws would no longer be applicable. Specifically, the following changes would be made:
a. In current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), Chairman of the Board would be removed from the list of designated officers of NSCC.
b. In current Section 3.12 (Compensation of Officers), the references to the Chairman of the Board would also be deleted because the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board does not receive compensation and because, as further described below, this section would be revised to only address the setting of compensation for the President and CEO.
Current Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the Chairman of the Board) would be deleted and replaced by proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board). Specifically, the following changes would be made:
a. Certain powers and duties prescribed to the Chairman of the Board in current Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the Chairman of the Board) would remain with the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. Such powers and duties include: (i) Presiding over the meetings of the stockholders and of the Board at which he is present and (ii) such other powers and duties as the Board may designate. This would be set forth in proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board). Furthermore, as is similarly stated in current Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the Chairman of the Board), proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board) would state that the “performance of any such duty by the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board shall be conclusive evidence of his power to act.”
b. NSCC would also expressly include in proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board) that the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board has general supervision over the Board and its activities and would provide overall leadership to the Board. Consistent with his authority to supervise and lead the Board, NSCC proposes to assign the responsibility for carrying out the policies of the Board of Directors to the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board rather than the President (as is provided in current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President)). Furthermore, in current Section 3.6 (Powers and Duties of the Secretary), the power to assign additional powers and duties to the Secretary would be revised to replace the reference to President with Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. NSCC believes this is an appropriate responsibility for the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board to have as part of his general supervision of the Board.
c. In addition, proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board) would state that, in the absence of the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board, the presiding director, as elected by the Board, shall preside at all meetings of the stockholders and of the Board at which he or she is present. Current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) provides that, in the absence or in ability of the Chairman of the Board, the President shall preside at all meetings of shareholders and all meetings of the Board of Directors at which he is present. Pursuant to the Board of Directors of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”), The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) and NSCC Mission Statement and Charter (“Board Mission Statement and Charter”), NSCC annually elects a presiding director to preside at meetings when the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board is absent. As such, NSCC believes the proposed language described above
d. As further described below, in proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer), the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board would have the authority to designate powers and duties to the President and CEO. NSCC believes this authority to designate powers and duties to the President and CEO is within the scope of the supervisory role of the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board and therefore proposes to revise the By-Laws to expressly state that the Non-Executive Chairman has this authority.
e. In current Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors), NSCC would add the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board to the list of individuals who have the power to assign powers and duties to Managing Directors as well as make conforming changes. NSCC believes this is an appropriate responsibility for the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board to have because he has general supervision over the Board.
NSCC proposes to add the office of the CEO and combine the office of the President and the office of the CEO into one office (President and CEO) because one individual is the President and CEO. NSCC proposes to revise the By-Laws to reflect that one individual holds the office of the President and CEO, including revising the list of designated officers in current Section 3.1 (General Provisions) to include the President and CEO. While current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) provides that the President shall be the chief executive officer, current Section 3.1 (General Provisions) does not include CEO in the list of designated officer positions (President is currently included in this list). As such, NSCC would revise certain references in the By-Laws from President to President and Chief Executive Officer. Specifically, NSCC proposes to make the changes to the By-Laws that are described below.
a. In current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), current Section 1.8 (Presiding Officer and Secretary), current Section 2.6 (Meetings), current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), current Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors), current Section 3.7 (Powers and Duties of the Treasurer), and current Section 3.12 (Compensation of Officers), the words “and Chief Executive Officer” would be added after each reference to President.
b. In current Section 5.1 (Certificates for Shares), the words “the President” would be deleted and replaced by the words “President and Chief Executive Officer.”
c. Additionally, in current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), the phrase “, or by the President,” in the first sentence would be deleted because NSCC believes it is repetitive to language that appears later in the section.
Furthermore, except as otherwise described below, the responsibilities, duties and powers granted to the President that are currently described in the By-Laws would continue to remain with the President and CEO. NSCC proposes to make the following changes to the By-Laws to reflect the updated responsibilities and powers and duties that are granted to the President and CEO:
a. A portion of current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) would be deleted and replaced with proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer). The remaining portion of current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) would be included in proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer).
b. Current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) states that the President will have general supervision over the business and affairs of NSCC subject to the direction of the Board. Additionally, current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) states that the President may employ and discharge employees and agents of NSCC, except such as shall be elected or appointed by the Board, and he may delegate these powers. Similarly, proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer) would state that the President and Chief Executive Officer would have general supervision over the overall business strategy, business operations, systems, customer outreach, and risk management, control and staff functions, subject to the direction of the Board and the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. NSCC believes the additional detail provided in proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and CEO) would add clarity to the powers and duties associated with the role of President and Chief Executive Officer and would be consistent with the combined role. In addition, because the office of the COO would be eliminated (as described further below), the responsibility of general supervision over the operations of NSCC, which is designated to the COO role in current Section 3.4 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Operating Officer), would be assigned to the President and CEO.
c. Proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and CEO) would state that the President and CEO would have such other powers and perform such other duties as the Board or the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board may designate. NSCC believes this generally aligns with current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President). NSCC believes that providing the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board with this additional authority to designate powers and duties to the President and CEO is within the scope of the supervisory role of the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board.
d. As noted above, certain powers and duties listed in current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) would be removed or assigned to another position. Specifically, as noted above, the responsibility for carrying out the policies of the Board would be assigned to the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board rather than to the President and CEO. Additionally, the statement that “performance of any such duty by the President shall be conclusive evidence of his power to act” that appears in current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) would be removed as NSCC believes it would be best practice to document specific designation of powers and/or duties made by the Board or Non-Executive Chairman of the Board to the President and CEO.
e. As described above, in current Section 3.6 (Powers and Duties of the Secretary), the power to assign additional powers and duties to the Secretary would be removed from the President and granted to the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. NSCC believes this is an appropriate responsibility for the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board to have as part of his general supervision of the Board.
f. As described below, the President and Board currently have the authority to assign powers and duties to the Comptroller in current Section 3.8 (Powers and Duties of the Comptroller). Similarly, proposed Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Financial Officer) would provide that the CFO would perform such other duties as he may agree with the President and CEO and the Board.
NSCC would add the office of the CFO and assign to the CFO all of the powers and duties of the office of the chief financial officer. The CFO would, in general, have overall supervision of the financial operations of NSCC. Furthermore, references to the office of the Comptroller would be deleted. NSCC does not currently have a Comptroller nor does NSCC plan to appoint one. Therefore, NSCC believes it would be more accurate to remove all references to such position in the By-Laws. Specifically, NSCC would revise the By-Laws as described below.
a. In current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), CFO would be added and Comptroller would be removed from the list of designated officers of NSCC.
b. NSCC would add proposed Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Financial Officer). This proposed section would enumerate the powers and duties of the CFO. It would state that the CFO would have overall supervision of the financial operations of NSCC and upon request, would counsel and advise other officers of NSCC and perform other duties as agreed with the President and CEO or as determined by the Board. NSCC believes these powers and duties are appropriate for the newly created role of CFO. Proposed Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Financial Officer) would also state that the CFO would report directly to the President and CEO. NSCC believes it is appropriate for the CFO to report to the President and CEO and to specify this clear line of responsibility in the By-Laws.
c. Furthermore, proposed Section 3.6 (Powers and Duties of the Treasurer) would also be revised to state that the Treasurer shall have all such powers and duties as generally are incident to the position of Treasurer or as the CFO (in addition to the President and CEO and the Board) may assign to him. Because the Treasurer directly reports to the CFO, NSCC believes it is appropriate for the CFO to assign powers and duties to the Treasurer.
d. NSCC would delete current Section 3.8 (Powers and Duties of the Comptroller), which, with the elimination of the office of the Comptroller, would no longer be necessary.
NSCC would also delete references to the designated office of the COO in the By-Laws. NSCC believes this change is necessary because NSCC no longer has a COO nor does NSCC plan to appoint one. Specifically, NSCC would make the changes to the By-Laws described below.
a. In current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), the COO would be removed from the list of designated officers of NSCC.
b. Current Section 3.4 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Operating Officer) would be deleted, which, with the elimination of the office of the COO, would no longer be necessary. The power and duty prescribed to this position (general supervision over the operations of NSCC) would be assigned to the President and CEO in proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer), as described above.
NSCC proposes to change the title of Vice President to Executive Director and update the related powers and duties. NSCC believes these changes are necessary because NSCC has decided that the title of Executive Director is more widely used in the financial services industry for roles similar to those designated as Vice Presidents. In NSCC's organizational structure, Executive Directors report to Managing Directors. As such, it was decided that Executive Directors do not have sufficient seniority to call special meetings of shareholders, to preside over shareholder meetings unless specifically designated to do so by the Board, or to sign share certificates. NSCC proposes to make the following changes to the By-Laws to reflect the change in the title from Vice President to Executive Director and to update the related powers and duties.
a. In current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), the proposed rule change would remove Vice Presidents from the list of officers authorized to call special meetings of shareholders. NSCC believes that Vice Presidents do not have sufficient seniority to call special meetings of shareholders.
b. In current Section 1.8 (Presiding Officer and Secretary), Vice President would be removed. NSCC believes that a Vice President should not preside over a shareholder meeting unless specifically designated to do so by the Board.
c. In current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), Vice Presidents would be removed from the list of designated officers of NSCC. As described below, a parenthetical phrase would be added explaining that the Board's power to appoint other officers includes the power to appoint one or more Executive Directors.
d. In current Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors), all references to Vice President would be deleted. Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors) currently states that Vice Presidents and Managing Directors have such powers and perform such duties as the Board or the President may assign to them.
e. In current Section 5.1 (Certificates for Shares), the reference to Vice President would be removed because Vice Presidents are no longer authorized to sign share certificates. As described above, NSCC decided that they do not have sufficient seniority to do so.
a. In Section 1.8 (Presiding Officer and Secretary), the reference to the Managing Director would be removed because NSCC believes a Managing Director should not preside over a shareholder meeting unless specifically designated to do so by the Board.
b. In current Section 2.6 (Meetings), the proposal would add Managing Directors to the list of officers authorized to call special meetings of the Board. NSCC believes this proposed change would provide NSCC's management with additional flexibility by enabling additional persons within senior management to call special meetings of the Board.
As described below, a parenthetical phrase would be added in current Section 3.1 (General Provisions) explaining that the Board's power to appoint other offices includes, but is not limited to, the power to appoint a Vice Chairman of the Corporation.
a. In current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), NSCC proposes to add a parenthetical phrase explaining that the Board's power to appoint other officers includes, but is not limited to, the power to appoint a Vice Chairman of the
b. Additionally, in current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), regarding the ability of any one person to hold more than one office, NSCC proposes to enhance and clarify the exception by specifying that neither the Secretary nor any Assistant Secretary can hold the following offices: (1) Vice Chairman of the Corporation or (2) President and CEO. NSCC believes this proposed change is necessary to ensure that the Secretary and any Assistant Secretary would not hold those positions.
In current Section 5.1 (Certificates for Shares), NSCC proposes to delete the reference to Treasurer from the list of authorized signatories because NSCC expects the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary (who are each currently listed as authorized signatories) to sign any share certificates.
In current Section 5.1 (Certificates for Shares), NSCC proposes to delete the reference to Assistant Treasurer from the list of authorized signatories because NSCC expects the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary (who are each currently listed as authorized signatories) to sign any share certificates.
Current Section 3.12 (Compensation of Officers) would be revised to accurately reflect NSCC's compensation setting practices. Current Section 3.12 states that: (i) The compensation, if any, of the Chairman of the Board, and the President shall be fixed by a majority (which shall not include the Chairman of the Board or the President) of the entire Board of Directors and (ii) salaries of all other officers shall be fixed by the President with the approval of the Board and no officer shall be precluded from receiving a salary because he is also a director. Current Section 3.12 would be revised to state that the Compensation Committee of the Corporation will recommend the compensation for the President and Chief Executive Officer to the Board of Directors for approval because, pursuant to the DTCC/DTC/FICC/NSCC Compensation and Human Resources Committee Charter (“Compensation Committee Charter”), this is the process that is followed. In addition, NSCC also proposes to delete the language stating that salaries of all other officers shall be fixed by the President with approval of the Board and no officer shall be precluded from receiving a salary because he is also a director. NSCC believes the proposed changes are appropriate because they no longer reflect NSCC's compensation setting procedures. In addition, as noted above, references to Chairman of the Board would be deleted because the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board does not receive compensation. Furthermore, the title of this section would be revised from Compensation of Officers to Compensation of the President and Chief Executive Officer because this section would no longer speak to the compensation of officers other than the President and CEO.
NSCC has identified the following technical changes and/or corrections that it proposes to make to the By-Laws to enhance the clarity and readability of the By-Laws.
NSCC would delete direct statutory references from the By-Laws as set forth below so that the By-Laws remain consistent and accurate despite any changes to a specifically cited statute. NSCC believes this proposed change would also provide NSCC with a broad base to act in accordance with relevant law without violating the By-Laws and thereby also provide NSCC with more flexibility. Specifically, NSCC proposes to make the following changes to the By-Laws:
a. In current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), regarding special meetings for the election of directors, the reference to the provisions of Section 603 of the New York Business Corporation Law would be deleted and the phrase “or as required by law” would be added.
b. In current Section 1.4 (Notice of Meetings), regarding the composition of notices for shareholder meetings, the reference to the specific provisions and requirements of Section 623 of the New York Business Corporation Law would be deleted.
NSCC would revise current Section 2.10 (Audit Committee) to conform to the description of the Audit Committee in the by-laws of FICC because the composition of such committee is the same for DTC, FICC, and NSCC and therefore, NSCC believes the description of such committee should be consistent. Specifically, NSCC proposes to delete the phrase “appointed by the Board of Directors or directors, officers of employees of any shareholder of the” and add the phrase “or of The Depository Trust & Clearing” in the first sentence as a conforming change and to be consistent with the by-laws of FICC.
In addition to the technical changes proposed above, NSCC proposes to make the additional technical and grammatical changes described below.
a. (i) In the headings for Articles II through VIII, each of “ARTICLE II,” “ARTICLE III,” “ARTICLE IV,” “ARTICLE V,” “ARTICLE VI,” “ARTICLE VII,” and “ARTICLE VIII” would be revised to boldfaced text to be consistent with Article I, (ii) in the headings for Articles I through II and Articles IV through VIII, each of the article titles would be revised from underlined text and/or boldfaced text to boldfaced text only to enhance readability and consistency, and (iii) in the headings for Article II, and Articles IV through VIII, a line space would be added before each article title to enhance readability and consistency.
b. In current Sections 1.1 through 5.4, the section titles would be revised from underlined text to italicized text to enhance readability.
c. In current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), current Section 1.8 (Presiding Officer and Secretary), current Section 2.6 (Meetings), current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), current Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors), current Section 3.6 (Powers and Duties of the Treasurer), current Section 3.12 (Compensation of Officers), and current Section 5.1 (Certificates for Shares), conforming grammatical corrections would be made.
d. Current Section 2.8 (Executive Committee) through current Section 2.11 (Compensation of and Loans to Directors) would be renumbered to reflect the addition of proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board).
e. In current Section 2.11 (Compensation of and Loans to Directors), “form” would be deleted and replaced with “from” to correct a typographical error.
f. Current Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors) through current Section 3.12 (Compensation of Officers) would be renumbered to reflect the addition of proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer) and proposed Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Financial Officer) and the deletion of current Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties
g. In current Section 3.10 (Powers and Duties of Assistant Secretaries), “powe rs” would be deleted and replaced with “powers” to correct a typographical error.
h. In current Section 4.1 (Directors and Officers), “law” would be deleted and replaced with “Law” to correct a typographical error.
i. Proposed Article IX (Gender References) would be added to clarify that the By-Laws are intended to be gender neutral with any reference to one gender deemed to include the other.
NSCC proposes to add an addendum (Addendum V) to the Rules. Addendum V would be entitled “By-Laws and Restated Certificate of Incorporation” and would indicate that the By-Laws and the Certificate of Incorporation are incorporated by reference.
Section 17A(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires, among other things, that a clearing agency is so organized to be able to facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions for which it is responsible.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) under the Act requires a covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for a well-founded, transparent and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) under the Act requires that NSCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures to provide for governance arrangements that, among other things, (1) are clear and transparent, (2) support the public interest requirements in Section 17A of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1) applicable to clearing agencies, and the objectives of owners and participants, and (3) specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact on competition. The proposed rule change would amend the By-Laws to: (1) Accurately reflect NSCC's organizational structure and reflect changes to titles or offices and the related powers and duties of the Board and various designated officers, (2) accurately reflect (a) the process that is followed for setting compensation pursuant to the Compensation Committee Charter and (b) that the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board does not receive compensation, and (3) enhance the clarity and readability of the By-Laws by making technical changes and corrections. The proposal to incorporate by reference the By-Laws and the Certificate of Incorporation would further enhance clarity and transparency because these organizational documents would be expressly identified in the Rules to which Members are subject. NSCC does not believe that this proposal would affect any of its current practices regarding the rights or obligations of its Members. Therefore, NSCC believes that the proposal would not have any effect on its Members and thus, would not have any impact or burden on competition.
NSCC has not received any written comments relating to this proposal. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by it.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would amend the DTC By-Laws (“By-Laws”)
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed
In DTC's review of the By-Laws, DTC has identified and is proposing the following changes to the By-Laws: (i) Changing its internal governance procedures, (ii) revising certain Board and designated officer titles or offices and updating the related powers and duties, (iii) revising the section describing the compensation of officers, and (iv) making certain technical changes and corrections. Specifically, regarding the proposed changes to the Board and designated officer titles or offices and updating the related powers and duties, DTC is proposing to: (1) Change the title of Chairman of the Board to Non-Executive Chairman of the Board and update the related powers and duties associated with that role due to personnel changes in DTC's management, (2) add the office of the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), combine the office of the President and the office of the Chief Executive Officer into one office (President and Chief Executive Officer) and update the related powers and duties to reflect that the two positions are now combined and are held by one individual, (3) add the office of the Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) and delete the office of the Comptroller, (4) delete the office of the Chief Operating Officer (“COO”), (5) change the title of Vice President to Executive Director and update the related powers and duties, and (6) make other changes related to certain powers and duties of the Board and various officers, including Managing Directors, the Vice Chairman of the Corporation, the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer, as described in greater detail below. DTC is proposing to make these changes to the By-Laws so that the By-Laws remain consistent and accurate and DTC's governance documents accurately reflect its management and organizational structure and the responsibilities within the purview of certain roles. DTC believes these changes would facilitate the efficient governance and operation of DTC.
DTC would revise the By-Laws to (1) change the frequency with which each of the Board and the Executive Committee is required to meet, (2) permit the Board to act by unanimous written consent, and (3) make a technical change by removing the word “monthly” from the phrase “regular monthly meetings” when describing Board meetings. DTC proposes to make the changes to the By-Laws that are described below.
Currently, the By-Laws require (1) the Board to meet for ten meetings per year with at least two meetings during any three-month period and (2) the Executive Committee to meet at least once in each 30-day period during which the Board does not meet. DTC is proposing to reduce the required frequency of its Board meetings and Executive Committee meetings to better align the frequency of DTC's Board meetings with those of Fixed Income Clearing Corporation and National Securities Clearing Corporation. DTC believes that reducing the frequency of DTC's Board meetings to better align the occurrence of these meetings would facilitate the efficient use of corporate resources. Specifically, DTC proposes to make the following changes to current Section 2.6 (Meetings) of the By-Laws to (1) reduce the required number of Board meetings and (2) eliminate the requirement that the Executive Committee meet at least once in each thirty-day period during which the Board does not meet:
a. The minimum required number of meetings of the Board in current Section 2.6 (Meetings) would be reduced from ten meetings per year with at least two meetings during any three-month period to six meetings per year with at least one meeting during any three-month period.
b. The provision in current Section 2.6 (Meetings) requiring the Executive Committee to meet during each 30-day period in which the Board does not meet would be deleted.
In addition, DTC proposes to make a technical change in current Section 2.6 (Meetings) by removing the word “monthly” from the phrase “regular monthly meetings” when describing that the Board may fix times and places for such meetings of the Board. The current provision refers to regular monthly meetings but also states that such meetings shall be held at least ten times a year. As such, DTC believes that the proposed language, which would state that the Board may fix times and places for regular meetings of the Board and no notice of such meetings need to be given, would improve clarity and consistency.
DTC proposes to add proposed Section 2.9 (Action by Unanimous Written Consent), permitting the Board to act by unanimous written consent in lieu of a meeting. The Board would be permitted to take all actions that are required to or may be taken at a meeting by unanimous written consent. The provision would require that the written consent set forth the action to be taken, be signed by all of the directors, and be filed with the minutes of the proceedings of the Board. DTC has determined that the unanimous written consent provision would facilitate the efficient operation of DTC by permitting the Board to make necessary decisions in a timely and efficient manner.
DTC proposes to revise the titles or offices and update the related powers and duties of various designated officers and the Board, as further described below, and for the reasons described below.
DTC proposes to replace the title of Chairman of the Board with the title Non-Executive Chairman of the Board (“Non-Executive Chairman of the Board”). This change in title reflects that this position is now held by an individual who is not part of DTC's management (
Certain references to either Chairman or Chairman of the Board would be revised to Non-Executive Chairman of the Board in the sections of the By-Laws that would continue to apply to the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. Specifically, the following changes would be made:
a. In current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), current Section 1.8 (Presiding Officer and Secretary), current Section 2.6 (Meetings), and current Section 6.1 (Certificates for Shares), the word “Non-Executive” would be added before each reference to the Chairman of the Board.
Certain references to Chairman of the Board in the By-Laws would be deleted because such references are in the sections of the By-Laws that only apply to members of DTC management. Because the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board would not be a management position, such sections of the By-Laws would no longer be applicable. Specifically, the following changes would be made:
a. In current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), Chairman of the Board would be removed from the list of designated officers of DTC.
b. In current Section 3.12 (Compensation of Officers), the references to the Chairman of the Board would also be deleted because the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board does not receive compensation and because, as further described below, this section would be revised to only address the setting of compensation for the President and CEO.
Current Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the Chairman of the Board) would be deleted and replaced by proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board). Specifically, the following changes would be made:
a. Certain powers and duties prescribed to the Chairman of the Board in current Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the Chairman of the Board) would remain with the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. Such powers and duties include: (i) Presiding over the meetings of the stockholders and of the Board at which he is present and (ii) such other powers and duties as the Board may designate. This would be set forth in proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board). Furthermore, as is similarly stated in current Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the Chairman of the Board), proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board) would state that the “performance of any such duty by the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board shall be conclusive evidence of his power to act.”
b. DTC would also expressly include in proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board) that the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board has general supervision over the Board and its activities and would provide overall leadership to the Board. Consistent with his authority to supervise and lead the Board, DTC proposes to assign the responsibility for carrying out the policies of the Board of Directors to the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board rather than the President (as is provided in current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President)). Furthermore, in current Section 3.6 (Powers and Duties of the Secretary), the power to assign additional powers and duties to the Secretary would be revised to replace the reference to President with Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. DTC believes this is an appropriate responsibility for the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board to have as part of his general supervision of the Board.
c. In addition, proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board) would state that, in the absence of the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board, the presiding director, as elected by the Board, shall preside at all meetings of the stockholders and of the Board at which he or she is present. Current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) provides that, in the absence or in ability of the Chairman of the Board, the President shall preside at all meetings of shareholders and all meetings of the Board of Directors at which he is present. Pursuant to the Board of Directors of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”), DTC, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) and National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) Mission Statement and Charter (“Board Mission Statement and Charter”), DTC annually elects a presiding director to preside at meetings when the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board is absent. As such, DTC believes the proposed language described above would enhance accuracy by correcting the inconsistency between the By-Laws and the Board Mission Statement and Charter.
d. As further described below, in proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer), the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board would have the authority to designate powers and duties to the President and CEO. DTC believes this authority to designate powers and duties to the President and CEO is within the scope of the supervisory role of the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board and therefore proposes to revise the By-Laws to expressly state that the Non-Executive Chairman has this authority.
e. In current Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors), DTC would add the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board to the list of individuals who have the power to assign powers and duties to Managing Directors as well as make conforming changes. DTC believes this is an appropriate responsibility for the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board to have because he has general supervision over the Board.
DTC proposes to add the office of the CEO and combine the office of the President and the office of the CEO into one office (President and CEO) because one individual is the President and CEO. DTC proposes to revise the By-Laws to reflect that one individual holds the office of the President and CEO, including revising the list of designated officers in current Section 3.1 (General Provisions) to include the President and CEO. While current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) provides that the President shall be the chief executive officer, current Section 3.1 (General Provisions) does not include CEO in the list of designated officer positions (President is currently included in this list). As such, DTC would revise certain references in the By-Laws from President to President and Chief Executive Officer. Specifically, DTC proposes to make the changes to the By-Laws that are described below.
a. In current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), current Section 1.8 (Presiding Officer and Secretary), current Section 2.6 (Meetings), current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), current Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors), current Section 3.7 (Powers and Duties of the Treasurer), and current Section 3.12 (Compensation of Officers), the words “and Chief Executive Officer”
b. In current Section 6.1 (Certificates for Shares), the words “the President” would be deleted and replaced by the words “President and Chief Executive Officer.”
Furthermore, except as otherwise described below, the responsibilities, duties and powers granted to the President that are currently described in the By-Laws would continue to remain with the President and CEO. DTC proposes to make the following changes to the By-Laws to reflect the updated responsibilities and powers and duties that are granted to the President and CEO:
a. A portion of current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) would be deleted and replaced with proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer). The remaining portion of current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) would be included in proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer).
b. Current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) states that the President will have general supervision over the business and affairs of DTC subject to the direction of the Board. Additionally, current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) states that the President may employ and discharge employees and agents of DTC, except such as shall be elected or appointed by the Board, and he may delegate these powers. Similarly, proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer) would state that the President and Chief Executive Officer would have general supervision over the overall business strategy, business operations, systems, customer outreach, and risk management, control and staff functions, subject to the direction of the Board and the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. DTC believes the additional detail provided in proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and CEO) would add clarity to the powers and duties associated with the role of President and Chief Executive Officer and would be consistent with the combined role. In addition, because the office of the COO would be eliminated (as described further below), the responsibility of general supervision over the operations of DTC, which is designated to the COO role in current Section 3.4 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Operating Officer), would be assigned to the President and CEO.
c. Proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and CEO) would state that the President and CEO would have such other powers and perform such other duties as the Board or the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board may designate. DTC believes this generally aligns with current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President). DTC believes that providing the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board with this additional authority to designate powers and duties to the President and CEO is within the scope of the supervisory role of the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board.
d. As noted above, certain powers and duties listed in current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) would be removed or assigned to another position. Specifically, as noted above, the responsibility for carrying out the policies of the Board would be assigned to the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board rather than to the President and CEO. Additionally, the statement that “performance of any such duty by the President shall be conclusive evidence of his power to act” that appears in current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) would be removed as DTC believes it would be best practice to document specific designation of powers and/or duties made by the Board or Non-Executive Chairman of the Board to the President and CEO. Furthermore, as noted above, the language stating that, in the absence of the Non-Executive Chairman, the President and CEO shall preside at all meetings of shareholders and all meetings of the Board of Directors at which he is present would be deleted because, pursuant to the Board Mission Statement and Charter, that power resides with the presiding director who is elected annually by the DTC Board. DTC believes deleting this language would enhance accuracy by correcting the inconsistency between the By-Laws and the Board Mission Statement and Charter.
e. As described above, in current Section 3.6 (Powers and Duties of the Secretary), the power to assign additional powers and duties to the Secretary would be removed from the President and granted to the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. DTC believes this is an appropriate responsibility for the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board to have as part of his general supervision of the Board.
f. As described below, the President and Board currently have the authority to assign powers and duties to the Comptroller in current Section 3.8 (Powers and Duties of the Comptroller). Similarly, proposed Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Financial Officer) would provide that the CFO would perform such other duties as he may agree with the President and CEO and the Board.
DTC would add the office of the CFO and assign to the CFO all of the powers and duties of the office of the chief financial officer. The CFO would, in general, have overall supervision of the financial operations of DTC. Furthermore, references to the office of the Comptroller would be deleted. DTC does not currently have a Comptroller nor does DTC plan to appoint one. Therefore, DTC believes it would be more accurate to remove all references to such position in the By-Laws. Specifically, DTC would revise the By-Laws as described below.
a. In current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), CFO would be added to and Comptroller would be removed from the list of designated officers of DTC.
b. DTC would add proposed Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Financial Officer). This proposed section would enumerate the powers and duties of the CFO. It would state that the CFO would have overall supervision of the financial operations of DTC and upon request, would counsel and advise other officers of DTC and perform other duties as agreed with the President and CEO or as determined by the Board. DTC believes these powers and duties are appropriate for the newly created role of CFO. Proposed Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Financial Officer) would also state that the CFO would report directly to the President and CEO. DTC believes it is appropriate for the CFO to report to the President and CEO and to specify this clear line of responsibility in the By-Laws.
c. Furthermore, proposed Section 3.6 (Powers and Duties of the Treasurer) would also be revised to state that the Treasurer shall have all such powers and duties as generally are incident to the position of Treasurer or as the CFO (in addition to the President and CEO and the Board) may assign to him. Because the Treasurer directly reports to the CFO, DTC believes it is appropriate for the CFO to assign powers and duties to the Treasurer.
d. DTC would delete current Section 3.8 (Powers and Duties of the Comptroller), which, with the elimination of the office of the Comptroller, would no longer be necessary.
DTC would also delete references to the designated office of the COO in the By-Laws. DTC believes this change is necessary because DTC no longer has a COO nor does DTC plan to appoint one. Specifically, DTC would make the changes to the By-Laws described below.
a. In current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), the COO would be removed from the list of designated officers of DTC.
b. Current Section 3.4 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Operating Officer) would be deleted, which, with the elimination of the office of the COO, would no longer be necessary. The power and duty prescribed to this position (general supervision over the operations of DTC) would be assigned to the President and CEO in proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer), as described above.
DTC proposes to change the title of Vice President to Executive Director and update the related powers and duties. DTC believes these changes are necessary because DTC has decided that the title of Executive Director is more widely used in the financial services industry for roles similar to those designated as Vice Presidents. In DTC's organizational structure, Executive Directors report to Managing Directors. As such, it was decided that Executive Directors do not have sufficient seniority to call special meetings of shareholders, to preside over shareholder meetings unless specifically designated to do so by the Board, or to sign share certificates. DTC proposes to make the following changes to the By-Laws to reflect the change in the title from Vice President to Executive Director and to update the related powers and duties.
a. In current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), the proposed rule change would remove Vice Presidents from the list of officers authorized to call special meetings of shareholders. DTC believes that Vice Presidents do not have sufficient seniority to call special meetings of shareholders.
b. In current Section 1.8 (Presiding Officer and Secretary), Vice President would removed. DTC believes that a Vice President should not preside over a shareholder meeting unless specifically designated to do so by the Board.
c. In current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), Vice Presidents would be removed from the list of designated officers of DTC. As described below, a parenthetical phrase would be added explaining that the Board's power to appoint other officers includes the power to appoint one or more Executive Directors.
d. In current Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors), all references to Vice President would be deleted. Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors) currently states that Vice Presidents and Managing Directors have such powers and perform such duties as the Board or the President may assign to them.
a. In Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), the reference to the Managing Director would be added to the list of officers authorized to call special meetings of the stockholders to provide DTC's management with more flexibility by enabling additional persons within senior management to call special meetings of the Board.
b. In current Section 2.6 (Meetings), the proposal would add Managing Directors to the list of officers authorized to call special meetings of the Board. DTC believes this proposed change would provide DTC's management with additional flexibility by enabling additional persons within senior management to call special meetings of the Board.
c. In current Section 6.1 (Certificates for Shares), Managing Directors would be removed from the list of officers authorized to sign certificates for shares. By removing Managing Directors, DTC would be able to limit the authorized signatories of certificates for shares of DTC to a smaller number of individuals within senior management.
As described below, a parenthetical phrase would be added in current Section 3.1 (General Provisions) explaining that the Board's power to appoint other offices includes, but is not limited to, the power to appoint a Vice Chairman of the Corporation.
a. In current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), DTC proposes to add a parenthetical phrase explaining that the Board's power to appoint other offices includes, but is not limited to, the power to appoint a Vice Chairman of the Corporation and one or more Executive Directors to enhance clarity.
b. Additionally, in current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), regarding the ability of any one person to hold more than one office, DTC proposes to enhance and clarify the exception by specifying that neither the Secretary nor any Assistant Secretary can hold the following offices: (1) Vice Chairman of the Corporation or (2) President and CEO. DTC believes this proposed change is necessary to ensure that the Secretary and any Assistant Secretary would not hold those positions.
In current Section 6.1 (Certificates of Shares), DTC proposes to delete the reference to Treasurer from the list of authorized signatories because DTC expects the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary (who are each currently listed as authorized signatories) to sign any share certificates.
In current Section 6.1 (Certificates of Shares), DTC proposes to delete the reference to Assistant Treasurer from the list of authorized signatories because DTC expects the Secretary or the Assistant Secretary (who are each currently listed as authorized signatories) to sign any share certificates.
Current Section 3.12 (Compensation of Officers) would be revised to accurately reflect DTC's compensation setting practices. Current Section 3.12 states that: (i) The compensation, if any, of the Chairman of the Board, and the President shall be fixed by a majority (which shall not include the Chairman of the Board or the President) of the entire Board of Directors and (ii) salaries of all other officers shall be fixed by the President with the approval of the Board and no officer shall be precluded from receiving a salary because he is also a director. Current Section 3.12 would be revised to state that the Compensation Committee of the Corporation will recommend the compensation for the President and Chief Executive Officer to
DTC has identified the following technical changes and/or corrections that it proposes to make to the By-Laws to enhance the clarity and readability of the By-Laws.
DTC would delete direct statutory references from the By-Laws as set forth below so that the By-Laws remain consistent and accurate despite any changes to a specifically cited statute. DTC believes this proposed change would also provide DTC with a broad base to act in accordance with relevant law without violating the By-Laws and thereby also provide DTC with more flexibility. Specifically, DTC proposes to make the following changes to the By-Laws:
a. In current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), regarding stockholders' ability to compel the Secretary to call a special meeting of the stockholders for the election of directors, the reference to the provisions of Section 6003 of the New York Banking Law would be deleted.
b. In current Section 1.4 (Notice of Meetings), regarding the composition of notices for stockholder meetings, the reference to the specific provisions and requirements of Section 6022 of the New York Banking Law would be deleted.
c. In current Section 2.2 (Election and Term of Directors), regarding the directors' oath of office, the specific citation to Section 7015 would be removed. DTC also would clarify that the Banking Law is in fact referring to the New York Banking Law.
DTC proposes to revise proposed Section 2.11 (Audit Committee) to conform the description of the composition of the Audit Committee to the description of the Audit Committee in the by-laws of FICC because the composition of such committee is the same for DTC, FICC and NSCC and therefore, DTC believes the description of such committee should be consistent. Specifically, DTC proposes to revise proposed Section 2.11 (Audit Committee) to state that the Board of Directors may appoint an Audit Committee consisting of three or more directors other than officers of DTC or DTCC. Furthermore, language stating that the Audit Committee will review the progress of all internal audits conducted by the Auditor (if there be one) and all periodic reports of such audits submitted to it by the Auditor pursuant to Section 3.9 and shall supervise, and cooperate and coordinate with, the Auditor in the performance of his duties would be deleted as a conforming change and for consistency with the by-Laws of FICC.
In addition to the technical changes proposed above, DTC proposes to make the additional technical and grammatical changes described below.
a. In the heading for current Article I, DTC proposes to delete “STOCKHOLDERS” and replace it with “Stockholders” and in the heading for current Article II, delete “BOARD OF DIRECTORS” and replace it with “Board of Directors” to be consistent with the headings of the other Articles in the By-Laws.
b. In current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), current Section 1.3 (Record Date for Meetings and Other Purposes), current Section 1.8 (Presiding Officer and Secretary), current Section 2.6 (Meetings), current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), current Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors), current Section 3.6 (Powers and Duties of the Treasurer), current Section 3.12 (Compensation of Officers), and current Section 6.1 (Certificates for Shares), conforming grammatical corrections would be made.
c. In current Section 1.10 (Inspectors of Election), each use of the word “corporation” would be capitalized so that it would read “Corporation” and the word “such” would be replaced with the word “the” before the word “Corporation” in the last sentence to correct typographical errors and enhance consistency and readability.
d. In current Section 2.3 (Newly Created Directorships and Vacancies), the extra space before and after the word “of” in the first sentence would be deleted.
e. In addition, additional spaces between the section number and the section title would be added in current Section 1.1 (Annual Meeting) through Section 1.12 (Written Consent of Stockholders Without a Meeting), in current Section 2.1 (Number of Directors) through current Section 2.7 (Quorum and Voting), proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board), proposed Section 2.10 (Executive Committee) through proposed Section 2.13 (Compensation of Directors), current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), proposed Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of Managing Directors), proposed Section 3.4 (Powers and Duties of the Secretary), proposed Section 3.6 (Powers and Duties of the Treasurer), proposed Section 3.7 (Powers and Duties of the Auditor) through proposed Section 3.10 (Compensation of Officers), and current Section 6.1 (Certificates for Shares) through current Section 6.4 (Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Certificates).
f. In current Section 2.6 (Meetings), each use of the word “board” in the second paragraph would be capitalized to correct typographical errors and enhance consistency.
g. Current Section 2.8 (Executive Committee) through current Section 2.11 (Compensation of Directors) would be renumbered to reflect the addition of proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board) and proposed Section 2.9 (Action by Unanimous Written Consent).
h. Current Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors) through current Section 3.12 (Compensation of Officers) would be renumbered to reflect the addition of proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer) and proposed Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Financial Officer) and the deletion of current Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the Chairman of the Board), current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President), current Section 3.4 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Operating Officer) and current Section 3.8 (Powers and Duties of the Comptroller).
i. Proposed Article X (Gender References) would be added to clarify that the By-Laws are intended to be
Section 17A(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires, among other things, that a clearing agency is so organized to be able to facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions for which it is responsible.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) under the Act requires a covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for a well-founded, transparent and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) under the Act requires that DTC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures to provide for governance arrangements that, among other things, (1) are clear and transparent, (2) support the public interest requirements in Section 17A of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1) applicable to clearing agencies, and the objectives of owners and participants; and (3) specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact on competition. The proposed rule change would amend the By-Laws to: (1) Accurately reflect DTC's organizational structure and reflect changes to titles or offices and the related powers and duties of the Board and various designated officers, (2) accurately reflect (a) the process that is followed for setting compensation pursuant to the Compensation Committee Charter and (b) that the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board does not receive compensation, (3) permit the Board to continue to make necessary decisions in a timely and efficient manner by reducing the minimum number of required Board meetings, authorizing the Board to act by unanimous written consent in lieu of meetings, and make other related changes, and (4) enhance the clarity, transparency, and readability of the By-Laws by making technical changes and corrections. DTC does not believe that this proposal would affect any of its current practices regarding the rights or obligations of its Participants. Therefore, DTC believes that the proposal would not have any effect on its Participants and thus, would not have any impact or burden on competition.
DTC has not received any written comments relating to this proposal. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by it.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 11, 2017, the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
As stated in the Notice, OCC filed the proposed rule change to formalize and update its Margin Policy, which describes OCC's approach for collecting margin and managing the credit exposure presented by its Clearing Members to ensure that the manner in which its margin methodologies are governed and implemented complies with Section 17A of the Act
The Margin Policy describes: (1) The treatment of the various types of positions held by Clearing Members in connection with margin calculations, (2) OCC's cross-margin programs with other clearing agencies, (3) the treatment of collateral included in margin calculations, (4) the model assumptions and market data OCC uses as inputs for its margin calculation methodologies, (5) OCC's margin calculation methodologies, (6) protocols surrounding OCC's exercise of margin calls and adjustments, and (7) daily backtesting and model validation that OCC conducts to measure performance of its margin methodologies. Each aspect of the Margin Policy is summarized below.
The Margin Policy describes how OCC treats the various types of positions it accepts from different types of market participants. OCC utilizes multiple types of Clearing Member accounts in order to comply with the relevant customer protection and segregation requirements of the Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. For example, OCC segregates and excludes long securities options positions from its margin requirement calculation under the assumption that such positions are fully paid and pose no additional risk to OCC. According to OCC, accounting for different types of products in different types of accounts allows OCC to set margin requirements commensurate with the actual risks presented by these positions.
OCC maintains cross-margin programs with other clearinghouses and treats positions in index options, options on centrally cleared fund shares, and futures and options on futures held as part of one of the programs as if they were held within a single account at OCC.
To mitigate its credit risk exposure, OCC generally requires Clearing Members to deposit collateral as margin with respect to each account type on the morning following the trade date. The Margin Policy provides a general description of how the use of deposits in lieu of margin and collateral in margins may affect margin calculations.
OCC's Margin Policy also describes OCC's “collateral in margins” program.
The Margin Policy states that all of OCC's critical margin model assumptions should be consistent with OCC's default management assumptions. To ensure that OCC complies with this requirement, the Margin Policy provides for a monthly sensitivity analysis and review of its parameters and assumptions for business backtesting, the results of which are reported to OCC's Model Risk Working Group, and may be escalated to OCC's Management Committee.
The Margin Policy also requires OCC to take measures to ensure the quality and completeness of its market data, including the use of redundant sources for market data and pricing system infrastructure. The Margin Policy requires OCC to prioritize the quality and reliability of data when selecting vendors, and to protect its ability to obtain data in a variety of market conditions. OCC states that it protects the integrity of the data it receives by monitoring for delays, errors, or interruptions in the receipt or availability of price data. Further, the Margin Policy prescribes procedures for using alternative data, including settlement prices provided by a primary exchange or other data sources where final settlement values are not available from the listing exchange. The Margin Policy also states that OCC utilizes sound valuation models, system edit checks, and automated and manual controls with any price data it obtains.
OCC's Margin Policy includes a description of OCC's System for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulations (“STANS”), which is its margin methodology for all positions it margins on a net basis.
The Margin Policy also explains how STANS calculates margin by utilizing Monte Carlo simulations of portfolio values at a two-day risk horizon based on the behavior of various risk factors affecting: (i) Values at a two-day risk horizon, and (ii) values of Clearing Member accounts, including implied volatility surfaces of options for all equity and index risk factors.
The Margin Policy also provides for the daily evaluation of the market data that supports STANS and a monthly recalibration to ensure that it accounts for market conditions over the past month. This includes the use of “scale factors” to account for daily changes in market volatility between monthly recalibrations. Further, the Margin Policy has the ability to use alternatives to STANS for certain product accounts, including the ability to apply add-on charges and surcharges for certain Clearing Members who present higher risk levels, as well as the use of Standard Portfolio Analysis of Risk margin methodology (“SPAN”) for certain segregated futures accounts. According to OCC, these procedures are designed to ensure that OCC complies with the requirement that its risk based margin system calculates margin on a portfolio level and sets initial margin requirements that meet “an established single-tail confidence level of at least 99 percent” with respect to each portfolio's distribution of future exposure.
The Margin Policy describes OCC's process for daily calculation and collection of margin requirements, as well as making intraday margin calls and adjustments. Pursuant to the Margin Policy, OCC issues margin calls during standard trading hours when unrealized losses exceeding 50% of an account's total risk charges are observed for that account based on start-of-day positions. The Margin Policy specifies the timing of such calls, price minimums, exceptions, and the necessary approvals that must be obtained. The Margin Policy also states that additional margin adjustments may be performed as the need arises following approval by an officer of OCC.
The Margin Policy requires OCC to conduct daily backtesting for each margin account and to analyze in detail all accounts exhibiting losses in excess of calculated margin requirements. OCC states that any exceedances under the Margin Policy are required to be reported at least monthly and evaluated through OCC's governance process for model risk management, as well as an annual evaluation by OCC's independent Model Validation Group (“MVG”) of the overall performance of STANS and its associated models. The results of this annual MVG evaluation and any recommendations would then be presented to the OCC Board's Risk Committee.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6) generally requires each covered clearing agency that provides central counterparty services to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to, among other things, cover its credit exposures to its participants through the establishment of a risk-based margin system that meets certain standards.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) generally requires a covered clearing agency to establish a risk-based margin system that considers and produces margin levels commensurate with the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii) generally requires a covered clearing agency to establish a risk-based margin system that collects margin at least daily and have the operational capacity to make intraday margin calls.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii) generally requires a covered clearing agency to establish a risk-based margin system that calculates margin sufficient to cover its potential future exposure to participants,
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv) generally requires a covered clearing agency to establish a risk-based margin system that uses “reliable sources of timely price data” and use “procedures and sound valuation models for addressing circumstances in which pricing data are not readily available or reliable.”
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v) generally requires a covered clearing agency to establish a risk-based margin system that uses an appropriate method for measuring credit exposure that accounts for relevant product risk factors and portfolio effects across products.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi) generally requires a covered clearing agency to establish a risk-based margin system that is monitored by management on an ongoing basis and is regularly reviewed, tested, and verified.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vii) generally requires a covered clearing agency to establish policies and procedures designed to perform model validation for its credit risk models not less than annually or more frequently as may be contemplated by the covered clearing agency's risk management framework.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Margin Policy is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange seeks to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to decrease the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”) from $.0015 per contract to $.0014 per contract in order to help ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, meets the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The proposed fee change will be operative on February 1, 2018.
The ORF is assessed by C2 Options to each Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) for options transactions cleared by the TPH that are cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation (OCC) in the customer range, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs.
Revenue generated from ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of TPH customer options business. Regulatory costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses for work allocated in support of the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and third party service provider costs to support the day to day regulatory work such as surveillances, investigations and examinations. The indirect expenses include support from such areas as human resources, legal, information technology and accounting. These indirect expenses are estimated to be approximately 6% of C2 Options' total regulatory costs for 2018. Thus, direct expenses are estimated to be approximately 94% of total regulatory costs for 2018. In addition, it is C2 Options' practice that revenue generated from ORF not exceed more than 75% of total annual regulatory costs. These expectations are estimated, preliminary and may change. These expectations are estimated, preliminary and may change. [sic] There can be no assurance that our final costs for 2018 will not differ materially from these expectations and prior practice; however, the Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs.
The Exchange also notes that its regulatory responsibilities with respect to TPH compliance with options sales practice rules have largely been allocated to FINRA under a 17d-2 agreement.
The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The Exchange monitors its regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange notifies TPHs of adjustments to the ORF via regulatory circular. The Exchange endeavors to provide TPHs with such notice at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the change.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable because it would help ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing higher fees to those TPHs that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business they conduct. Regulating customer trading activity is much more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's overall regulatory program are materially higher than the costs associated with administering the non-customer component (
C2 Options does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because it applies to all TPHs. The proposed ORF is comparable to fees charged by other options exchanges for the same or similar service. The Exchange believes any burden on competition imposed by the proposed rule change is outweighed by the need to help the Exchange adequately fund its regulatory activities to ensure compliance with the Exchange Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change by OCC would revise OCC's Schedule of Fees to introduce a cash management fee that would cover administrative and other operational expenses incurred by OCC in connection with maintaining cash deposits that are held in OCC's Federal Reserve bank account and passing-through to Clearing Members the interest earned on such deposits. The proposed changes to the Schedule of Fees can be found in Exhibit 5 to the proposed rule change. Material proposed to be added to OCC's Fee Schedule as currently in effect is marked by underlining and material proposed to be deleted is marked by strikethrough text; material proposed to be added to OCC's Fee Schedule by proposed rule change SR-OCC-2018-004 is marked by double underlining and material proposed to be deleted by proposed rule change SR-OCC-2018-004 is marked by double strikethrough text. All capitalized terms not defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to revise OCC's Schedule of Fees to introduce a cash management fee that would cover administrative and other operational expenses incurred by OCC in connection with maintaining cash deposits that are held in OCC's Federal Reserve bank account and passing-through to Clearing Members the interest earned on such deposits. The revised fee schedule would become effective on March 1, 2018.
By way of background, on January 12, 2018, Commission approved changes to OCC's By-Laws and Rules that establish a new minimum cash contribution requirement for OCC's Clearing Fund and provide for the pass-through to OCC's Clearing Members of interest income earned on cash Clearing Fund deposits held in OCC's Federal Reserve bank account.
In connection with the minimum cash Clearing Fund requirement, substantially all of OCC's Clearing Fund deposits consisting of cash will be held in OCC's Federal Reserve bank account.
The proposed cash management fee would be an annual rate equal to 5 basis points (0.05%), calculated on a 365-day calendar, and billed monthly on each Clearing Member's daily proportionate share of cash on deposit in OCC's Federal Reserve bank account.
Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its participants.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2018-005 and should be submitted on or before March 7, 2018.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 18, 2017, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”), and National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) (collectively, “Clearing Agencies”), each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to adopt a recovery and wind-down plan and related rules (SR-DTC-2017-021, SR-FICC-2017-021, and SR-NSCC-2017-017), respectively (“Proposed Rule Changes”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the Proposed Rule Changes. The
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change would amend the FICC By-Laws (“By-Laws”) to (i) revise titles or offices and the powers and duties of the Board of Directors (“Board”) and certain designated officers of FICC, (ii) revise the section describing compensation of officers, and (iii) make certain technical changes and corrections.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In FICC's review of the By-Laws, FICC has identified and is proposing the following changes to the By-Laws: (i) Revising certain Board and designated officer titles or offices and updating the related powers and duties, (ii) revising the section describing the compensation of officers and (iii) making certain technical changes and corrections. Specifically, regarding the proposed changes to the Board and designated officer titles or offices and updating the related powers and duties, FICC is proposing to: (1) Change the title of Chairman of the Board to Non-Executive Chairman of the Board and update the related powers and duties associated with that role due to personnel changes in FICC's management, (2) add the office of the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), combine the office of the President and the office of the Chief Executive Officer into one office (President and Chief Executive Officer) and update the related powers and duties to reflect that the two positions are now combined and are held by one individual, (3) add the office of the Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) and delete the office of the Comptroller, (4) delete the office of the Chief Operating Officer (“COO”), (5) change the title of Vice President to Executive Director and update the related powers and duties, and (6) make other changes related to certain powers and duties of the Board and various officers, including Managing Directors, the Vice Chairman of the Corporation, the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer, as described in greater detail below. FICC is proposing to make these changes to the By-Laws so that the By-Laws remain consistent and accurate and FICC's governance documents accurately reflect its management and organizational structure and the responsibilities within the purview of certain roles. FICC believes these changes would facilitate the efficient governance and operation of FICC.
The GSD Rules and MBSD Rules would also be amended to incorporate by reference the Restated Certificate of Incorporation and the By-Laws, as further described below. The current Certificate of Incorporation would be restated to streamline this document, which FICC believes would enhance clarity and transparency. The following describes the proposed changes to the By-Laws, the Certificate of Incorporation, the GSD Rules, and the MBSD Rules.
FICC proposes to revise the titles or offices and update the related powers and duties of various designated officers and the Board, as further described below.
FICC proposes to replace the title of Chairman of the Board with the title Non-Executive Chairman of the Board (“Non-Executive Chairman of the Board”). This change in title reflects that this position is now held by an individual who is not part of FICC's management (
Certain references to either Chairman or Chairman of the Board would be revised to Non-Executive Chairman of the Board in the sections of the By-Laws that would continue to apply to the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. Specifically, the following changes would be made:
a. In current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), the references to Chairman would be revised to Non-Executive Chairman of the Board by adding the word “Non-Executive” before the second reference to Chairman in the first sentence and the phrase “of the Board” after such reference. In addition, the phrase “by the Chairman” in the first sentence of current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings) would be deleted because it would be repetitive to the language that is currently included later in this section.
b. In current Section 1.8 (Presiding Officer and Secretary), current Section 2.6 (Meetings), and current Section 5.1 (Certificates for Shares), the word “Non-Executive” would be added before each reference to the Chairman of the Board.
Certain references to Chairman of the Board in the By-Laws would be deleted because such references are in the sections of the By-Laws that only apply to members of FICC management. Because the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board would not be a management position, such sections of the By-Laws would no longer be applicable. Specifically, the following changes would be made:
a. In current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), Chairman of the Board would be removed from the list of designated officers of FICC.
b. In current Section 3.12 (Compensation of Officers), the references to the Chairman of the Board would also be deleted because the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board does not receive compensation and because, as further described below, this section would be revised to only address the setting of compensation for the President.
Current Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the Chairman of the Board) would be deleted and replaced by proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board). Specifically, the following changes would be made:
a. Certain powers and duties prescribed to the Chairman of the Board in current Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the Chairman of the Board) would remain with the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. Such powers and duties include (i) presiding over the meetings of the stockholders and of the Board at which he is present and (ii) such other powers and duties as the Board may designate. This would be set forth in proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board). Furthermore, as is similarly stated in current Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the Chairman of the Board), proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board) would also state that the “performance of any such duty by the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board shall be conclusive evidence of his power to act.”
b. FICC would also expressly include in proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board) that the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board has general supervision over the Board and its activities and would provide overall leadership to the Board. Consistent with his authority to supervise and lead the Board, FICC proposes to assign the responsibility for carrying out the policies of the Board of Directors to the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board rather than the President (as is provided in current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President)). Furthermore, in current Section 3.6 (Powers and Duties of the Secretary), the power to assign additional powers and duties to the Secretary would be revised to replace the reference to President with Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. FICC believes this is an appropriate responsibility for the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board to have as part of his general supervision of the Board.
c. In addition, proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board) would state that, in the absence of the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board, the presiding director, as elected by the Board, shall preside at all meetings of the stockholders and of the Board at which he or she is present. Current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) provides that, in the absence or in ability of the Chairman of the Board, the President shall preside at all meetings of shareholders and all meetings of the Board of Directors at which he is present. Pursuant to the Board of Directors of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”), The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), FICC and National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) Mission Statement and Charter (“Board Mission Statement and Charter”), FICC annually elects a presiding director to preside at meetings when the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board is absent. As such, FICC believes the proposed language described above would enhance accuracy by correcting the inconsistency between the By-Laws and the Board Mission Statement and Charter.
d. As further described below, in proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer), the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board would have the authority to designate powers and duties to the President and CEO. FICC believes this authority to designate powers and duties to the President and CEO is within the scope of the supervisory role of the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board and therefore proposes to revise the By-Laws to expressly state that the Non-Executive Chairman has this authority.
e. In current Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors), FICC would add the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board to the list of individuals who have the power to assign powers and duties to Managing Directors as well as make conforming changes. FICC believes this is an appropriate responsibility for the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board to have because he has general supervision over the Board.
FICC proposes to add the office of the CEO and combine the office of the President and the office of the CEO into one office (President and CEO) because one individual is the President and CEO. FICC proposes to revise the By-Laws to reflect that one individual holds the office of the President and CEO, including revising the list of designated officers in current Section 3.1 (General Provisions) to include the President and CEO. While current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) provides that the President shall be the chief executive officer, current Section 3.1 (General Provisions) does not include CEO in the list of designated officer positions (President is currently included in this list). As such, FICC would revise certain references in the By-Laws from President to President
a. In current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), current Section 1.8 (Presiding Officer and Secretary), current Section 2.6 (Meetings), current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), current Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors), current Section 3.7 (Powers and Duties of the Treasurer), and current Section 3.12 (Compensation of Officers), the words “and Chief Executive Officer” would be added after each reference to President.
b. In current Section 5.1 (Certificates for Shares), the words “the President” would be deleted and replaced by the words “President and Chief Executive Officer.”
c. Additionally, in current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), the phrase “, or by the President,” in the first sentence would be deleted because FICC believes it is repetitive to language that appears later in the section.
Furthermore, except as otherwise described below, the responsibilities, duties and powers granted to the President that are currently described in the By-Laws would continue to remain with the President and CEO. FICC proposes to make the following changes to the By-Laws to reflect the updated responsibilities and powers and duties that are granted to the President and CEO:
a. A portion of current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) would be deleted and replaced with proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer). The remaining portion of current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) would be included in proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer).
b. Current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) states that the President will have general supervision over the business and affairs of FICC subject to the direction of the Board. Additionally, current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) states that the President may employ and discharge employees and agents of FICC, except such as shall be elected or appointed by the Board, and he may delegate these powers. Similarly, proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer) would state that the President and Chief Executive Officer would have general supervision over the overall business strategy, business operations, systems, customer outreach, and risk management, control and staff functions, subject to the direction of the Board and the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. FICC believes the additional detail provided in proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and CEO) would add clarity to the powers and duties associated with the role of President and Chief Executive Officer and would be consistent with the combined role. In addition, because the office of the COO would be eliminated (as described further below), the responsibility of general supervision over the operations of FICC, which is designated to the COO role in current Section 3.4 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Operating Officer), would be assigned to the President and CEO.
c. Proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and CEO) would state that the President and CEO would have such other powers and perform such other duties as the Board or the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board may designate. FICC believes this generally aligns with current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President). FICC believes that providing the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board with this additional authority to designate powers and duties to the President and CEO is within the scope of the supervisory role of the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board.
d. As noted above, certain powers and duties listed in current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) would be removed or assigned to another position. Specifically, as noted above, the responsibility for carrying out the policies of the Board would be assigned to the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board rather than to the President and CEO. Additionally, the statement that “performance of any such duty by the President shall be conclusive evidence of his power to act” that appears in current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President) would be removed as FICC believes it would be best practice to document specific designation of powers and/or duties made by the Board or Non-Executive Chairman of the Board to the President and CEO.
e. As described above, in current Section 3.6 (Powers and Duties of the Secretary), the power to assign additional powers and duties to the Secretary would be removed from the President and granted to the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. FICC believes this is an appropriate responsibility for the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board to have as part of his general supervision of the Board.
f. As described below, the President and Board currently have the authority to assign powers and duties to the Comptroller in current Section 3.8 (Powers and Duties of the Comptroller). Similarly, proposed Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Financial Officer) would provide that the CFO would perform such other duties as he may agree with the President and CEO and the Board.
FICC would add the office of the CFO and assign to the CFO all of the powers and duties of the office of the chief financial officer. The CFO would, in general, have overall supervision of the financial operations of FICC. Furthermore, references to the office of the Comptroller would be deleted. FICC does not currently have a Comptroller nor does FICC plan to appoint one. Therefore, FICC believes it would be more accurate to remove all references to such position in the By-Laws. Specifically, FICC would revise the By-Laws as described below.
a. In current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), CFO would be added to and Comptroller would be removed from the list of designated officers of FICC.
b. FICC would add proposed Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Financial Officer). This proposed section would enumerate the powers and duties of the CFO. It would state that the CFO would have overall supervision of the financial operations of FICC and upon request, would counsel and advise other officers of FICC and perform other duties as agreed with the President and CEO or as determined by the Board. FICC believes these powers and duties are appropriate for the newly created role of CFO. Proposed Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Financial Officer) would also state that the CFO would report directly to the President and CEO. FICC believes it is appropriate for the CFO to report to the President and CEO and to specify this clear line of responsibility in the By-Laws.
c. Furthermore, proposed Section 3.6 (Powers and Duties of the Treasurer) would also be revised to state that the Treasurer shall have all such powers and duties as generally are incident to the position of Treasurer or as the CFO (in addition to the President and CEO and the Board) may assign to him. Because the Treasurer directly reports to the CFO, FICC believes it is appropriate for the CFO to assign powers and duties to the Treasurer.
d. FICC would delete current Section 3.8 (Powers and Duties of the
FICC would also delete references to the designated office of the COO in the By-Laws. FICC believes this change is necessary because FICC no longer has a COO nor does FICC plan to appoint one. Specifically, FICC would make the changes to the By-Laws described below.
a. In current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), the COO would be removed from the list of designated officers of FICC.
b. Current Section 3.4 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Operating Officer) would be deleted, which, with the elimination of the office of the COO, would no longer be necessary. The power and duty prescribed to this position (general supervision over the operations of FICC) would be assigned to the President and CEO in proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer), as described above.
FICC proposes to change the title of Vice President to Executive Director and update the related powers and duties. FICC believes these changes are necessary because FICC has decided that the title of Executive Director is more widely used in the financial services industry for roles similar to those designated as Vice Presidents. In FICC's organizational structure, Executive Directors report to Managing Directors. As such, it was decided that Executive Directors do not have sufficient seniority to call special meetings of shareholders, to preside over shareholder meetings unless specifically designated to do so by the Board, or to sign share certificates. FICC proposes to make the following changes to the By-Laws to reflect the change in the title from Vice President to Executive Director and to update the related powers and duties.
a. In current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), the proposed rule change would remove Vice Presidents from the list of officers authorized to call special meetings of shareholders. FICC believes that Vice Presidents do not have sufficient seniority to call special meetings of shareholders.
b. In current Section 1.8 (Presiding Officer and Secretary), Vice President would be removed. FICC believes that a Vice President should not preside over a shareholder meeting unless specifically designated to do so by the Board.
c. In current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), Vice Presidents would be removed from the list of designated officers of FICC. As described below, a parenthetical phrase would be added explaining that the Board's power to appoint other officers includes the power to appoint one or more Executive Directors.
d. In current Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors), all references to Vice President would be deleted. Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors) currently states that Vice Presidents and Managing Directors have such powers and perform such duties as the Board or the President may assign to them.
e. In current Section 5.1 (Certificates for Shares), the reference to Vice President would be removed because Vice Presidents are no longer authorized to sign share certificates. As described above, FICC decided that they do not have sufficient seniority to do so.
a. In Section 1.8 (Presiding Officer and Secretary), the reference to the Managing Director would be removed because FICC believes a Managing Director should not preside over a shareholder meeting unless specifically designated to do so by the Board.
b. In current Section 2.6 (Meetings), the proposal would add Managing Directors to the list of officers authorized to call special meetings of the Board. FICC believes this proposed change would provide FICC's management with additional flexibility by enabling additional persons within senior management to call special meetings of the Board.
As described below, a parenthetical phrase would be added in current Section 3.1 (General Provisions) explaining that the Board's power to appoint other offices includes, but is not limited to, the power to appoint a Vice Chairman of the Corporation.
a. In current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), FICC proposes to add a parenthetical phrase explaining that the Board's power to appoint other offices includes, but is not limited to, the power to appoint a Vice Chairman of the Corporation and one or more Executive Directors to enhance clarity.
b. Additionally, in current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), regarding the ability of any one person to hold more than one office, FICC proposes to enhance and clarify the exception by specifying that neither the Secretary nor any Assistant Secretary can hold the following offices: (1) Vice Chairman of the Corporation, (2) President, or (3) President and CEO. FICC believes this proposed change is necessary to ensure that the Secretary and any Assistant Secretary would not hold those positions.
In current Section 5.1 (Certificates for Shares), FICC proposes to delete the reference to Treasurer from the list of authorized signatories because FICC expects the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary (who are each currently listed as authorized signatories) to sign any share certificates.
In current Section 5.1 (Certificates for Shares), FICC proposes to delete the reference to Assistant Treasurer from the list of authorized signatories because FICC expects the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary (who are each currently listed as authorized signatories) to sign any share certificates.
Current Section 3.12 (Compensation of Officers) would be revised to accurately reflect FICC's compensation setting practices. Current Section 3.12 states that: (i) the compensation, if any, of the Chairman of the Board, and the President shall be fixed by a majority (which shall not include the Chairman of the Board or the President) of the entire Board of Directors and (ii) salaries of all other officers shall be fixed by the President with the approval of the Board and no officer shall be precluded from receiving a salary because he is also a director. Current Section 3.12 would be revised to state that the Compensation Committee of the Corporation will recommend the compensation for the
FICC has identified the following technical changes and/or corrections that it proposes to make to the By-Laws to enhance the clarity and readability of the By-Laws.
FICC would delete direct statutory references from the By-Laws as set forth below so that the By-Laws remain consistent and accurate despite any changes to a specifically cited statute. FICC believes this proposed change would also provide FICC with a broad base to act in accordance with relevant law without violating the By-Laws and thereby also provide FICC with more flexibility. Specifically, FICC proposes to make the following changes to the By-Laws:
a. In current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), regarding special meetings for the election of directors, the reference to the provisions of Section 603 of the New York Business Corporation Law would be deleted and the phrase “or as required by law” would be added.
b. In current Section 1.4 (Notice of Meetings), regarding the composition of notices for shareholder meetings, the reference to the specific provisions and requirements of Section 623 of the New York Business Corporation Law would be deleted.
In addition to the technical changes proposed above, FICC proposes to make the additional technical and grammatical changes described below.
a. In the heading for the By-Laws, “AMENDED AND RESTATED” would be deleted and “BY-LAWS OF FIXED INCOME CLEARING CORPORATION” would be revised to boldfaced text.
b. In the headings for Articles I through VIII, (i) each of “ARTICLE I,” “ARTICLE II,” “ARTICLE III,” “ARTICLE IV,” “ARTICLE V,” “ARTICLE VI,” “ARTICLE VII,” and “ARTICLE VIII” would be revised to boldfaced text and (ii) each of the article titles would be revised to boldfaced text to enhance readability.
c. In current Sections 1.1 through 2.11 and current Sections 4.1 through 5.4, the section number and section titles would be revised to italicized text to be consistent with current Sections 3.1 through 3.12.
d. In current Section 1.2 (Special Meetings), current Section 1.8 (Presiding Officer and Secretary), current Section 2.6 (Meetings), current Section 3.1 (General Provisions), current Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors), current Section 3.6 (Powers and Duties of the Treasurer), current Section 3.12 (Compensation of Officers), and current Section 5.1 (Certificates for Shares), conforming grammatical corrections would be made.
e. Current Section 2.8 (Executive Committee) through current Section 2.11 (Compensation of and Loans to Directors) would be renumbered to reflect the addition of proposed Section 2.8 (Non-Executive Chairman of the Board).
f. In current Section 2.11 (Compensation of and Loans to Directors), “form” would be deleted and replaced with “from” to correct a typographical error.
g. Current Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of Vice Presidents and Managing Directors) through current Section 3.12 (Compensation of Officers) would be renumbered to reflect the addition of proposed Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the President and Chief Executive Officer) and proposed Section 3.5 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Financial Officer) and the deletion of current Section 3.2 (Powers and Duties of the Chairman of the Board), current Section 3.3 (Powers and Duties of the President), current Section 3.4 (Powers and Duties of the Chief Operating Officer) and current Section 3.8 (Powers and Duties of the Comptroller).
h. In current Section 4.1 (Directors and Officers), “corporation” would be deleted and replaced with “Corporation” to correct a typographical error.
i. Proposed Article IX (Gender References) would be added to clarify that the By-Laws are intended to be gender neutral with any reference to one gender deemed to include the other.
The current Certificate of Incorporation is comprised of several documents, including amendments that have been made throughout the history of FICC. In order to streamline this Certificate of Incorporation into one updated document that includes all provisions, FICC would restate the current Certificate of Incorporation as proposed in Exhibit 5C.
FICC proposes to add a section entitled “By-Laws and Restated Certificate of Incorporation” to each of the GSD Rules and MBSD Rules. This section would indicate that the Restated Certificate of Incorporation and the By-Laws are incorporated by reference.
Section 17A(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires, among other things, that a clearing agency is so organized to be able to facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions for which it is responsible.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) under the Act requires a covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for a well-founded, transparent and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) requires that FICC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures to provide for governance arrangements that, among other things, (1) are clear and transparent, (2) support the public interest requirements in Section 17A of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1) applicable to clearing agencies, and the objectives of owners and participants, and (3) specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact on competition. The proposed rule change would amend the By-Laws to: (1) Accurately reflect FICC's organizational structure and reflect changes to titles or offices and the related powers and duties of the Board and various designated officers, (2) accurately reflect (a) the process that is followed for setting compensation pursuant to the Compensation Committee Charter and (b) that the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board does not receive compensation, and (3) enhance the clarity and readability of the By-Laws by making technical changes and corrections. The proposed change to restate the current Certificate of Incorporation would enhance clarity and transparency by simplifying the provisions into one document. The proposal to incorporate by reference the By-Laws and the Restated Certificate of Incorporation into the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules would further enhance clarity and transparency because these
FICC has not received any written comments relating to this proposal. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by it.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 2, 2017, ICE Clear Europe Limited (“ICE Clear Europe”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change would amend ICE Clear Europe's Collateral and Haircut Policy to set the absolute collateral limits for bonds provided as Permitted Cover by Clearing Members so as to more accurately capture the trading liquidity of each bond. The proposal would also take into account ICE Clear Europe's committed repo facilities to permit Clearing Members to maintain collateral in excess of normal absolute limits.
With respect to setting absolute collateral limits for bonds provided as Permitted Cover by Clearing Members, ICE Clear Europe proposed to set limits for each bond issuer and collateral type at 10% of the average daily volume over the past three months, rounded to the nearest million.
To complement the changes to the absolute collateral limits described above, ICE Clear Europe proposed changes to its haircut methodology. In particular, the proposed rule change would amend the haircut methodology to include a two-sided VaR estimation based on the largest absolute returns.
In addition, the proposed rule change would also amend the Collateral and Haircut Policy to account for ICE Clear Europe's committed repo facilities. For example, in certain circumstances, ICE Clear Europe permits a Clearing Member to maintain a collateral bond position that otherwise exceeds the applicable absolute collateral limits if ICE Clear Europe is able to determine that it would be able to use its committed repo facility to convert the excess collateral securities into cash. In addition, to permit the use of repo facilities in this way, the proposed rule change also clarifies that the repo facilities are available at any time there is an intra-day liquidity need and not just in case of Clearing Member default.
Finally, the proposed rule change would amend the Collateral and Haircut Policy to update references to internal ICE Clear Europe personnel, departments and committees and to explain the process for validation and oversight of the models used to support the Collateral and Haircut Policy.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Commission further finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5). Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5) requires that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to limit the assets it accepts as collateral to those with low credit, liquidity, and market risks, and set and enforce appropriately conservative haircuts and concentration limits if the covered clearing agency requires collateral to manage its or its participants' credit exposure; and require a review of the sufficiency of its collateral haircuts and concentration limits to be performed not less than annually.
The proposed rule change will enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to control the liquidity and market risks stemming from the posting of collateral by establishing a maximum amount of bonds from an individual issuer that ICE Clear Europe will accept from a Member Group as collateral. The proposed rule change will improve the accuracy of the Collateral and Haircut Policy by taking into account the trading liquidity of the bond using secondary market trading volume data provided by ICE Data Services. Moreover, by updating the Collateral and Haircut Policy to incorporate a two-sided VaR estimation based on the largest absolute returns, the proposed rule change will capture a broader range of price volatility information, thereby enhancing ICE Clear Europe's ability to liquidate the bond collateral in a timely manner without losses beyond the given haircuts. The Commission finds that these aspects of the proposed rule change are intended to limit the assets ICE Clear Europe accepts as collateral to those with low credit, liquidity, and market risks, and to set and enforce appropriately conservative haircuts. Therefore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) requires that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that are clear and transparent and support the public interest requirements in Section 17A of the Act applicable to clearing agencies, and the objectives of owners and participants.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange seeks to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to decrease the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”) from $.0081 per contract to $.0049 per contract in order to help ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, meets the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The proposed fee change will be operative on February 1, 2018.
The ORF is assessed by Cboe Options to each Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) for options transactions cleared by the TPH that are cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in the customer range, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs.
Revenue generated from ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of TPH customer options business. Regulatory costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses for work allocated in support of the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and third party service provider costs to support the day to day regulatory work such as surveillances, investigations and examinations. The indirect expenses include support from such areas as human resources, legal, information technology and accounting. These indirect expenses are estimated to be approximately 10% of Cboe Options' total regulatory costs for 2018. Thus, direct expenses are estimated to be approximately 90% of total regulatory costs for 2018. In addition, it is Cboe Options' practice that revenue generated from ORF not exceed more than 75% of total annual regulatory costs. These expectations are estimated, preliminary and may change. These expectations are estimated, preliminary and may change. [sic] There can be no assurance that our final costs for 2018 will not differ materially from these expectations and prior practice; however, the Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs.
The Exchange also notes that its regulatory responsibilities with respect to TPH compliance with options sales practice rules have largely been allocated to FINRA under a 17d-2 agreement.
The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The Exchange monitors its regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange notifies
The Exchange also proposes a minor clean up change to the Fees Schedule. Specifically, currently the ORF description mistakenly references footnote 45. The description will be amended to reference footnote 46, which was the Exchange's original intention.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable because it would help ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing higher fees to those TPHs that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business they conduct. Regulating customer trading activity is much more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's overall regulatory program are materially higher than the costs associated with administering the non-customer component (
Cboe Options does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because it applies to all TPHs. The proposed ORF is comparable to fees charged by other options exchanges for the same or similar service. The Exchange believes any burden on competition imposed by the proposed rule change is outweighed by the need to help the Exchange adequately fund its regulatory activities to ensure compliance with the Exchange Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule related to the Options Regulatory Fee. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to modify the fee schedule applicable to the Exchange's options platform (“BZX Options”) to amend the rate of its Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”). Currently, the Exchange charges an ORF in the amount of $0.0009 per contract side. The Exchange proposes to decrease the amount of ORF from $0.0009 per contract side to $0.0005 per contract side. The proposed change to ORF should continue to balance the Exchange's regulatory expenses against the anticipated revenue. The proposed fee change will be operative on February 1, 2018.
The per-contract ORF is assessed by the Exchange on each Member for all options transactions executed and cleared, or simply cleared, by the Member, that are cleared by OCC in the “customer” range, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. The ORF is collected indirectly from Members through their clearing firms by OCC on behalf of the Exchange. The ORF is also charged for transactions that are not executed by a Member but are ultimately cleared by a Member. Thus, in the case where a non-Member executes a transaction and a Member clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to the Member who clears the transaction. Similarly, in the case where a Member executes a transaction and another Member clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to the Member who clears the transaction.
Revenue generated from ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of TPH customer options business. Regulatory costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses for work allocated in support of the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and third party service provider costs to support the day to day regulatory work such as surveillances, investigations and examinations. The indirect expenses include support from such areas as human resources, legal, information technology and accounting. These indirect expenses are estimated to be approximately 10% of BZX Options' total regulatory costs for 2018. Thus, direct expenses are estimated to be approximately 90% of total regulatory costs for 2018. In addition, it is BZX Options' practice that revenue generated from ORF not exceed more than 75% of total annual regulatory costs. These expectations are estimated, preliminary and may change. There can be no assurance that our final costs for 2018 will not differ materially from these expectations and prior practice; however, the Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs.
The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The Exchange monitors its regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange notifies Trading Permit Holders of adjustments to the ORF via regulatory circular. The Exchange endeavors to provide Trading Permit Holders with such notice at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The Exchange believes the decreased ORF is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would be objectively allocated to Members in that
The Exchange has designed the ORF to generate revenues that, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will be less than or equal to the Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent with the Commission's view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to support the Exchange's business side. In this regard, the Exchange believes that the decreased level of the fee is reasonable and appropriate.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The ORF is not intended to have any impact on competition. Rather, it is designed to enable the Exchange to recover a material portion of the Exchange's cost related to its regulatory activities. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of regulatory revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs.
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. The decreased ORF continues to also be comparable to ORFs charged by other options exchanges.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 01/01-0344 issued to First New England Capital, LP said license is hereby declared null and void.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 07/07-0102 issued to Eagle Fund I, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and void.
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice a new matching program.
In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, as amended, this notice announces a new matching program that we are currently conducting with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
This matching agreement sets forth the terms, conditions, and safeguards under which IRS will disclose to SSA certain return information for the purpose of establishing the correct amount of Medicare Part B premium subsidy adjustments and Medicare Part D premium increases under sections 1839(i) and 1860D-13(a)(7) of the Social Security Act (Act). (42 U.S.C. 1395r(i) and 1395w-113(a)(7) (42 U.S.C. 1395r(i) and 1395w-113(a)(7)), as enacted by section 811 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA; Pub. L. 108-173) and section 3308 of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-148).
The deadline to submit comments on the proposed matching program is 30 days from the date of publication in the
Interested parties may comment on this notice by either telefaxing to (410) 966-0869, writing to Mary Ann Zimmerman, Acting Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, 617 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, or email at
Interested parties may submit general questions about the matching program to Mary Ann Zimmerman, Acting Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, by any of the means shown above.
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the conditions under which computer matching involving the Federal government could be performed and adding certain protections for persons applying for, and receiving, Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such persons.
The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, State, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in matching programs to:
(1) Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;
(2) Obtain approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Boards of the participating Federal agencies;
(3) Publish notice of the matching program in the
(4) Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
(5) Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and
(6) Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying a person's benefits or payments.
SSA has taken action to ensure that all of SSA's matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended.
SSA and IRS
Section 6103(1)(20) of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes IRS to disclose specified return information to SSA with respect to taxpayers whose Part B and/or Part D prescription drug coverage insurance premium(s) may (according to IRS records) be subject to premium subsidy adjustment pursuant to section 1839(i) or premium increase pursuant to section 1860D-13(a)(7) of the Social Security Act (Act) for the purpose of establishing the amount of any such adjustment or increase. The return information IRS will disclose includes adjusted gross income and specified tax-exempt income, collectively referred to in this agreement as modified adjusted gross income (MAGI). This return information will be used by officers, employees, and contractors of SSA to establish the appropriate amount of any such adjustment or increase.
Sections 1839(i) and 1860D-13(a)(7) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1395r(i) and 1395w-113(a)(7)) require SSA to determine the amount of a beneficiary's premium subsidy adjustment, or premium increase, if the MAGI is above the applicable threshold as established in section 1839(i) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1395r(i)).
The purpose of this matching program is to set forth the terms, conditions, and safeguards under which IRS will disclose to SSA certain return information for the purpose of establishing the correct amount of Medicare Part B premium subsidy adjustments and Medicare Part D premium increases under sections 1839(i) and 1860D-13(a)(7) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1395r(i) and 1395w-113(a)(7)), as enacted by section 811 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA; Pub. L. 108-173) and section 3308 of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-148).
SSA will disclose to IRS the name and Social Security number (SSN) of beneficiaries who are either enrolled in, or have become entitled to, Medicare Part B and Part D. IRS will extract and
When individuals enroll for the Medicare Part B or Medicare prescription drug coverage, or both, they are entitled to both under 1839(i) and 1860D-13(a)(7) section of the Act. On a weekly basis, SSA will provide IRS with this information with respect to Medicare Part B and Part D beneficiaries.
When there is a match of enrollee identifier, and the MAGI data shows income above the applicable threshold establish pursuant to section 1839(i) of the Act, IRS will disclose to SSA information about the Part B and Part D enrollee's who:
a. Are enrolled in Medicare under the rules in section 1837 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1395p) and have not disenrolled from Medicare Part B;
b. have filed applications specifically for Medicare Part B;
c. have been determined to have retroactive Medicare Part B entitlement; or
d. have been provided to SSA as enrolled in Medicare Part D by CMS.
Hereinafter, the beneficiaries described above will be referred to as “enrollees.”
As part of the weekly transmission, SSA will include the name, SSN, premium year, and income threshold amounts for new enrollees. Once each year, on a date in October agreed to at the time between IRS and SSA, SSA will provide the name, SSN, premium year, and income threshold amounts for all enrollees. SSA will use information obtained in this annual request to determine Part B and Part D adjustments for the coming premium year. At the time of the agreed upon annual exchange, SSA will include the name, SSN, premium year, income threshold amounts, and requested tax year with respect to all enrollees who asked SSA to use a more recent tax year or for enrollees for whom IRS provided three year old return information on the initial request. SSA will use the information obtained to correct Part B and Part D adjustment amounts for the requested premium year.
SSA will provide IRS with identifying information with respect to enrollees from the Master Beneficiary Record system of records, 60-0090, last fully published at 71
Department of State.
Announcement of meetings; solicitation of suggestions; invitation to public session.
The Department of State and the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) are providing notice that the governments of the United States and Kingdom of Morocco (the governments) intend to hold a meeting to review implementation of the Environment Chapter of the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement (FTA), a meeting of the United States-Morocco Working Group on Environmental Cooperation (Working Group), and a public session in Rabat, Morocco, on March 13, 2018, at the Ministry of Environment, to discuss implementation of the Environment Chapter and Joint Statement on Environmental Cooperation.
The public session will be held on March 13, 2018, in Rabat, Morocco at the Ministry of Environment. Suggestions on the meeting agenda and/or the 2018-2021 Plan of Action should be provided no later than March 8, 2018, to facilitate consideration.
Those interested in attending the public session should email Eloise Canfield at
Eloise Canfield, (202) 647-4750 or at
During the meetings, the governments will review and discuss implementation of the Environment Chapter of the FTA. The governments will also discuss how the United States and Morocco can work together to protect and conserve the environment, highlight past bilateral environmental cooperation, review activities under the 2014-2017 Plan of Action, and develop a 2018-2021 Plan of Action. The Department of State and USTR invite the members of the public to submit written suggestions on items to include on the meeting agenda and in the 2018-2021 Plan of Action.
The Department of State and USTR also invite interested persons to attend a public session where the public will have the opportunity to ask about implementation of both the Joint Statement and the Environment Chapter of the United States-Morocco FTA. The Environment Chapter of the FTA includes obligations on each Party to ensure that its environmental laws and policies provide for and encourage high levels of environmental protection, effectively enforce its environmental laws, and provide opportunities for public participation on matters related to the implementation of the chapter. In the Joint Statement, the governments of the United States and Morocco (1) recognize “the importance of protecting the environment while promoting sustainable development in concert with the expanded bilateral trade and investment ties accompanying the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement (`FTA')” and (2) indicate their intent “to pursue efforts to enhance bilateral environmental cooperation. . . .” In paragraph 5 of the Joint Statement, the governments establish the Working Group to coordinate and review environmental cooperation activities. As envisioned in the Joint Statement, the Working Group develops Plans of Action, reviews and assesses cooperative environmental activities pursuant to the Plan of Action, recommends ways to improve such cooperation, and undertakes such other activities as may seem appropriate to the governments.
Through this notice, the United States is soliciting the views of the public with respect to the 2018-2021 Plan of Action. Members of the public, including NGOs, educational institutions, private sector enterprises, and all other interested persons are invited to submit written suggestions regarding items for inclusion in the meeting agendas or in the 2018-2021 Plan of Action. Please include your full name and identify any organization or group you represent. We encourage submitters to refer to:
• United States-Morocco Joint Statement on Environmental Cooperation;
• 2014-2017 Plan of Action Pursuant to the United States-Morocco Joint Statement on Environmental Cooperation;
• Chapter 17 of the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement; and
• Final Environmental Review of the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement.
These documents are available at:
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Notice of intent.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is conducting a study of its energy resources in order to update and replace the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and the associated Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that it completed in 2015. The IRP is a comprehensive study of how TVA will meet the demand for electricity in its service territory over the next 20 years. The 2015 IRP is being updated in response to major changes in electrical utility industry trends since 2015, including flat to slightly declining load growth, advances in the development of distributed energy resources and the integration of those resources in the electric grid. As part of the study, TVA intends to prepare a programmatic EIS to assess the impacts associated with the implementation of the updated IRP. TVA will use the EIS process to elicit and prioritize the values and concerns of stakeholders; identify issues, trends, events, and tradeoffs affecting TVA's policies; formulate, evaluate and compare alternative portfolios of energy resource options; provide opportunities for public review and comment; and ensure that TVA's evaluation of alternative energy resource strategies reflects a full range of stakeholder input. Public comment is invited concerning both the scope of the EIS and environmental issues that should be addressed as a part of this EIS.
To ensure consideration, comments on the scope and environmental issues must be postmarked, emailed or submitted online no later than April 16, 2018. To facilitate the scoping process, TVA will hold public scoping meetings; see
Written comments should be sent to Ashley Pilakowski, NEPA Compliance Specialist, 400 West Summit Hill Dr., WT 11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1499. Comments may also be submitted online at:
For general information about the NEPA process, please contact Ashley Pilakowski at the address above, by email at
This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and TVA's procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). TVA is an agency and instrumentality of the United States, established by an act of Congress in 1933, to foster the social and economic welfare of the people of the Tennessee Valley region and to promote the proper use and conservation of the region's natural resources. One component of this mission is the generation, transmission, and sale of reliable and affordable electric energy.
TVA operates the nation's largest public power system, providing electricity to about 9 million people in an 80,000-square mile area comprised of most of Tennessee and parts of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky. It provides wholesale power to 154 independent local power companies and 56 directly served large industries and federal facilities. The TVA Act requires the TVA power system to be self-supporting and operated on a nonprofit basis and directs TVA to sell power at rates as low as are feasible.
Dependable generating capability on the TVA power system is approximately 37,000 megawatts. TVA generates most of the power it distributes with 3 nuclear plants, 7 coal-fired plants, 9 simple-cycle combustion turbine plants, 7 combined-cycle combustion turbine plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, a pumped-storage facility, a methane-gas cofiring facility, a diesel-fired facility, and 16 small solar photovoltaic facilities. A portion of delivered power is provided through long-term power purchase agreements. In 2017, 25 percent of TVA's power supply was from coal; 38 percent from nuclear; 16 percent from natural gas; 9 percent from non-renewable purchases; 7 percent from hydro; and 5 percent from renewable power purchase agreements. TVA transmits electricity from these facilities over 16,000 circuit miles of transmission lines. Like other utility systems, TVA has power interchange agreements with utilities surrounding its region and purchases and sells power on an economic basis almost daily.
TVA develops an Integrated Resource Plan to identify the most effective energy resource strategies that will meet TVA's mission and serve the people of the Valley for the next 20 years. In 2015, TVA completed the Integrated Resource Plan and associated Supplemental EIS. Since 2015, several industry-wide changes have led TVA to begin development of the new IRP and associated EIS ahead of the 5-year cycle identified in the 2015 IRP. Natural gas supplies are abundant and are projected to remain available at lower cost. The electric system load is expected to be flat, or even declining slightly, over the next ten years. The price of renewable resources, particularly solar, continues to decline. Consumer demand for renewable and distributed energy resources (including distributed generation, storage, demand response, energy services, and energy efficiency programs) is growing.
Based on discussions with both internal and external stakeholders, TVA anticipates that the scope of the IRP EIS will include the cost and reliability of power, the availability and use of renewable and distributed energy resources, the effectiveness and implementation of demand side management options, the effect of energy efficiency programs, and the relationship of the economy to all of these options. The IRP EIS will address the effects of power production on the environment, including climate change, the effects of climate change on the Valley, and the waste and byproducts of TVA's power operations.
Because of its nature as a planning document, the IRP will not identify specific locations for new resource options. Site-specific environmental effects of new resource options will be addressed in later site-specific assessments tiered off this programmatic EIS. Therefore, in this programmatic environmental impact statement, TVA anticipates that the environmental effects examined will primarily be those
• Emissions of greenhouse gases,
• fuel consumption,
• air quality,
• water quality and quantity,
• waste generation and disposal,
• land use,
• ecological,
• cultural resources,
• socioeconomic impacts and environmental justice.
TVA invites suggestions concerning the list of issues which should be addressed. TVA also invites specific comments on the questions that will begin to be answered by this IRP:
• How do you think energy usage will change in the next 20 years in the Tennessee Valley region?
• Should the diversity of the current power generation mix (
• How should distributed energy resources be considered in TVA planning?
• How should energy efficiency and demand response be considered in planning for future energy needs and how can TVA directly affect electricity usage by consumers?
• And how will the resource decisions discussed above affect the reliability, dispatchability (ability to turn on or off energy resources) and cost of electricity?
TVA employs a scenario planning approach when developing an IRP. The major steps in this approach include identifying the future need for power, developing scenarios and strategies, determining potential supply-side and demand-side energy resource options, developing portfolios associated with the strategies and ranking strategies and portfolios. The 2015 IRP, developed with extensive public involvement, evaluated six alternative energy resource strategies which differed in the amount of purchased power, energy efficiency and demand response efforts, renewable energy resources, nuclear generating capacity additions, and coal-fired generation. The alternative strategies were analyzed in the context of five different scenarios that described plausible future economic, financial, regulatory and legislated conditions, as well as social trends and adoption of technological innovations. TVA then developed a preferred alternative, the Target Power Supply Mix, based on guideline ranges for key energy resources. In developing the Target Power Supply Mix, TVA took into account its least-cost planning requirement and customer priorities of power cost and reliability, as well as other comments it received during the public comment periods. The Target Power Supply Mix established ranges, in MW, for coal plant retirements and additions of nuclear, hydroelectric, demand response, energy efficiency, solar, wind, and natural gas capacity. TVA anticipates using an analytical approach similar to that of the 2015 IRP/EIS described above. The number of alternative energy resource strategies and scenarios to be evaluated may differ from the 2015 IRP/EIS and will be determined after the completion of scoping.
Scoping, which is integral to the process for implementing NEPA, provides an early and open process to ensure that (1) issues are identified early and properly studied; (2) issues of little significance do not consume substantial time and effort; (3) the draft EIS is thorough and balanced; and (4) delays caused by an inadequate EIS are avoided.
With the help of the public, TVA will identify the most effective energy resource strategy that will meet TVA's mission and serve the people of the Valley for the next 20 years. To ensure that the full range of issues and a comprehensive portfolio of energy resources are addressed, TVA invites members of the public as well as Federal, state, and local agencies and Indian tribes to comment on the scope of the IRP EIS. As part of the IRP process and in addition to other public engagement opportunities, TVA is assembling representatives from key stakeholders to participate in a working group that will discuss tradeoffs associated with different resource options and assist TVA in developing an optimal energy resource strategy.
Comments on the scope of this IRP EIS should be submitted no later than the date given under the
After consideration of the comments received during this scoping period, TVA will summarize public and agency comments, identify the issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS, and identify the schedule for completing the EIS process. Following analysis of the issues, TVA will prepare a draft EIS for public review and comment. Notice of availability of the draft EIS will be published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the
The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on February 16, 2018, in the Missionary Ridge Auditorium of the Chattanooga Office Complex, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee. The public may comment on any agenda item or subject at a
Open.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice and request for comments.
On January 23, 2018, the President imposed a safeguard measure on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products such as modules (other CSPV products), consisting of (1) a tariff-rate quota on imports of CSPV cells not partially or fully assembled into other products, with an unchanged rate of duty for the within-quota quantity and an increase in the rate of duty applicable to articles entered in excess of that quantity; and (2) an increase in the rate of duty on imports of other CSPV products, as provided for in the Proclamation's annex. This notice establishes the procedures to request the exclusion of a particular product from the safeguard measure, the criteria for describing a particular product for which exclusion is sought, and identifies the factors that the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) may take into consideration when determining whether to exclude a particular product. It also solicits requests for exclusion of a particular product from the safeguard measure.
March 16, 2018, at 11:59 p.m. EST: Deadline for the submission of requests for exclusion of a particular product from the safeguard measure.
April 16, 2018 at 11:59 p.m. EST: Deadline for the submission of comments in response to requests for exclusion of a particular product from the safeguard measure.
USTR strongly prefers electronic submissions made through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Victor Mroczka, Office of WTO and Multilateral Affairs, at
Following receipt of a petition from Suniva, Inc., a producer of CSPV products in the United States, that was later joined by SolarWorld Americas, Inc., another producer of CPSV products in the United States (collectively, petitioners), the ITC instituted an investigation under section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 2252), to determine whether there were increased imports of CSPV products in such quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing like or directly competitive products. The ITC notice of institution (82 FR 25331) identified the scope of the products covered by this investigation as CSPV cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, of a thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction (or variant thereof) formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to cleaning, etching, coating, and addition of materials (including, but not limited to metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell. The scope of the investigation also included photovoltaic cells that contain crystalline silicon in addition to other materials, such as passivated emitter rear contact cells, heterojunction with intrinsic thin layer cells, and other so-called “hybrid” cells.
The notice of institution identified products covered and excluded by the scope of the investigation. Specifically, the scope of the investigation did not cover:
• Thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (“a-Si”), cadmium telluride (“CdTe”), or copper indium gallium selenide (“CIGS”);
• CSPV cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm
• CSPV cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, if such CSPV cells were manufactured in the United States.
On the basis of information developed during the investigation, the ITC determined pursuant to section 202(b) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(b)) that CSPV products are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury to the domestic industry and made additional findings under the implementing statutes of certain free trade agreements or other statutory provisions related to certain preferential trade programs.
On October 25, 2017 (82 FR 49469), the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) provided details concerning the process it would use to make a recommendation to the President on actions he should take to facilitate the efforts of the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs. The process included an opportunity to file initial and responsive comments regarding this question and a public hearing on December 6, 2017, during which commenters testified regarding their submissions and addressed the claims and arguments of others. As part of this process, a number of interested persons requested the exclusion of products from application of the safeguard measure.
Presidential Proclamation 9693 of January 23, 2018 (83 FR 3541) excluded certain particular products:
• 10 to 60 watt, inclusive, rectangular solar panels, where the panels have the following characteristics: (A) Length of 250 mm or more but not over 482 mm or width of 400 mm or more but not over 635 mm, and (B) surface area of 1000 cm
• 1 watt solar panels incorporated into nightlights that use rechargeable batteries and have the following dimensions: 58 mm or more but not over 64 mm by 126 mm or more but not over 140 mm;
• 2 watt solar panels incorporated into daylight dimmers, that may use rechargeable batteries, such panels with the following dimensions: 75 mm or more but not over 82 mm by 139 mm or more but not over 143 mm;
• Off-grid and portable CSPV panels, whether in a foldable case or in rigid form containing a glass cover, where the panels have the following characteristics: (a) A total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (b) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm
• 3.19 watt or less solar panels, each with length of 75 mm or more but not over 266 mm and width of 46 mm or more but not over 127 mm, with surface area of 338 cm
• 27.1 watt or less solar panels, each with surface area less than 3,000 cm
The Proclamation directed the United States Trade Representative to publish a notice establishing procedures for requests for the exclusion of particular products from the safeguard measure. The Proclamation provides that if the Trade Representative determines, after consultation with the Secretaries of Commerce and Energy (the interagency group), that a particular product should be excluded, the Trade Representative can modify the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) provisions created in the Proclamation's annex to exclude that particular product from the safeguard measure upon publication of the determination in the
USTR invites interested persons to submit comments identifying a particular product for exclusion from the safeguard measure and providing reasons why the product should be excluded. USTR will evaluate each request on a case-by-case basis and will grant only those exclusions that do not undermine the objectives of the safeguard measures.
Any request for exclusion clearly should identify the particular product in terms of the physical characteristics (
In evaluating requests for exclusion, the interagency group may consider the following factors or information:
• The names and locations of any producers, in the United States and foreign countries, of the particular product;
• Total U.S. consumption of the particular product, if any, by quantity and value for each year from 2014 to 2017, the projected annual consumption for each year from 2018 to 2022, and any related information about the types of consumers;
• Details concerning the typical use or application of the particular product;
• Total U.S. production of the particular product for each year from 2014 to 2017, if any;
• The identity of any U.S.-produced substitute for the particular product, total U.S. production of the substitute for each year from 2014 to 2017, and the names of any U.S. producers of the substitute;
• Whether the particular product or substitute for the particular product may be obtained from a U.S. producer;
• Whether qualification requirements affect the requestor's ability to use domestic products;
• Whether the particular product is under development by a U.S. producer who will imminently be able to produce it in marketable quantities;
• Inventories of the particular product in the United States;
• Whether excluding the particular product from the safeguard measure would result in a benefit or advantage to the long-term competitiveness of the solar manufacturing supply chain in the United States, including by fostering research and development, supporting manufacturing innovation, or by leading to the development of differentiated products that command higher prices;
• The ability of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to administer the exclusion; and
• Any other information or data that interested persons consider relevant to an evaluation of the request.
Where necessary, an agency participating in the interagency group may contact interested persons to discuss the procedures or information referenced above or to gain additional information.
USTR strongly discourages the submission of business confidential information. Any request that contains business confidential information must be accompanied by a public version that does not contain the business confidential information, which will be posted on
When interested persons identify factors in addition to those listed above that they consider relevant to evaluating whether a particular product should be excluded from the safeguard measure, they should explain how the factor would affect the domestic industry's efforts to make a positive adjustment to import competition or the social and economic benefits or costs associated with the safeguard measure.
After the submission of requests for exclusion of a particular product, interested persons will have an opportunity to comment on the requests, indicate whether they support or oppose any of them, and provide reasons for their view. You can view requests for exclusions on
At this time, USTR will not consider requests for exclusion received after March 16, 2018. USTR will monitor developments in the U.S. market for CSPV products and, if warranted, provide for additional requests for exclusion at a later date.
USTR seeks requests and responses to requests with respect to the issues described in Section III.A through a public comment process. To be assured of consideration, you must submit written comments by 11:59 p.m. EST on March 16, 2018, and any written responses to those comments by 11:59 p.m. EST on April 16, 2018. All comments must be in English and must identify on the reference line of the first page of the submission “Comments Regarding Requests for Product Exclusions From the Solar Products Safeguard Measure.”
We strongly encourage commenters to make on-line submissions using the
The
As noted above, we strongly discourage the submission of business confidential information and its inclusion may prevent a full consideration of the product exclusion request. In any event, including business confidential information in a submission should be extremely circumscribed. Additionally, the filer must provide a public version and the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is business confidential. A filer requesting business confidential treatment must certify that the information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter.
As indicated above, filers of submissions containing business confidential information must submit a public version of their comments. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments. Filers submitting comments containing no business confidential information should name their file using the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.
We emphasize that submitters are strongly encouraged to file comments through
We will post comments in the docket for public inspection, except business confidential information. You can view comments on
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for public comments.
Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the Manchester-Boston Regional Authority to dispose of 17.6 acres of airport land. The parcel is located three miles south of the airport and surrounded by residential development. Considering its remote location and no aviation development potential, disposal of the property is approved. The airport will obtain fair market value for the disposal and the proceeds deposited into the airport's account for operation and maintenance of the facility.
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2018.
You may send comments using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Interested persons may inspect the request and supporting documents by contacting the FAA at the address listed under
Mr. Jorge E. Panteli, Compliance and Land Use Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration New England Region Airports Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts, 01803. Telephone: 781-238-7618.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 11 individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2018.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0104; FMCSA-2012-0322; FMCSA-2012-0154; FMCSA-2015-0326; FMCSA-2013-0122; FMCSA-2013-0123; FMCSA-2015-0329. using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for five years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
The 11 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 11 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement. The 11 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency. In addition, for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of these drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of January and are discussed below.
As of January 6, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 3 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2015-0326; and FMCSA-2015-0329. Their exemptions are applicable as of January 6, 2018, and will expire on January 6, 2020.
As of January 14, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 8 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2014-0104; FMCSA-2012-0322; FMCSA-2012-0154; FMCSA-2013-0122; FMCSA-2013-0123. Their exemptions are applicable as of January 14, 2018, and will expire on January 14, 2020.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5; and (2) report all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and (3) each driver prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable CDL testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 11 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(11). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 43 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0022 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 43 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control. The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population.
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441). The revision must provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305). Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the three-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e). Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary. The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Mr. Armstead, 50, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Armstead understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Armstead meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Montana.
Mr. Barton, 44, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Barton understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Barton meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New Hampshire.
Mr. Bennett, 63, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bennett understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bennett meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Ms. Billig, 61, has had ITDM since 2012. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Billig understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Billig meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Burris, 48, has had ITDM since 2011. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Burris understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Burris meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017
Mr. Canty, 50, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Canty understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Canty meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Carrasco, 46, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Carrasco understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carrasco meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
Mr. Claro, 60, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Claro understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Claro meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.
Mr. Cucinello, 69, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cucuinello understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cucuinello meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Alaska.
Mr. Culver, 58, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Culver understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Culver meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Dalrymple, 60, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dalrymple understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dalrymple meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Daoust, 58, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Daoust understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Daoust meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Florida.
Ms. Davis, 25, has had ITDM since 2015. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Davis understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Davis meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Drozdowski, 52, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more)
Mr. Everitt, 51, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Everitt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Everitt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Gardner, 42, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gardner understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gardner meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Mississippi.
Mr. Godbolt, 58, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Godbolt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Godbolt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Louisiana.
Mr. Gordon, 43, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Grodon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gordon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Green, 66, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Green understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Green meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Florida.
Mr. Hammond, 40, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hammond understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hammond meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.
Mr. Harkins, 65, has had ITDM since 1975. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Harkins understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Harkins meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Harris, 64, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Harris understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Harris meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska.
Mr. Hicks, 58, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hicks understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hicks meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Virginia.
Mr. Hill, 61, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hill understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hill meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
Mr. Hughes, 67, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hughes understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hughes meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Mexico.
Mr. Johnson, 57, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Johnson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Johnson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Lotz, 35, has had ITDM since 1988. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lotz understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lotz meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.
Mr. McCormick, 24, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McCormick understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McCormick meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from California.
Ms. Mercury, 32, has had ITDM since 2014. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Mercury understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Mercury meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from New York.
Mr. Mezzacappa, 56, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mezzacappa understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mezzacappa meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Opipare, 66, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Opipare understands diabetes management and monitoring,
Mr. Payne, 45, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Payne understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Payne meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. Pieri, 61, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pieri understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pieri meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Poillucci, 58, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Poilluci understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Poilluci meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Santiago, 54, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Santiago understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Santiago meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Florida.
Mr. Schaffer, 40, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schaffer understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schaffer meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.
Mr. Somers, 42, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Somers understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Somers meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Washington.
Mr. Swenson, 56, has had ITDM since 1986. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Swenson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Swenson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
Mr. Turner, 40, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Turner understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Turner meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Georgia.
Mr. Utley, 26, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or
Mr. Ward, 29, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ward understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ward meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. White, 52, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. White understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. White meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Alabama.
Mr. Wood, 64, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wood understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wood meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Arkansas.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) has applied for an exemption from the requirement to use an electronic logging device (ELD) to record driver hours-of-service (HOS) on commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) used by contractors to install, repair, and maintain the infrastructure of electrical utilities. NECA believes the ELD requirement unnecessarily burdens its members' operations. It proposes to continue to use paper to record the HOS of these drivers. NECA states that CMV operations under the exemption would achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the proposed exemption. FMCSA requests public comment on NECA's application for exemption.
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2018-0003 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
For information concerning this notice, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 614-942-6477. Email:
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2018-0003), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comments online, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
The HOS rules (49 CFR part 395) prescribe the drive-time limits and rest requirements for interstate drivers of CMVs. The rules also require most drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, and their motor carriers, to use ELDs—not handwritten logbooks—to document their HOS duty status (49 CFR 395.8(a)(1)(i)).
NECA's 4,000 members are contractors who install, repair and maintain the infrastructure of electrical utilities. The contractors employ line workers who drive utility-service CMVs during their duty day. NECA states that the number of CMV drivers who would be eligible for this exemption is difficult to estimate; it states that the fleet of one “large” contractor consists of 13,766 CMVs.
NECA seeks exemption from the requirement that motor carriers and their CMV drivers use an ELD to record driver HOS. The actual operation of the CMVs by the line workers is so limited that the ELD requirement is triggered infrequently. By this application for exemption, NECA seeks greater “consistency” in the regulatory environment in which its line workers operate. It states that it is “cumbersome” to meet the costs and logistical challenges of recording HOS electronically, and that the resulting safety benefit is negligible given the limited scope of the CMV operations of this industry. NECA states that if provided the exemption, its CMV drivers would remain fully subject to the HOS standards and continue to record their HOS on the customary paper RODS. NECA states that its operations under the exemption would achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the proposed exemption. A copy of NECA's application for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 23 individuals for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0028 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 23 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal Meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard red, green, and amber.
In July 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to meet (Qualification of Drivers; Vision Waivers, 57 FR 31458, July 16, 1992). The current Vision Exemption Program was established in 1998, following the enactment of amendments to the statutes governing exemptions made by § 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 401 (June 9, 1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the procedures established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case basis upon application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision standards of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past three years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used three consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in
Mr. Belknap, 52, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/150, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Based upon my examination and with due regard for public safety, it is my decision that Mr. Belknap's eyesight is sufficient to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Belknap reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating 525,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 35 years, accumulating 262,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Vermont. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Cavanaugh, 33, has had nystagmus in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Therefore, it is my opinion that Scott has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Cavanaugh reported that he has driven straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating 108,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Oklahoma. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Ferry, 52, has a retinal detachment in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1991. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/150, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In summary, it is my opinion that Mr. James Ferry meets the tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Ferry reported that he has driven straight trucks for 33 years, accumulating 825,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 31 years, accumulating 2.17 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Hehr, 27, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, count fingers. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “Vision is sufficient to operate a commercial vehicle per Sheridan Lam, MD.” Mr. Hehr reported that he has driven straight trucks for eight years, accumulating 108,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for three years, accumulating 36,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Houston, 42, has a corneal scar in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “Despite the fact Mr. Houston has a corneal scar in his right eye, in my medical opinion he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Houston reported that he has driven straight trucks for ten years, accumulating 400,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for ten years, accumulating 400,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Knecht, 67, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Marvin has adequate vision to pass the commercial driving standards.” Mr. Knecht reported that he has driven straight trucks for 50 years, accumulating 525,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 45 years, accumulating 3.6 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Dakota. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and one conviction for speeding in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 20 mph.
Mr. Knott, 51, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 1987. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my professional opinion, considering the longevity of his driving career, the longstanding, stable nature of his eye condition, and his ability to meet the requirements for CDL licensure, I also believe Mr. Scott is capable of safely and properly operating his vehicle(s).” Mr. Knott reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 900,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from North Dakota. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Lewis, 55, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion these findings demonstrate that the patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Lewis reported that he has driven straight trucks for four years, accumulating 80,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 29 years, accumulating 1.45 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from California. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Moore, 51, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to melanoma. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “He has sufficient vision to perform his driving task under a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Moore reported that he has driven straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating 500,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 25 years, accumulating 2 million miles. He holds an operator's license from Louisiana. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Munoz, 45, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “I certify that in my opinion, Mr. Munoz has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Munoz reported that he has driven straight trucks for seven years, accumulating 94,500 miles. He holds an operator's license from Texas. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Quiles, 58, has retinal scarring in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 1977. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/250. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “It is my opinion that Mr. Quiles has adequate vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Quiles reported that he has driven straight trucks for five years, accumulating 75,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 35 years, accumulating 2.9 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Reed, 61, has had a branch retinal vein occlusion in his left eye since 2014. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “I believe that Vernon Reed has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Reed reported that he has driven straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating 192,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 36 years, accumulating 3.6 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Rhynd, 27, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “He does have sufficient vision to perform the commercial driving tasks required.” Mr. Rhynd reported that he has driven straight trucks for four years, accumulating 520,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for five years, accumulating 1.12 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Maine. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Riddell, 62, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “This letter certifies that Douglas L. Riddell in my medical opinion has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to safely operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Riddell reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 540,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 120,000 miles. He holds a Class AM1 CDL from California. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Stevelman, 25, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, the patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Stevelman reported that he has driven straight trucks for seven years, accumulating 105,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from New Jersey. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Straughter, 45, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “This is to certify that, in my medical opinion, Mr. Straughter has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Straughter reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for ten years, accumulating 1 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Talley, 51, has a chorioretinal scar in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is hand motion, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “DR
Mr. Thurston, 53, has had a macular scar in his right eye since 2004. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Eddie has sufficient vision for operating a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Thurston reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 18 years, accumulating 1.3 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Vaughn, 59, has had a retinal scar in his right eye since 2004. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Gerald Vaughn has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Vaughn reported that he has driven straight trucks for ten years, accumulating 100,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 2.25 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Viljoen, 38, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “According the
Mr. Wheland, 56, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye since 2014. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/125. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, Mr. Wheland retains vision sufficient to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Wheland reported that he has driven straight trucks for 18 years, accumulating 5.4 million miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 22 years, accumulating 12.1 million miles, and
Mr. Wixom, 56, has a retinal detachment in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 2015. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “I certify that Richard has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Wixom reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 2.25 million miles. He holds a Class CA CDL from Michigan. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Yousufzai, 41, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Yousufzai has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Yousufzai reported that he has driven straight trucks for three years, accumulating 36,780 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments and material received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 51 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0020 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 51 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control. The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population.
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441). The revision must provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305). Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the three-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e). Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary. The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Ms. Adams, 52, has had ITDM since 2017. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Adams understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Adams meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B CDL from New York.
Mr. Bain, 50, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bain understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bain meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Rhode Island.
Mr. Ballard, 36, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ballard understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ballard meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Michigan.
Mr. Barron, 59, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Barron understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Barron meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
Mr. Beck, 58, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Beck understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Beck meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Kentucky.
Mr. Benson, 50, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Benson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Benson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
Mr. Bonham, 45, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bonham understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bonham meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas.
Mr. Bowden, 60, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bowden understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bowden meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from California.
Mr. Davis, 68, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Davis understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Davis meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Davis, 57, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Davis understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Davis meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Debitencourte, 41, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Debitencourte understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Debitencourte meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Dickherber, 65, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dickherber understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dickherber meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Missouri.
Mr. Dixon, 59, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist
Ms. Fazio, 44, has had ITDM since 1982. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Fazio understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Fazio meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from New Hampshire.
Mr. Gibbs, 58, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gibbs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gibbs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.
Ms. Goolsbey, 38, has had ITDM since 1995. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Goolsbey understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Goolsbey meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class A CDL from New Mexico.
Mr. Goudreau, 22, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Goudreau understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Goudreau meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Mr. Green, 67, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Green understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Green meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Ms. Halfred, 56, has had ITDM since 2017. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Halfred understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Halfred meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B CDL from South Dakota.
Mr. Harris, 71, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Harris understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Harris meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Harris, 41, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Harris understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Harris meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Tennessee.
Mr. Heupel, 59, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Heupel understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Heupel meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Hobbs, 57, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hobbs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hobbs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
Mr. Hollins, 56, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hollins understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hollins meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Kachiev, 51, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kachiev understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kachiev meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Lehaman, 63, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lehman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lehman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Lowe, 54, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lowe understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lowe meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Colorado.
Mr. Martin, 60, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Martin understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Martin meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Kansas.
Mr. McMurray, 66, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McMurray understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McMurray meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from California.
Mr. Mensah, 42, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mensah understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV
Mr. Meyer, 42, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Meyer understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Meyer meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from California.
Mr. Nichols, 51, has had ITDM since 1971. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nichols understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nichols meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.
Mr. Niles, 51, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Niles understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Niles meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Montana.
Mr. Oliver, 46, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Oliver understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Oliver meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee.
Mr. Oliver, 39, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Oliver understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Oliver meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Oregon.
Mr. Payne, 52, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Payne understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Payne meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.
Mr. Pellack, 48, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pellack understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pellack meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Poe, 53, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Poe understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Poe meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan.
Mr. Richter, 33, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Richter understands diabetes management and monitoring,
Mr. Roach, 64, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Roach understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Roach meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Schellhammer, 56, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schellhammer understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schellhammer meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Sutton, 76, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sutton understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sutton meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Talley, 53, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Talley understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Talley meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Nevada.
Mr. Tatman, 43, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tatman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tatman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Colorado.
Mr. Thies, 21, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Thies understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thies meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Iowa.
Mr. Tischler, 31, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tischler understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tischler meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Utah.
Mr. Tucker, 63, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tucker understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tucker meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Warnock, 57, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him
Mr. Wohlers, 53, has had ITDM since 1991. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wohlers understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wohlers meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.
Mr. Woodfill, 57, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Woodfill understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Woodfill meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Woodring, 46, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Woodring understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Woodring meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 77 individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2018.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for five years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
The 77 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 77 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the diabetes requirement (77 FR 3549; 77 FR 5870; 77 FR 13685; 77 FR 17116; 78 FR 78479; 78 FR 79062; 79 FR 12567; 79 FR 13086; 81 FR 14210). They have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of these drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of March and are discussed below:
As of March 5, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 31 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 79062; 79 FR 12567; 81 FR 14210):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0193. Their exemptions are applicable as of March 5, 2018, and will expire on March 5, 2020.
As of March 7, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 34 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 3549; 77 FR 13685; 78 FR 78479; 79 FR 13086; 81 FR 14210):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2011-0368; FMCSA-2013-0192. Their exemptions are applicable as of March 7, 2018, and will expire on March 7, 2020.
As of March 23, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 12 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 5870; 77 FR 17116; 81 FR 14210):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0381. Their exemptions are applicable as of March 23, 2018, and will expire on March 23, 2020.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must submit an annual ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 77 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 11 individuals for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0006 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 11 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal Meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard red, green, and amber.
In July 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to meet (Qualification of Drivers; Vision Waivers, 57 FR 31458, July 16, 1992). The current Vision Exemption Program was established in 1998, following the enactment of amendments to the statutes governing exemptions made by § 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 401 (June 9, 1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the procedures established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case basis upon application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision standards of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past three years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used three consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first two years with their experiences in the final year.
Mr. Anklam, 52, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Based on Mr. Anklam's good peripheral vision in each eye and his exceptional driving record, I feel he is more than qualified to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Anklam reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 3.6 million miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 1.2 million miles, and buses for five years, accumulating 250,000 miles. He holds a Class ABCDM CDL from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Barfield, 50, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “It is my opinion that Rodney Barfield has sufficient vision to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely, there should be no restrictions imposed.” Mr. Barfield reported that he has driven straight trucks for seven years, accumulating 315,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 19 years, accumulating 2,660,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Blake, 60, has had central serous chorioretinopathy in his left eye since August 2014. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, he has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Blake reported that he has driven straight trucks for 18 years, accumulating 180,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Kansas. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Cisneros, 54, has aphakia in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Excellent vision in the right eye, able to perform driving tasks of a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Cisneros reported that he has driven straight trucks for 11 years, accumulating 528,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for four years, accumulating 300,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from California. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Craft, 57, has corneal scarring in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, light perception. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Craft has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Craft reported that he has driven straight trucks for 16 years, accumulating 400,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Arkansas. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Haener, 66, has a corneal scar in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is hand motion, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, James Haener has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Haener reported that he has driven straight trucks for 45 years, accumulating 225,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 45 years, accumulating 225,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Martin, 40, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, Mr. Martin has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Martin reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 19 years, accumulating 1.9 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he disregarded a traffic lane.
Mr. Redding, 54, has aphakia in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/800. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Please let this letter serve as notice that Mr. Redding does have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Redding reported that he has driven straight trucks for 21 years, accumulating 315,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Wheeler, 54, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Wheeler has, in my opinion, sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Wheeler reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 300,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Florida. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Worthington, 58, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “His ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle should not be limited due to his long-standing amblyopia of the left eye.” Mr. Worthington reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 300,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from New York. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Yoder, 57, has had a branch retinal vein occlusion in his left eye since 1995. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Despite the vision deficiency of the left eye, it is my professional medical opinion that Jonas has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Yoder reported that he has driven straight trucks for five years, accumulating 400,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Nebraska. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments and material received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 99 individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On November 27, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 99 individuals from the insulin-treated diabetes mellitus prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (82 FR 56111). The public comment period ended on December 27, 2017, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 99 renewal exemption applications and comments received, FMCSA confirms its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.64(3):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of October and are discussed below:
As of October 3, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 16 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 47291; 76 FR 61139):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0192. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 3, 2017, and will expire on October 3, 2019.
As of October 15, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 43 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (72 FR 45480; 72 FR 58360; 73 FR 45519; 73 FR 61188; 78 FR 50486; 78 FR 65031):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2007-27801; FMCSA-2008-0175; FMCSA-2013-0182. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 15, 2017, and will expire on October 15, 2019.
As of October 18, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Justin R. Freeman (ID) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 38435; 78 FR 63294).
This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0181. The exemption is applicable as of October 18, 2017, and will expire on October 18, 2019.
As of October 19, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (72 FR 50442; 72 FR 59332; 74 FR 41486; 74 FR 53583):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2007-28536; FMCSA-2009-0207. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 19, 2017, and will expire on October 19, 2019.
As of October 22, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (73 FR 52451; 73 FR 63041):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2008-0267. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 22, 2017, and will expire on October 22, 2019.
As of October 23, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 13 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 38435; 78 FR 63294):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0181. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 23, 2017, and will expire on October 23, 2019.
As of October 28, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Ricky A. Root (IL) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 50486; 78 FR 65031).
This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0182. The exemption is applicable as of October 28, 2017, and will expire on October 28, 2019.
As of October 30, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following seven individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 50486; 78 FR 65031):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0182. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 30, 2017, and will expire on October 30, 2019.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt twenty six individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below. The exemptions expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On October 3, 2016 FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 26 individuals requesting an exemption from the hearin requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (FR 81 68096). The public comment period ended on November 3, 2016 and one comment was received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5-1951. 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. Deb Carlson, from the Minnesota DMV office, noted that Matthew R. Burgoyne is no longer a Minnesota CDL holder and that he changed his state of record to Idaho.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the hearing standard in 49 CFR391.41(b)(11) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on current medical information and literature, and the 2008 Evidence Report, “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety.” The evidence report reached two conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety: (1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2) evidence from studies of the private driver's license holder population does not support the contention that individuals with hearing impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS), for commercial driver's license (CDL) holders, and inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). Each applicant's record demonstrated a safe driving history. Based on an individual assessment of each applicant that focused on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to drive in intrastate commerce, The Agency believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they do not pose a risk to public safety.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must report any crashed or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5; (2) each driver must report all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and (3) each driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable CDL testing requirements.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 26 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the hearing standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 27 individuals from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on January 11, 2018. The exemptions expire on January 11, 2020.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On December 11, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 27 individuals requesting an exemption from diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) and requested comments from the public (82 FR 58253). The public comment period ended on January 10, 2018, and one comment was received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. Vicky Johnson stated that Minnesota Department of Public Safety is in favor of granting exemptions to the following Minnesota drivers: Guy K. Paquette and Joseph M. Pellish, Jr.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on the program eligibility criteria and an individualized assessment of information submitted by each applicant. The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the December 11, 2017,
These 27 applicants have had ITDM over a range of one to 31 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past five years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keeping a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 27 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 91 individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on December 26, 2017. The exemptions expire on December 26, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On October 11, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 91 individuals requesting an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (FR 82 47294). The public comment period ended on November 13, 2017 and two comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5-1951.
49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. Don Lefeve, President and CEO of the Commercial Vehicle Training Association (CVTA) wrote opposing over the road training of hearing-impaired individuals, pointing out the Safety Risks and the Liability it poses, and in addition expressed concerns for the far reaching ramifications of allowing deaf or hard of hearing drivers to test, train and/or drive commercially and concerns regarding the process by which hearing exemptions are granted from parts 49 CFR 394.41. FMCSA acknowledges CVTA's concerns and a response to these comments will be published in a subsequent notice.
Ira Levinson, a hearing exemption applicant wrote inquiring when he may expect to receive his exemption.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on current medical information and literature, and the 2008 Evidence Report, “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety.” The evidence report reached two conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety: (1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2) evidence from studies of the private driver's license holder population does not support the contention that individuals with hearing impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5; (2) each driver must report all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and (3) each driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable CDL testing requirements.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 91 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the hearing standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Issued on: February 7, 2018.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 33 individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on September 6, 2016. The exemptions expire on September 6, 2018.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On August 1, 2016 FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from thirty three individuals requesting an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (81 FR 50594). The public comment period ended on August 31, 2016 and one comment was received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person: First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
FMCSA received one comment in this preceeding. The Florida Department Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles expressed concerns for the far reaching ramifications of allowing deaf or hard of hearing drivers to test, train and/or drive commercially and concerns regarding the process by which hearing exemptions are granted from parts 49 CFR 394.41. FMCSA acknowledges the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles concerns and a response to these comments will be published in a subsequent notice.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on current medical information and literature, and the 2008 Evidence Report, “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety.” The evidence report reached two conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety: (1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2) evidence from studies of the private driver's license holder population does not support the contention that individuals with hearing impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS), for commercial driver's license (CDL) holders, and inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). Each applicant's record demonstrated a safe driving history. Based on an individual assessment of each applicant that focused on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce, the Agency believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they do not pose a risk to public safety.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5; (2) each driver must report all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and (3) each driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable CDL testing requirements.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the thirty three exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the hearing standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 51 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0290 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 51 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control. The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population.
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441). The revision must provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305). Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the three-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e). Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary. The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Mr. Anderson, 43, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Anderson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Anderson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Anderson, 62, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Anderson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Anderson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from California.
Mr. Barra-Del Valle, 60, has had ITDM since 1987. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Barra-Del Valle understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Barra-Del Valle meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah.
Mr. Bennett, 60, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bennett understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bennett meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Bookamer, 65, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bookamer understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bookamer meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Tennessee.
Mr. Boyd, 56, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Boyd understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Boyd meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee.
Mr. Breakiron, 22, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Breakiron understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Breakiron meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Calvert, 61, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Calvert understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Calvert meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.
Mr. Conley, 46, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Conley understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Conley meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
Ms. Coppage, 26, has had ITDM since 2014. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Coppage understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Coppage meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class C CDL from Missouri.
Mr. Cox, 52, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cox understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cox meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Daniels, 70, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Daniels understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Daniels meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Washington.
Mr. Dekker, 27, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dekker understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dekker meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Michigan.
Mr. Disla, 35, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Disla understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Disla meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Virginia.
Mr. Easterla, 22, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Easterla understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Easterla meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.
Mr. Erickson, 21, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Erickson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Erickson meets the
Mr. Eubanks, 54, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Eubanks understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Eubanks meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.
Mr. Farnworth, 61, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Farnworth understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Farnworth meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Idaho.
Mr. Gott, 34, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gott understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gott meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Maryland.
Mr. Hall, 41, has had ITDM since 1985. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hall understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hall meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Michigan.
Mr. Harville, 52, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Harville understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Harville meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Helderman, 55, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Helderman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Helderman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.
Mr. Hershey, 64, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hershey understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hershey meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Ms. Jacobs, 58, has had ITDM since 2012. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Jacobs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Jacobs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B CDL from Kansas.
Mr. Johnson, 28, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting
Mr. Jones, 21, has had ITDM since 1997. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jones understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jones meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Mr. Kongsted, 61, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kongsted understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kongsted meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Maryland.
Ms. Kostka, 46, has had ITDM since 2013. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Kostka understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Kostka meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Mr. Kusman, 58, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kusman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kusman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Lekwa, 54, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lekwa understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lekwa meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Lockwood, 56, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lockwood understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lockwood meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Malone, 55, has had ITDM since 1997. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Malone understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Malone meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Masterson, 50, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Masterson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV
Mr. Meade, 66, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Meade understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Meade meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Molina, 24, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Molina understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Molina meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Virginia.
Mr. Ojala, 25, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ojala understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ojala meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Washington.
Ms. Pospichal, 47, has had ITDM since 2013. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Pospichal understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Pospichal meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Reyes, 41, has had ITDM since 1976. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Reyes understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Reyes meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Risk, 43, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Risk understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Risk meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. Robson, 69, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Robson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Robson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Rue, 55, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rue understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rue meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Saavedra, 58, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the
Mr. Smith, 57, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Smith understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Smith meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Smyth, 64, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Smyth understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Smyth meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho.
Mr. Spake, 50, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Spake understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Spake meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Stafford, 53, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stafford understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stafford meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Carolina.
Mr. Stevens, 56, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stevens understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stevens meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Stocker, 45, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stocker understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stocker meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Vermont.
Mr. Tallon, 59, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tallon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tallon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Vanalstine, 61, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Vanalstine understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Vanalstine meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Weathers, 45, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Weathers understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Weathers meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 27 individuals from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on November 14, 2017. The exemptions expire on November 14, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On October 11, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 27 individuals requesting an exemption from diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) and requested comments from the public (82 FR 47301). The public comment period ended on November 13, 2017, and five comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received five comments in this proceeding from Ms. Marisol Aguilar. These comments are outside of the scope of the notice.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on the program eligibility criteria and an individualized assessment of information submitted by each applicant. The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and
These 27 applicants have had ITDM over a range of one to 63 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past five years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keeping a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 27 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 186 individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2018.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0290; FMCSA-2009-0289; FMCSA-2011-0300; FMCSA-2013-0190; FMCSA-2013-0191; FMCSA-2015-0338; FMCSA-2015-0339; FMCSA-2015-0340 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
The 186 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 186 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the diabetes requirement (74 FR 55890; 74 FR 65836; 75 FR 1449; 75 FR 4622; 76 FR 71112; 77 FR 532; 78 FR 65034; 78 FR 68139; 79 FR 3917; 79 FR 4807; 80 FR 77408; 80 FR 79402; 80 FR 81415; 80 FR 81667). They have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of these drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of January and are discussed below:
As of January 5, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 16 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 71112; 77 FR 532; 80 FR 81667):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0300. Their exemptions are applicable as of January 5, 2018, and will expire on January 5, 2020.
As of January 11, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 23 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 55890; 75 FR 1449; 80 FR 81667):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2009-0289. Their exemptions are applicable as of January 11, 2018, and will expire on January 11, 2020.
As of January 14, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 26 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 77408):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0338. Their exemptions are applicable as of January 14, 2018, and will expire on January 14, 2020.
As of January 21, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 35 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 79402):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0339. Their exemptions are applicable as of January 21, 2018, and will expire on January 21, 2020.
As of January 23, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 12 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 65034; 79 FR 3917; 80 FR 81667):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0338. Their exemptions are applicable as of January 23, 2018, and will expire on January 23, 2020.
As of January 28, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 21 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 65836; 75 FR 4622; 80 FR 81667):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2009-0290. Their exemptions are applicable as of January 28, 2018, and will expire on January 28, 2020.
As of January 29, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 53 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 68139; 79 FR 4807; 80 FR 81415; 80 FR 81667):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2013-0191; FMCSA-2015-0340. Their exemptions are applicable as of January 29, 2018, and will expire on January 29, 2020.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 186 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of denials.
FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from 97 individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
FMCSA received applications from 97 individuals who requested an exemption from the FMCSRs prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating a CMV in interstate commerce.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and concluded that granting these exemptions would not provide a level of safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption if it finds such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such an exemption.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on the eligibility criteria, the terms and conditions for Federal exemptions, and an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical information provided by the applicant.
The Agency has determined that these applicants do not satisfy the criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal exemption and granting these exemptions would not provide a level of safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Therefore, the 97 applicants in this notice have been denied exemptions from the physical qualification standards in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of final disposition regarding his/her exemption request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitutes final action by the Agency. This notice summarizes the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically publishing names and reasons for denial.
The following 12 applicants met the diabetes requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) and do not need an exemption:
The following 55 applicants were not operating CMVs in interstate commerce:
The following two applicants have had more than one hypoglycemic episode requiring hospitalization or the assistance of others, or has had one such episode but has not had one year of stability following the episode: Steven G. Donovan, (MO); Dagmar E. Kark, (WA).
The following four applicants had other medical conditions making the applicant otherwise unqualified under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations:
The following three applicants did not have endocrinologists willing to make statements that they are able to operate CMVs from a diabetes standpoint: Mohd Issa R.A. El Muhtaseb, (IL); Eleazar Pina, (IL); Robert B. Puckett, (IL).
The following two applicants have peripheral neuropathy or circulatory insufficiency of the extremities likely to interfere with the ability to operate a CMV: Flavio Pereira, (MA); Charlie T. Melson, (GA).
The following applicant does not meet the minimum age criteria outlined in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(1) which states that an individual must be at least 21 years old to operate a CMV in interstate commerce: Michael J. Sabarese, (NJ).
The following 18 applicants were exempt from the diabetes standard:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from six individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0254 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The six individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
The advisory criteria states the following:
If an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the Medical Examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested that a six-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver may be qualified.
In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical condition (
Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a five-year period or more.
As a result of Medical Examiners misinterpreting advisory criteria as regulation, numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a CMV in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified Medical Examiner based on the physical qualification standards and medical best practices.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final Disposition titled, Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that interstate CMV drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” Since the January 15, 2013 notice, the Agency has published additional notices granting requests from individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP) (78 FR 3069).
Mr. Galloway, 48, has a history of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 1987. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 1981. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Galloway receiving an exemption.
Mr. Harms, 29, has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2004. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2004. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Harms receiving an exemption.
Mr. Heinen, 41, has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2004. He takes anti-seizure medications, with the dosages and frequencies remaining the same since 2004. His physician states that she is supportive of Mr. Heinen receiving an exemption.
Mr. Johnson, 31, has a history of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 1999. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 1999. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Johnson receiving an exemption.
Mr. Pendergrass, 35, has a history of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 2005. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2005. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Pendergrass receiving an exemption.
Mr. Vitous, 59, has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2007. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2013. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Vitous receiving an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; grant of application for exemption.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announces its decision to grant STEMCO LP's (STEMCO) application for a limited 5-year exemption to allow motor carriers to operate certain commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) that are equipped with STEMCO's TrailerTail® aerodynamic device with rear identification lamps and rear clearance lamps that are mounted lower than currently permitted by the Agency's regulations. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) require rear identification lamps and rear clearance lamps to be located “as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle.” While the TrailerTail® aerodynamic device is currently mounted slightly below the roof of the vehicle, STEMCO states that this offset prevents the device from delivering the maximum available fuel economy benefit as opposed to mounting it flush with the top of the vehicle which may block the visibility of the rear identification lamps and rear clearance lamps. The Agency has determined that locating the rear identification lamps and rear clearance lamps lower on the trailers and semitrailers, mounted at the same level as the stop lamps, tail lamps, and turn signals will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
Mr. Jose Cestero, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, MC-PSV, (202) 366-5541; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Pursuant to 49 CFR part 381, FMCSA has authority to grant exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305(a)).
The decision of the Agency must be published in the
STEMCO, on behalf of motor carriers utilizing its TrailerTail® aerodynamic devices, applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.11 to allow rear identification lamps and rear clearance lamps to be mounted lower than currently permitted by the Agency's regulations.
Table 1 of section 393.11, “Required lamps and reflectors on commercial motor vehicles,” specifies the requirements for lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment by the type of CMV. All CMVs manufactured on or after December 25, 1968, must, at a minimum, meet the applicable requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, “Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment,” in effect at the time of manufacture of the vehicle. Rear identification lamps must be mounted as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. One lamp must be as close as practicable to the vertical centerline and one on each side of the center lamp with the lamp centers spaced not less than 6 inches or more than 12 inches apart, and all on the same level. One rear clearance lamp must be located on each side of the vertical centerline of the vehicle to indicate overall width, both of which must be on the same level and as high as practicable.
In February 2015, STEMCO purchased ATDynamics and its TrailerTail® product line, a collapsible
For newly manufactured trailers, STEMCO states that the TrailerTail® top panel is mounted 1.5-3.5 inches below the roof of the trailer in order to comply with the FMVSS No. 108 and FMCSR mounting location requirements for rear identification and clearance lamps. However, STEMCO states:
This inset creates an unaerodynamic gap as airflow transitions from the trailer roof onto the TrailerTail panels and has prevented TrailerTails from delivering the maximum available fuel economy benefit. Wind tunnel flow visualization highlights the contrast in airflow between flush and inset panels and our own internal testing estimates an additional 0.14 delta C
In support of its application, STEMCO states that “The relocation of the rear identification lamps and rear clearance lamps to a lower location on the trailer or box truck are equivalent to the current required lamp location on a flatbed trailer or intermodal chassis, so no safety impact is anticipated.” In addition, according to the application:
STEMCO believes that there will be no safety impact from the relocation of both the rear identification lamps and the rear clearance lamps to a location on an approximate horizontal plane with other rear lamps. NHTSA issued legal interpretations from 1968 until approximately 1999 to trailer manufacturers to allow the lower mounting location for rear identification lamps and rear clearance lamps when there was no “practicable” means of installing the lamps “as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle.” NHTSA subsequently issued an interpretative rule on April 5, 1999, 64 FR 16358, suggesting that trailer manufacturers could no longer mount lamps at the lower location as narrow lamps were now readily available, and NHTSA would no longer defer to a manufacturer's subjective determination of practicability for locating lamps in the rear upper header location on van trailers and box trucks. However, NHTSA noted in that same Notice that they did not intend to bring enforcement actions based on this interpretive rule immediately. Subsequently, trailer manufacturers continued to manufacture van trailers and box trucks with the rear identification lamps and rear clearance lamps mounted lower on the vehicles on an approximate horizontal plane with the other required lamps.
STEMCO states that without the exemption, it will be unable to verify fleet performance of a higher performance TrailerTail® design that is expected to provide the maximum available fuel economy benefit that may be necessary in order to meet future fuel efficiency requirements.
On June 10, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of the STEMCO application and asked for public comment (81 FR 37662). The Agency received comments from the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI), and Wabash National Corporation (Wabash).
ATA supported STEMCO's application, stating:
Efficiency-improving technologies include tractor aerodynamics, fuel-efficient tires, idle reduction equipment, speed governors, use of lighter weight equipment and aerodynamic trailer skirts and tails. ATA supports efforts to improve fuel efficiency and actions to improve coordination between federal agencies to advance fuel efficiency in the trucking industry . . .
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's SmartWay program trailer tails can improve heavy truck fuel efficiency by five percent. STEMCO's wind tunnel testing suggests that an additional 0.14 percent improvement can be achieved if its trailer tail is mounted flush with the top of the trailer. In order to verify this finding, STEMCO should be allowed to test the device in an actual on-road environment with a fleet of heavy trucks.
As FMCSA is aware, there are many trailer types throughout the motor carrier industry. Some trailers, like flatbeds and intermodal chassis, are required to have lighting systems on the rear frame of the trailer to comply with FMVSS 108 and 49 CFR 393.11. And, since these trailer types have no upper frame or doors at the rear of the trailer, it is not possible for them to have marker or identification lamps similar to those required on van trailers. Unless the FMCSA has research and data showing the marker and identification lights on a van trailer improve safety over and above the light configuration on flatbed trailers and/or intermodal chassis, etc., the agency should grant the exemption for evaluation purposes.
TSEI and Wabash both expressed concerns that allowing the identification and clearance lamps to be mounted lower than currently required, on the same horizontal plane with the stop, turn, and tail lamps, may not maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety without the exemption because other motorists might not be able to adequately distinguish large trucks and trailers from other passenger other vehicles. TSEI stated:
STEMCO's application does not appear to take into account the important role signal lighting plays in vehicle conspicuity. The signal lighting on heavy duty vehicles does more than provide “intention” (
TSEI acknowledges that many vehicles utilize low mounting positions due to the construction of the vehicle. Presumably, the practicability language in FMCSR and FMVSS accounts for differences in mounting positions. As NHTSA has explained, “[s]ince the various types of trailers differ from one another in their configuration, NHTSA believes that the method of compliance that may be appropriate for one type may not be for another. For example, van-type trailers have distinct rectangular side and rear perimeters to which conspicuity enhancing materials could be easily applied, while tank-type, platform trailers, or others do not.” 56 FR 63475 (Dec. 4, 1991) (Notice of proposed rulemaking regarding increasing conspicuity of trailers which have an overall width of 80 inches or more to enhance the likelihood of
But acknowledging these differences does not demonstrate that lowering the mounting position to accommodate an aerodynamic device would not adversely affect safety. Because STEMCO has not provided any data on the safety impact of lowering the height of rear identification lamps and rear clearance lamps, STEMCO has not provided a basis for evaluating their statement that the lower placement will not adversely affect safety, particularly with respect to the trailers' conspicuity.
Similarly, Wabash stated:
The ability of motorists to distinguish large trucks and trailers from passenger vehicles is an essential component of crash avoidance because of size, maneuvering, and the speed differences between the two types of vehicles. High mounted identification lamps uniquely identify large trucks and wide trailers and do so with the longest possible sight preview of the lamps. Clearance lamps show the overall width of the vehicle to alert drivers of its large size. NHTSA has already concluded that, if rear identification lamps were lowered, the purpose of uniquely identifying large vehicles with the longest possible sight preview of the lamps would be compromised. As the mounting height of identification lamps is lowered, the time that nearby drivers have to identify the vehicle as a large truck, including drivers not located immediately behind the truck, is reduced and is contrary to the safety objective of the mounting height requirement.
NHTSA's conclusions regarding the safety implications of unnecessarily lowering the mounting height for rear identification lamps and rear clearance lamps are supported by a recent FMCSA sponsored study which observed that, with respect to large vehicles, “[p]assive crash avoidance can be accomplished by the conspicuity of the vehicle, that is, the extent to which the vehicle is readily perceived by other road users. In terms of the physical and mechanical systems of the vehicle, conspicuity is primarily accomplished through the light system on the vehicle. The light system includes tail and top lamps, marker and identification lamps, as well as the reflective tape systems on trailers.
TSEI noted that if the exemption is granted, vehicle and trailer manufacturers would still be required to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 (install the identification and clearance lamps as high as practicable), and repair businesses would not be permitted to move the lamps to a lower position because Title 49, U.S. Code 30122(b) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act “prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.” Because of the above, TSEI expressed concerns that some fleets and small-scale operators my not have the technical expertise to change the positioning of the identification and clearance lamps to a lower position.
TSEI also noted that S6.2.2 of FMVSS No. 108 states “If any required lamp or reflective device is obstructed by motor vehicle equipment (
Wabash stated that it is possible—and practicable—to attach an aerodynamic tail device to the rear top sill of a trailer without blocking rear identification lamps and rear clearance lamps while still meeting the new GHG regulations. Wabash stated:
Wabash's innovative aerodynamic tail devices—which are known as the AeroFin
FMCSA agrees that it is important for motorists to be able to readily distinguish large trucks and trailers from other passenger vehicles. FMVSS No. 108 and section 393.11 of the FMCSRs ensure this by requiring large vehicles to be equipped with a combination of lights, reflectors, and conspicuity treatments that help indicate the overall height, width, and length of these vehicles. Specifically, all CMVs manufactured on or after December 25, 1968, must, at a minimum, meet the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 108 in effect at the time of manufacture of the vehicle. The purpose of FMVSS No. 108 is to reduce crashes and deaths and injuries from crashes, by providing adequate illumination of the roadway, and by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals understood, both in daylight and in darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles.
Specifically with respect to clearance lamps and identification lamps, all (1) trucks and buses 80 inches or more in width, (2) semitrailers and full trailers 80 inches or more in width (except converter dollies), and (3) pole trailers must be equipped with:
• Two red clearance lamps, one on each side of the vertical centerline of the vehicle, mounted as high as practicable to indicate the overall width of the vehicle; and
• A group of three red identification lights on the rear of the vehicle, mounted as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. One lamp is required to be mounted as close as practicable to the vertical centerline of the vehicle, and one on each side with lamp centers spaced not less than 6 inches or more than 12 inches apart.
The grouping of three identification lamps on the top rear of large vehicles is intended to uniquely identify large vehicles with the longest sight preview possible. On February 5, 2003, NHTSA denied a petition for rulemaking from Sierra Products, Inc. (Sierra), which—among other things—requested that NHTSA amend FMVSS No. 108 to require the identification lights to be mounted at eye height on heavy trucks (68 FR 5863). In denying Sierra's petition, NHTSA stated “As the mounting height of identification lamps is lowered, the time that nearby drivers will have to identify the vehicle, as a heavy truck will lessen. This is contrary to the intent of the requirement. On the other hand, the mounting height of identification lamps has been long established to be `as high as practicable.' This is to make nearby drivers aware of the vehicle's size. If these lamps were lowered to eye level, approaching drivers
Notwithstanding the above, FMCSA notes that the three identification lamps are not the only means by which drivers
(1) The full width of the trailer, as close to the extreme edges as practicable, and as close to practicable to not less than 375 mm (14.77 in) and not more than 1525 mm (60.05 in) above the road surface at the centerline with the trailer at curb weight, and
(2) The full width of the horizontal member of the rear underride protection device required by FMVSS No. 224, “Rear impact protection.” The horizontal member is required to extend to within 100 mm (4 in) of the side extremity of the vehicle, and be located not more than 560 mm (20.05 in) above the ground at any point.
The presence of these two separate conspicuity treatments on the rear of all trailers and semitrailers, consisting of alternating red and white retroreflective material or reflex reflectors, serves as a clear indication to the motoring public that the vehicle is a large commercial vehicle as opposed to a passenger car. While these conspicuity treatments are not located at or near the very top of the trailer or semitrailer, FMCSA believes that they provide a very distinctive visual pattern on the rear of trailers and semitrailers that easily enables motorists to be aware that they are approaching a large vehicle.
It is important to note that STEMCO is proposing that the required clearance and identification lights be
Regarding TSEI's concern that some fleets and small-scale operators may not have the technical expertise to change the positioning of the identification and clearance lamps to a lower position, FMCSA notes that it is the responsibility of each motor carrier to ensure that its vehicles fully comply with the FMCSRs at all times (see 49 CFR 393.1(c)), which includes the terms and conditions of this temporary exemption. As such, if a motor carrier chooses to use STEMCO's device, it must ensure that the required lights are properly moved and are fully operational at all times.
FMCSA acknowledges Wabash's comment that it has developed a solution whereby its aerodynamic device can be fitted to a trailer without obscuring the required clearance and identification lights located at the top of the trailer. While Wabash has designed a solution that does not require relief from the current standards, STEMCO has applied for a temporary exemption in order to test an alternative design based on its contention that use of that design will provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than without the exemption. Because of reasons discussed above, FMCSA believes that an equivalent level of safety will be maintained.
While FMVSS No. 108 and section 393.11 of the FMCSRs require the two conspicuity treatments to be installed on the rear of trailers and semitrailers, FMCSA notes that neither of the conspicuity treatments is required to be installed on single unit trucks (box trucks). For this reason, FMCSA believes that it is appropriate to limit the use of STEMCO's aerodynamic device, when mounted at the top of the vehicle and obscuring the clearance and identification lights, to trailers and semitrailers only at this time.
FMCSA has evaluated the STEMCO exemption application. For the reasons discussed above, the Agency believes that granting the temporary exemption to allow rear identification lamps and rear clearance lamps to be located lower on trailers and semitrailers, mounted at the same level as the stop lamps, tail lamps, and turn signals, will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
The Agency hereby grants the exemption for a 5-year period, beginning February 14, 2018 and ending February 14, 2023. During the temporary exemption period, motor carriers will be allowed to mount STEMCO's TrailerTail® aerodynamic device at the top of trailers and semitrailers, provided that the rear clearance and identification lights are mounted at the same level as the stop lamps, tail lamps, and turn signals. The exemption will be valid for 5 years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) Motor carriers and/or CMVs fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 CFR part 381.
Interested parties possessing information that would demonstrate that motor carriers using trailers or semitrailers with STEMCO's TrailerTail® aerodynamic device are not achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any such information and, if safety is being compromised or if the continuation of the exemption is not consistent with 49 CFR part 381, will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 53 individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2018.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0294; FMCSA-2011-0326; FMCSA-2011-0327; FMCSA-2011-0367; FMCSA-2013-0192; FMCSA-2015-0340; FMCSA-2015-0341 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for five years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
The 53 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 53 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the diabetes requirement (74 FR 68092; 75 FR 8182; 76 FR 78720; 76 FR 79756; 77 FR 533; 77 FR 5873; 77 FR 7232; 77 FR 10607; 78 FR 78479; 79 FR 13086; 80 FR 81415; 81 FR 1281; 81 FR 1987; 81 FR 36378; 81 FR 45213). They have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of these drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in
As of February 1, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following three individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 81415; 81 FR 45213): Douglas E. Hensley, (MO); John K. Moorhead, (KY); Hugh S. Wacker, (IL).
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0340. Their exemptions are applicable as of February 1, 2018, and will expire on February 1, 2020.
As of February 6, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following six individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 79756; 77 FR 5873; 81 FR 1281):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0326. Their exemptions are applicable as of February 6, 2018, and will expire on February 6, 2020.
As of February 10, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 78720; 77 FR 7232; 81 FR 1281): Kenneth J. Hill, (OH); Frank E. Ray, (KS).
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0327. Their exemptions are applicable as of February 10, 2018, and will expire on February 10, 2020.
As of February 12, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Guy B. Mayes (WA) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. (78 FR 78479; 79 FR 13086; 81 FR 1281).
This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0192. The exemption is applicable as of February 12, 2018, and will expire on February 12, 2020.
As of February 17, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 26 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (81 FR 1987; 81 FR 36378):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0341. Their exemptions are applicable as of February 17, 2018, and will expire on February 17, 2020.
As of February 22, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following ten individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 533; 77 FR 10607; 81 FR 1281):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0367. Their exemptions are applicable as of February 22, 2018, and will expire on February 22, 2020.
As of February 24, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following five individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 68092; 75 FR 8182; 81 FR 1281):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2009-0294. Their exemptions are applicable as of February 24, 2018, and will expire on February 24, 2020.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must submit an annual ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 53 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of denials.
FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from 136 individuals who requested an exemption from the vision standard in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
FMCSA received applications from 136 individuals who requested an exemption from the vision standard in the FMCSRs.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and concluded that granting these exemptions would not provide a level of safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption if it finds such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater then, the level that would be achieved absent such an exemption.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on the eligibility criteria, the terms and conditions for Federal exemptions, and an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical information provided by the applicant.
The Agency has determined that these applicants do not satisfy the criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal exemption and granting these exemptions would not provide a level of safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Therefore, the 136 applicants in this notice have been denied exemptions from the physical qualification standards in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of final disposition regarding his/her exemption request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitute final action by the Agency. This notice summarizes the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically publishing names and reasons for denial.
The following 45 had no experience operating a CMV:
The following 18 applicants did not have 3 years of experience driving a CMV on public highways with their vision deficiencies:
The following 13 applicants did not have 3 years of recent experience driving a CMV with the vision deficiency:
The following five applicants did not have sufficient driving experience during the past three years under normal highway operating conditions (gaps in driving record):
The following 16 applicants were denied for multiple reasons:
The following three applicants have not had stable vision for the preceding three-year period: Ronald S. Berneking, (MN); Alexander Vaughn, (FL); Brandon L. Younkin, (WY).
The following 14 applicants met the current federal vision standards. Exemptions are not required for applicants who meet the current regulations for vision:
The following applicant drove interstate while restricted to intrastate driving: William Perez, (TX).
The following 16 applicants will not be driving interstate, interstate commerce, or are not required to carry a DOT medical card:
The following five applicants perform transportation for the Federal government, state, or any political sub-division of the state:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 26 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0289 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants
The 26 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control. The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population.
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441). The revision must provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305). Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the three-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e). Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary. The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Mr. Bartel, 47, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bartel understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bartel meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Brady, 67, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brady understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brady meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Hampshire.
Mr. Brewer, 67, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brewer understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brewer meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska.
Mr. Buitt, 45, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Buitt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Buitt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Mississippi.
Mr. Burchett, 69, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Burchett understands diabetes management and monitoring,
Mr. Cala, 41, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cala understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cala meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Christian, 61, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Christian understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Christian meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Louisiana.
Mr. Cowell, 50, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cowell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cowell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Cromwell, 49, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cromwell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cromwell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Delio, 46, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Delio understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Delio meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. Demarais, 42, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Demarais understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Demarais meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Mr. Detwiler, 28, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Detwiler understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Detwiler meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Drake, 57, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Drake understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Drake meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Maryland.
Mr. Dreisow, 53, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or
Mr. Episcopo, 46, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Episcopo understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Episcopo meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.
Mr. Estime, 43, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Estime understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Estime meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia.
Mr. Gruber, 64, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gruber understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gruber meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas.
Mr. Hughes, 64, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hughes understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hughes meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Lanzim, 28, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lanzim understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lanzim meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Luttrell, 53, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Luttrell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Luttrell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia.
Mr. Mizell, 62, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mizell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mizell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Arkansas.
Mr. Myers, 52, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Myers understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Myers meets the requirements of the vision standard at
Mr. Olenczak, 75, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Olenczak understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Olenczak meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Randazzo, 28, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Randazzo understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Randazzo meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Trussell, 30, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Trussell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Trussell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
Mr. Underwood, 64, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Underwood understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Underwood meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Connecticut.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for six individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on November 6, 2017. The exemptions expire on November 6, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On December 13, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for six individuals from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (82 FR 58681). The public comment period ended on January 12, 2018 and one comment was received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391—MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: § 391.41(b)(8), paragraphs 3, 4, and 5.]
FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The author wrote that exemptions to driving qualification tests should not be granted and that drivers should prove their ability to drive despite medical conditions. FMCSA interprets this comment as referring to necessity of drivers being required to demonstrate their ability to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle despite not meeting the physical qualification standards. The Agency only issues exemptions if the driver is likely to achieve a level of highway safety that is equivalent to, or granter than, the level if none were granted. Additionally, interstate commercial motor vehicle drivers who are granted medical exemptions must undergo the same driver qualification process as other interstate commercial motor vehicle operators.
Based upon its evaluation of the six renewal exemption applications and the comment received, FMCSA announces its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(8):
As of November 6, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following six individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers. (82 FR 58681):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0389; FMCSA-2012-0094; FMCSA-2013-0107; FMCSA-2014-0381; FMCSA-2015-0116. Their exemptions are applicable as of November 6, 2017, and will expire on November 6, 2019.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Comments must be submitted on or before March 16, 2018.
Send comments, within 30 days, regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.
Ms. Laurie Flaherty, Coordinator, National 911 Program, Office of Emergency Medical Services (NPD-400), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W44-322, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Flaherty's phone number is 202-366-2705 and her email address is
One of the objectives of the National 911 Program is to develop, collect, and disseminate information concerning practices, procedures, and technology used in the implementation of 911 services and to support 911 Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and related State and local agencies for 911 deployment and operations. The National 911 Profile Database can be used to follow the progress of 911 authorities in enhancing their existing systems and implementing next-generation networks for more advanced systems. The information can also be used to identify ways in which the National 911 Program can support State and local 911 authorities in the transition process.
44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before March 16, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Quintana by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before March 16, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Quintana by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Departmental Offices; Department of the Treasury.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on revisions of an
Written comments should be received on or before April 16, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Dwight Wolkow, International Portfolio Investment Data Systems, Department of the Treasury, Room 5422, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220. In view of possible delays in mail delivery, please also notify Mr. Wolkow by email (
Copies of the proposed forms and instructions are available on the Treasury's TIC Forms web page,
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Proposed rule.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) proposes changes to existing regulations under the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended, for the following Senior Corps programs: Foster Grandparent Program (FGP), Senior Companion Program (SCP), and the Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP). These amendments will increase flexibility in program administration while maintaining accountability at the local level, correct grammatical errors, update language that is currently used by CNCS, and streamline requirements for more effective administration of projects in local communities.
To be sure your comments are considered, they must reach CNCS on or before April 16, 2018.
You may send your comments electronically through the Federal government's one-stop rulemaking website at
Jill Sears, Senior Corps, at the Corporation for National and Community Service, 250 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20525, phone 202-606-7577. The TDD/TTY number is 800-833-3722.
The National Senior Service Corps known today as Senior Corps is comprised of three separate programs; the Senior Companion Program (SCP), the Foster Grandparent Program (FGP) and the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP).
The SCP engages low-income older adults to help their more frail peers remain independent in their homes. Senior Companions provide companionship and support to older adults in need of extra assistance to remain at home or in the community for as long as possible as well as provide respite for caregivers. Senior Companions receive a small stipend enabling them to participate without cost to themselves.
The FGP engages low-income older adults in opportunities to provide one-to-one mentoring, nurturing, and support to children with special or exceptional needs, or who are in academic, social, or financial disadvantage. Foster Grandparents receive a small stipend enabling them to participate without cost to themselves.
RSVP promotes the engagement of older persons as community resources in planning for community improvement and in delivery of volunteer services. RSVP matches the skills of older adults, who are willing to help with local organizations, with the identified needs of the community.
The Older Americans Act of 1965 initiated the pilot demonstration programs for the Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion programs, and in 1969 an amendment to the Older Americans Act created the RSVP.
In 1971, all three of the Senior Corps programs were transferred from the Administration on Aging to the former Federal agency, ACTION (the Federal Domestic Volunteer Agency). In 1973, Congress enacted the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 (DVSA), Senior Corps' enabling legislation. Senior Corps continues to retain its purpose, as stated in the DVSA, “to provide opportunities for senior service to meet unmet local, State, and national needs in the areas of education, public safety, emergency and disaster preparedness, relief, and recovery, health and human needs, and the environment.”
In 1994, the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) was established pursuant to the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993; at this time, the operations of all service programs previously administered by ACTION, including Senior Corps, began to be administered by CNCS. Since 1994, Senior Corps continues to be primarily operated and administered under the DVSA.
In 2009, Congress enacted the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act of 2009 (Serve America Act), which contained certain amendments to both the DVSA and the NCSA. With regard to Senior Corps, the Serve America Act amendments largely related to initiating competition for the RSVP, decreasing the age limit for volunteers from 60 to 55 and modifying the income eligibility requirements for SCP and FGP volunteers.
The proposed amendments include modifications to current program requirements and technical updates in the three Senior Corps programs, SCP, FGP and RSVP. For the SCP, changes are applicable to: Subpart A, General, which includes technical updates to definitions and the addition or subtraction of certain definitions, subpart B, Eligibility and Responsibility of a Sponsor, which includes modifications to specific administrative responsibilities and technical updates, subpart C, Suspension Termination and Denial of Refunding, which includes technical updates and clarifying language, subpart D, Senior Companion Eligibility, Status and Cost Reimbursements, which include technical updates, updating the income exclusion list to specify public benefits and disability benefits, removing the requirement for annual physicals and clarification of language to demonstrate which cost reimbursements are optional and which are required, subpart E, Senior Companion Terms of Service, which includes reducing the minimum hour requirement and establishing annual minimum and maximum hour requirements, and making technical updates, subpart F, Responsibilities of a Volunteer Station, which includes technical updates, subpart G, Senior Companion Placement and Assignments, which includes the addition of a new section that consolidates all regulations regarding Senior Companion Leaders, and technical updates, subpart I, Application and Fiscal Requirements, which includes technical updates, clarification of how applications are made to CNCS, and the removal of regulations for the direct benefit ration, or “80/20 rule,” subpart J, Non-Stipended Senior Companions, which includes consolidation of regulations and technical updates, subpart K, Non-Corporation Funded SCP Projects, which includes technical updates, and subpart L, Restrictions and Legal Representation, which includes technical updates.
For the FGP, changes are applicable to: Subpart A, General, which include technical updates to definitions and the
For the RSVP, changes are applicable to: Subpart A, General, which include technical updates to definitions and the addition or modification of certain definitions, subpart B, Eligibility and Responsibility of a Sponsor, which include modifications to specific administrative responsibilities and technical updates, subpart C, Suspension Termination and Denial of Refunding, which include technical updates, subpart D, Eligibility, Cost Reimbursements and Volunteer Assignments, which include technical updates and clarification of language to demonstrate what cost reimbursements are optional and what are required, subpart E, Volunteer Terms of Service, which include technical updates, subpart F, Responsibilities of a Volunteer Station, which include the removal of a cap on volunteers used to assist with project administration and support as well as technical updates, subpart G, Application and Fiscal Requirements, which include technical updates, and the removal of regulations that were specific to the enactment of competition for RSVP in 2013, subpart H, Non-Corporation Funded Projects, which include technical updates, subpart I, Restrictions and Legal Representation, which include technical updates, subpart J, Performance Measurement, which include consolidation of this part as well as clarification of grantee responsibilities.
CNCS intends to make any final rule based on this proposal effective no sooner than 90 days after the final rule is published in the
CNCS has determined that the proposed rule is not an “economically significant” rule within the meaning of E.O. 12866 because it is not likely to result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or an adverse and material effect on a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government or communities; (2) the creation of a serious inconsistency or interference with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) a material alteration in the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) the raising of novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605 (b)), CNCS certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulatory action will not result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Therefore, CNCS has not performed the initial regulatory flexibility analysis that is required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
For purposes of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, as well as Executive Order 12875, this regulatory action does not contain any Federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures in either Federal, State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or impose an annual burden exceeding $100 million on the private sector.
This proposed rule addresses the requirement that entities that wish to apply to be Senior Corps SCP, FGP, or RSVP sponsors complete an application. Consistent with this requirement are two documents: The FGP/SCP Grant Application and the RSVP Grant Application (
This requirement constitutes one set of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 507
Under the PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collections of information displays valid control numbers. This proposed rule's collections of information are contained in 45 CFR part 2551, subparts B, D, F, G, and I, part 2552, subpart B, D, F, G, and I, and part 2553, subparts B, D, F, G, and I for the FGP/SCP Grant Application and the RSVP Grant Application, respectively.
This information is necessary to ensure that only eligible and qualified entities serve as Senior Corps sponsors. This information is also necessary to ensure that only eligible and suitable individuals are approved by the Senior Corps SCP, FGP, or RSVP programs to serve as volunteers in the SCP, FGP, or RSVP programs.
The likely respondents to these collections of information are entities interested in or seeking to become Senior Corps SCP, FGP or RSVP sponsors and current sponsors.
Executive Order 13132,
Aged, Grant programs—social programs, Volunteers.
Aged, Grant programs—social programs, Volunteers.
Aged, Grant programs—social programs, Volunteers.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 12651c(c), the Corporation for National and Community Service proposes to amend chapter XXV, title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4950
The revisions and additions read as follows:
CNCS awards grants to public agencies, including Indian tribes as defined in section 421 (5) of the Act, and non-profit private organizations, both secular and faith-based, in the United States that have authority to accept and the capability to administer a Senior Companion project.
A sponsor is responsible for fulfilling all project management requirements necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Senior Companion Program as specified in the Act. A sponsor shall not delegate or contract these overall management responsibilities to another entity. CNCS retains the right to determine what types of management responsibilities may or may not be contracted.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) Focus Senior Companion resources within the project's service area, on critical problems affecting the frail elderly and other adults with special needs.
(b) In collaboration with other community organizations or by using existing assessments, assess the needs of the community or service area, and develop strategies to respond to identified needs using Senior Companions.
(c) Develop and manage one or more volunteer stations by:
(2) * * *
(iv) That states the station will not discriminate against SCP volunteers, service beneficiaries, or in the operation of its program on the basis of race, color, national origin including individuals with limited English proficiency, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity or expression, political affiliation, marital or parental status, or military service; and
(f) Provide Senior Companions with assignments that show direct and demonstrable benefits to the adults and the community served, the Senior Companions, and the volunteer station; with required cost reimbursements specified in § 2551.46; with 20 hours of pre-service orientation and at least 24 hours annually of in-service training.
(g) Encourage the most efficient and effective use of Senior Companions by coordinating project services and activities with related national, state and local programs, including other CNCS programs.
(i) Establish written service policies for Senior Companions that include but are not limited to:
(1) Annual and sick leave.
(2) Holidays.
(3) Service schedules.
(4) Termination and appeal procedures.
(5) Meal and transportation reimbursements.
(j) Conduct National Service Criminal History Checks in accordance with the requirements in 45 CFR 2540.200 through 2540.207.
(k) Provide Senior Companion volunteers with cost reimbursements specified in this section.
(l) Make every effort to meet such performance measures as established in the approved grant application.
(a) * * *
(2) With an interest in the field of community service and volunteerism;
(3) Capable of helping the sponsor satisfy its administrative and program responsibilities including fund-raising, publicity, and meeting or exceeding performance measures;
(4) With an interest in, and knowledge of, the range of abilities of older adults; and
The revisions read as follows.
(c) Employ a full-time project director to accomplish project objectives and manage the functions and activities delegate to project staff for Senior Corps project(s) within its control. The project director may participate in activities to coordinate project resources with those of related local agencies, boards or organizations. A full-time project director shall not serve concurrently in another capacity, paid or unpaid, during established working hours. A sponsor may negotiate the employment of a part-time project director with CNCS when the sponsor can demonstrate that such an arrangement will not adversely affect the size, scope, or quality of project operations.
(e) Establish risk management policies and procedures covering Senior Companion project activities. This includes provision of appropriate insurance coverage for Senior Companions, which includes; accident insurance, personal liability insurance, and excess automobile liability insurance.
(f) Establish record keeping and reporting systems in compliance with CNCS requirements that ensure quality of program and fiscal operations, facilitate timely and accurate submission of required reports and cooperate with CNCS evaluation and data collection efforts.
(g) Comply with, and ensure that all volunteer stations comply with, all applicable civil rights laws and regulations, including non-discrimination based on disability.
(a) * * *
(3) In any case where an application for refunding is denied for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant, the recipient shall be afforded an opportunity for an informal hearing before an impartial hearing officer, who has been agreed to by the recipient and CNCS; and
(b) Hearings or other meetings as may be necessary to fulfill the requirements of this section should, to the extent practicable, be held in locations convenient to the recipient agency.
The revision reads as follows:
(b) Eligibility to serve as a Senior Companion shall not be restricted on the basis of formal education, experience, race, color, national origin
(b) For applicants to become stipended Senior Companions, annual income is projected for the following 12 months, based on income at the time of application. For serving stipended Senior Companions, annual income is counted for the past 12 months. Annual income includes the applicant or enrollee's income and that of his/her spouse, if the spouse lives in the same residence.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) Money, wages, and salaries before any deduction;
(3) Social Security, Unemployment or Workers Compensation, strike benefits, training stipends, alimony, and military family allotments, or other regular support from an absent family member or someone not living in the household;
(b) * * *
(3) Regular payments for public assistance, including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP);
(4) Social Security Disability or any type of disability payment; and
(5) Food or rent received in lieu of wages.
Senior Companions are volunteers, and are not employees of the sponsor, the volunteer station, CNCS, or the Federal Government.
The revisions read as follows:
Cost reimbursements and benefits include:
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Liability insurance Senior Companions carry on their own automobiles; or
(B) The limits of applicable state financial responsibility law, or in its absence, levels of protection to be determined by CNCS for each person, each accident, and for property damage.
(ii) Senior Companions who drive their personal vehicles to, or on, assignments or project-related activities, shall maintain personal automobile liability insurance equal to or exceeding the levels established by CNCS.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
No. Senior Companion's cost reimbursements and benefits are not subject to any tax or charge or treated as wages or compensation for the purposes of unemployment insurance, worker's compensation, temporary disability, retirement, public assistance, or similar benefit payments or minimum wage laws. Cost reimbursements and benefits are not subject to garnishment and do not reduce or eliminate the level of, or eligibility for, assistance or services a Senior Companion may be receiving under any governmental program.
A Senior Companion shall serve a minimum of 260 hours annually, or a minimum of 5 hours per week. A Senior Companion may serve a maximum of 2080 hours annually, or a maximum of 40 hours per week.
(c) Meal time may be part of the service schedule and is stipended.
(a) A sponsor may remove a Senior Companion from service for cause. Grounds for removal include, but are not limited to: Extensive and unauthorized absences; misconduct; failure to perform assignments or failure to accept supervision. A Senior Companion may also be removed from stipended service for having income in excess of the eligibility level. A Senior Companion shall be removed immediately if ineligible to serve based on criminal history check results.
(b) The sponsor shall establish appropriate policies on removal from service, as well as procedures for appeal.
Yes. A sponsor may serve as a volunteer station, if the activities are part of a work plan in the approved project application.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) Develop a written volunteer assignment plan for each Senior Companion that identifies their roles and activities, each client served, and expected outcomes.
(d) Keep a Letter of Agreement for each client who receives in-home service.
(e) * * *
(2) Resources required for performance of assignments, including reasonable accommodation, as needed, to enable Senior Companions with disabilities to perform the essential functions of their service.
(i) Comply with all applicable civil rights laws and regulations, including providing Senior Companions with disabilities reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of their service.
(j) Undertake such other responsibilities as may be necessary for the successful performance of Senior Companions in their assignments or as agreed to in the Memorandum of Understanding.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(5) Is used to review the impact of the assignment on the client(s).
Yes. Senior Companions—who on the basis of experience as volunteers, special skills, and demonstrated leadership abilities—may spend time, in addition to their regular assignment, to assist newer Senior Companion volunteers in performing their assignments and in coordinating activities of such volunteers.
(a) All Senior Companions serving as volunteer leaders shall receive a written volunteer assignment plan developed by the volunteer station that:
(1) Is approved by the sponsor and accepted by the Senior Companion;
(2) Identifies the role and activities of the Senior Companion and expected outcomes;
(3) Addresses the period of time of service; and
(4) Is used to review the status of the Senior Companion's services identified in the assignment plan, as well as the impact of those services.
(b) While serving in the capacity of a volunteer leader, a Senior Companion may be paid a stipend (at the same rate as the established Senior Companion stipend) for his or her additional hours served as a volunteer leader.
(c) Senior Companion leaders, through recognition, may receive an additional monetary incentive.
(a)
(2) The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” (3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 197) in 45 CFR part 1233 and any other applicable requirements.
(b)
(2) The award will be documented by the Notice of Grant Award (NGA). CNCS and the sponsoring organization are the parties to the NGA. The NGA will document the sponsor's commitment to fulfill specific programmatic objectives and financial obligations. It will document the extent of CNCS' obligation to provide financial support to the sponsor.
(c)
(d)
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) All applicable CNCS policies; and
(5) All other applicable CNCS requirements.
(b) Project support provided under a CNCS grant shall be furnished at the lowest possible cost consistent with the effective operation of the project.
(e) Payments to settle discrimination complaints, either through a settlement agreement or formal adjudication, are not allowable costs.
(f) Written CNCS approval is required for the following changes in the approved grant:
(1) Reduction in budgeted volunteer service years.
(2) Change in the service area.
Over-income persons as described in § 2551.43, age 55 or over, may be enrolled in SCP project as non-stipended volunteers.
The revisions read as follows:
(b) No special privilege or status is granted or created among Senior Companions, whether stipended or non-stipended, and equal treatment is required.
(d) All regulations and requirements applicable to the program apply to Senior Companions.
(e) Non-stipended Senior Companions may contribute the costs they incur in connection with their participation in the program. An SCP project may not count such contributions as part of the required non-CNCS support (match) for the grant.
No. Enrollment of non-stipended Senior Companions is not a condition for a sponsor to receive a new or continuation grant.
An eligible agency or organization who wishes to sponsor a Senior Companion project without CNCS funding must make an application through the designated grants management system which is approved by CNCS and documented through the Notice of Grant Agreement (NGA).
The Notice of Grant Award entitles the sponsor of a Non-CNCS funded project to:
(a) All technical assistance and materials provided to CNCS funded Senior Companion projects; and
Issuance of an NGA to a sponsor of a non-CNCS funded project does not create a financial obligation on the part of CNCS for any costs associated with the project.
A non-CNCS funded project sponsor's noncompliance with the NGA may result in suspension or termination CNCS' agreement and all benefits specified in § 2551.112.
(c) * * *
(2) This section does not prohibit a sponsor from soliciting and accepting voluntary contributions from the community at large to meet its local support obligations under the grant or from entering into agreements with parties other than beneficiaries to support additional volunteers beyond those supported by CNCS.
(g)
(2) A sponsor or volunteer station may retain its independence and may continue to carry out its mission, including the definition, development, practice, and expression of its religious beliefs, provided that it does not use CNCS funds to support any inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization, as part of the programs or services funded. If an organization conducts such activities, the activities must be offered separately, in time or location, from the programs or services funded under this part.
(h)
It is within CNCS's discretion to determine if Counsel is employed and counsel fees, court costs, bail and other expenses incidental to the defense of a SCP volunteer are paid in a criminal, civil or administrative proceeding, when such a proceeding arises directly out of performance of the volunteer's activities. The circumstances under which CNCS may pay such expenses are specified in 45 CFR part 1220.
42 U.S.C. 4950
The Foster Grandparent Program provides grants to qualified agencies and organizations for the dual purpose of engaging persons 55 and older, particularly those with limited incomes, in volunteer service to meet critical community needs; and to provide a high quality experience that will enrich the lives of the volunteers. Program funds are used to support Foster Grandparents in providing supportive, person to person service to children with special and or exceptional needs, or in circumstances that limit their academic, social or emotional development.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
CNCS awards grants to public agencies, including Indian tribes as defined in section 421 (5) of the Act, and non-profit private organizations, both secular and faith-based, in the United States that have authority to accept and the capability to administer a Foster Grandparent project.
A sponsor is responsible for fulfilling all project management requirements necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Foster Grandparent Program as specified in the Act. A sponsor shall not delegate or contract these overall management responsibilities to another entity. CNCS retains the right to determine what types of management responsibilities may or may not be contracted.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) Focus Foster Grandparent resources, within the project's service area, on providing supportive services and companionship to children with special and exceptional needs, or in circumstances that limit their academic, social or emotional development.
(b) In collaboration with other community organizations or by using existing assessments, assess the needs of the community or service area, and develop strategies to respond to identified needs using Foster Grandparents.
(c) Develop and manage one or more volunteer stations by:
(2) * * *
(iv) That states the station will not discriminate against FGP volunteers, service beneficiaries, or in the operation of its program on the basis of race, color, national origin including individuals with limited English proficiency, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity or expression, political affiliation, marital or parental status, or military service; and
(f) Provide Foster Grandparents with assignments that show direct and demonstrable benefits to the children and the community served, the Foster Grandparents, and the volunteer station; with required cost reimbursements specified in § 2552.46; with 20 hours of pre-service orientation and at least 24 hours annually of in-service training.
(g) Encourage the most efficient and effective use of Foster Grandparents by coordinating project services and activities with related national, state and local programs, including other CNCS programs.
(i) Establish written service policies for Foster Grandparents that include but are not limited to:
(1) Annual and sick leave.
(2) Holidays.
(3) Service schedules.
(4) Termination and appeal procedures.
(5) Meal and transportation reimbursements.
(j) Conduct National Service Criminal History Checks in accordance with the requirements in 45 CFR 2540.200 through 2540.207.
(k) Provide Foster Grandparent volunteers with cost reimbursements specified in this section.
(l) Make every effort to meet such performance measures as established in the approved grant application.
(a) * * *
(2) With an interest in the field of community service and volunteerism;
(3) Capable of helping the sponsor satisfy its administrative and program responsibilities including fund-raising, publicity and meeting or exceeding performance measures;
(4) With an interest in, and knowledge of, the range of abilities of older adults; and
The revisions read as follows:
(c) Employ a full-time project director to accomplish project objectives and manage the functions and activities delegate to project staff for Senior Corps project(s) within its control. The project director may participate in activities to coordinate project resources with those of related local agencies, boards or organizations. A full-time project director shall not serve concurrently in another capacity, paid or unpaid, during established working hours. A sponsor may negotiate the employment of a part-time project director with CNCS when the sponsor can demonstrate that such an arrangement will not adversely affect the size, scope or quality of project operations.
(e) Establish risk management policies and procedures covering Foster Grandparent project activities. This includes provision of appropriate insurance coverage for Foster Grandparents, which includes; accident insurance, personal liability insurance, and excess automobile liability insurance.
(f) Establish record keeping and reporting systems in compliance with CNCS requirements that ensure quality of program and fiscal operations, facilitate timely and accurate submission of required reports and cooperate with CNCS evaluation and data collection efforts.
(g) Comply with, and ensure that all volunteer stations comply with, all applicable civil rights laws and regulations, including non-discrimination based on disability.
(a) * * *
(3) In any case where an application for refunding is denied for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant, the recipient shall be afforded an opportunity for an informal hearing before an impartial hearing officer, who has been agreed to by the recipient and CNCS; and
(b) Hearings or other meetings as may be necessary to fulfill the requirements of this section should, to the extent practicable, be held in locations convenient to the recipient agency.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) In order to receive a stipend, have an income that is within the income eligibility guidelines specified in this subpart.
(b) Eligibility to serve as a Foster Grandparent shall not be restricted on the basis of formal education, experience, race, color, national origin including limited English proficiency, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity or expression, political affiliation, marital or parental status, or military service.
(b) For applicants to become stipended Foster Grandparents, annual income is projected for the following 12 months, based on income at the time of application. For serving stipended Foster Grandparents, annual income is counted for the past 12 months. Annual income includes the applicant or enrollee's income and that of his/her spouse, if the spouse lives in the same residence.
(a) * * *
(1) Money, wages, and salaries before any deduction;
(3) Social Security, Unemployment or Workers Compensation, strike benefits, training stipends, alimony, and military family allotments, or other regular support from an absent family member or someone not living in the household;
(b) * * *
(3) Regular payments for public assistance including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP);
(4) Social Security Disability or any type of disability payment; and
(5) Food or rent received in lieu of wages.
Foster Grandparents are volunteers, and are not employees of the sponsor, the volunteer station, CNCS or the Federal Government.
Cost reimbursements and benefits include:
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Liability insurance Foster Grandparents carry on their own automobiles; or
(B) The limits of applicable state financial responsibility law, or in its absence, levels of protection to be determined by CNCS for each person, each accident, and for property damage.
(ii) Foster Grandparents who drive their personal vehicles to, or on, assignments or project-related activities, shall maintain personal automobile liability insurance equal to or exceeding the levels established by CNCS.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
No. Foster Grandparent's cost reimbursements and benefits are not subject to any tax or charge or treated as wages or compensation for the purposes of unemployment insurance, worker's compensation, temporary disability, retirement, public assistance, or similar benefit payments or minimum wage laws. Cost reimbursements and benefits are not subject to garnishment and do not reduce or eliminate the level of, or eligibility for, assistance or services a Foster Grandparent may be receiving under any governmental program.
A Foster Grandparent shall serve a minimum of 260 hours annually, or a minimum of 5 hours per week. A Senior Companion may serve a maximum of 2080 hours annually, or a maximum of 40 hours per week.
(c) Meal time may be part of the service schedule and is stipended.
(a) A sponsor may remove a Foster Grandparent from service for cause. Grounds for removal include, but are not limited to: Extensive and unauthorized absences; misconduct; failure to perform assignments or failure to accept supervision. A Foster Grandparent may also be removed from stipended service for having income in
(b) The sponsor shall establish appropriate policies on removal from service, as well as procedures for appeal.
Yes. A sponsor may serve as a volunteer station, if the activities are part of a work plan in the approved project application.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) Develop a written volunteer assignment plan for each Foster Grandparent that identifies their roles and activities, each child served, and expected outcomes.
(d) Keep a Letter of Agreement for each child who receives in-home service.
(e) * * *
(2) Resources required for performance of assignments, including reasonable accommodation, as needed, to enable Foster Grandparents with disabilities to perform the essential functions of their service; and
(i) Comply with all applicable civil rights laws and regulations, including providing Foster Grandparents with disabilities reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of their service.
(j) Undertake such other responsibilities as may be necessary for the successful performance of Foster Grandparents in their assignments or as agreed to in the Memorandum of Understanding.
(a) Provide for Foster Grandparents to give direct services to one or more eligible children.
(b) Result in person-to-person supportive relationships with each child served. Foster Grandparent volunteers cannot be assigned to roles such as teacher's aides, group leaders or other similar positions that would detract from the person-to-person relationship.
(a) * * *
(5) Is used to review the impact of the assignment on the child(ren).
(a) Only when a Foster Grandparent has been assigned to, and has developed a relationship with an individual with a disability, may that assignment continue beyond the individual's 21st birthday, provided that:
(a)
(2) The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” (3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 197) in 45 CFR part 1233 and any other applicable requirements.
(b)
(2) The award will be documented by the Notice of Grant Award (NGA). CNCS and the sponsoring organization are the parties to the NGA. The NGA will document the sponsor's commitment to fulfill specific programmatic objectives and financial obligations. It will document the extent of CNCS' obligation to provide financial support to the sponsor.
(c)
(d)
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) All applicable CNCS policies; and
(5) All other applicable CNCS requirements.
(b) Project support provided under a CNCS grant shall be furnished at the lowest possible cost consistent with the effective operation of the project.
(e) Payments to settle discrimination complaints, either through a settlement agreement or formal adjudication, are not allowable costs.
(f) Written CNCS approval is required for the following changes in the approved grant:
(1) Reduction in budgeted volunteer service years.
(2) Change in the service area.
Over-income persons as described in § 2552.43, age 55 or over, may be enrolled in FGP project as non-stipended volunteers.
The revisions read as follows:
(b) No special privilege or status is granted or created among Foster Grandparents, whether stipended or non-stipended, and equal treatment is required.
(d) All regulations and requirements applicable to the program apply to all Foster Grandparents.
(e) Non-stipended Foster Grandparents may contribute the costs they incur in connection with their participation in the program. An FGP project may not count such contributions as part of the required non-CNCS support (match) for the grant.
No. Enrollment of non-stipended Foster Grandparents is not a condition for a sponsor to receive a new or continuation grant.
An eligible agency or organization who wishes to sponsor a Foster Grandparent project without CNCS funding must make an application through the designated grants management system which is approved by CNCS and documented through the Notice of Grant Agreement (NGA).
The Notice of Grant Award entitles the sponsor of a Non-CNCS funded project to:
(a) All technical assistance and materials provided to CNCS funded Foster Grandparent projects; and
Issuance of an NGA to a sponsor of a non-CNCS funded project does not create a financial obligation on the part of CNCS for any costs associated with the project.
A non-CNCS funded project sponsor's noncompliance with the NGA may result in suspension or termination CNCS' agreement and all benefits specified in § 2552.112.
(c) * * *
(2) This section does not prohibit a sponsor from soliciting and accepting voluntary contributions from the community at large to meet its local support obligations under the grant or from entering into agreements with parties other than beneficiaries to support additional volunteers beyond those supported by CNCS.
(g)
(2) A sponsor or volunteer station may retain its independence and may continue to carry out its mission, including the definition, development, practice, and expression of its religious beliefs, provided that it does not use CNCS funds to support any inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization, as part of the programs or services funded. If an organization conducts such activities, the activities must be offered separately, in time or location, from the programs or services funded under this part.
(h)
It is within CNCS' discretion to determine if Counsel is employed and counsel fees, court costs, bail and other expenses incidental to the defense of a FGP volunteer are paid in a criminal, civil or administrative proceeding, when such a proceeding arises directly out of performance of the volunteer's activities. The circumstances under which CNCS may pay such expenses are specified in 45 CFR part 1220.
42 U.S.C. 4950
The revisions and additions read as follows:
CNCS awards grants to public agencies, including Indian tribes as defined in section 421 (5) of the Act, and non-profit private organizations, both secular and faith-based, in the United States that have authority to accept and the capability to administer an RSVP project.
A sponsor is responsible for fulfilling all project management requirements necessary to accomplish the purposes of the RSVP project as specified in the Act. A sponsor shall not delegate or contract these overall management responsibilities to another entity. CNCS retains the right to determine what types of management responsibilities may or may not be contracted.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) In collaboration with other community organizations or by using existing assessments, assess the needs of the community or service area, and develop strategies to respond to identified needs using RSVP volunteers.
(c) Develop and manage one or more volunteer stations to provide a wide range of placement opportunities that appeal to persons age 55 and over by:
(2) * * *
(iv) That states the station will not discriminate against RSVP volunteers,
(v) That states the station will provide for the safety of the RSVP volunteers assigned to the station.
(e) Encourage the most efficient and effective use of RSVP volunteers by coordinating project services and activities with related national, state and local programs, including other CNCS programs.
(g) Make every effort to meet such performance measures as established in the approved grant application.
(a) * * *
(2) With an interest in the field of community service and volunteerism;
(3) Capable of helping the sponsor satisfy its administrative and program responsibilities including fund-raising, publicity and meeting or exceeding performance measures;
(4) With an interest in, and knowledge of, the range of abilities of older adults; and
The revisions read as follows:
(c) Employ a full-time project director to accomplish project objectives and manage the functions and activities delegate to project staff for Senior Corps project(s) within its control. The project director may participate in activities to coordinate project resources with those of related local agencies, boards or organizations. A full-time project director shall not serve concurrently in another capacity, paid or unpaid, during established working hours. A sponsor may negotiate the employment of a part-time project director with CNCS when the sponsor can demonstrate that such an arrangement will not adversely affect the size, scope or quality of project operations.
(e) Establish risk management policies and procedures covering RSVP project activities. This includes provision of appropriate insurance coverage for RSVP volunteers, which includes: Accident insurance, personal liability insurance, and excess automobile liability insurance.
(f) Establish record keeping and reporting systems in compliance with CNCS requirements that ensure quality of program and fiscal operations, facilitate timely and accurate submission of required reports and cooperate with CNCS evaluation and data collection efforts.
(g) Comply with, and ensure that all volunteer stations comply with, all applicable civil rights laws and regulations, including non-discrimination based on disability.
(h) Conduct National Service Criminal History Checks in accordance with the requirements in 45 CFR 2540.200 through 2540.207.
(a) * * *
(3) In any case where an application for refunding is denied for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant, the recipient shall be afforded an opportunity for an informal hearing before an impartial hearing officer, who has been agreed to by the recipient and CNCS; and
(b) Hearings or other meetings as may be necessary to fulfill the requirements of this section should, to the extent practicable, be held in locations convenient to the recipient agency.
(c) The procedures for suspension, termination, and denial of refunding, that apply to the RSVP program are specified in 45 CFR part 1206.
The revisions read as follows:
(b) Eligibility to serve as an RSVP volunteer shall not be restricted on the basis of formal education, experience, race, color, national origin including limited English proficiency, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity or expression, political affiliation, marital or parental status, or military service.
RSVP volunteers are not employees of the sponsor, the volunteer station, CNCS or the Federal Government.
(a) RSVP volunteers may be provided the following cost reimbursements within the limits of the project's available resources:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b) RSVP volunteers must be provided the following cost reimbursements:
(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(
(
(B) RSVP volunteers who drive their personal vehicles to or on assignments or project-related activities shall maintain personal automobile liability insurance equal to or exceeding the levels established by CNCS.
No. An RSVP volunteer's cost reimbursements are not subject to any tax or charge, and are not treated as wages or compensation for the purposes of unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, temporary disability, retirement, public assistance or similar benefit payments or minimum wage laws. Cost reimbursements are not subject to garnishment, and do not reduce or eliminate the level of, or eligibility for, assistance or services that a volunteer may be receiving under any governmental program.
An RSVP volunteer shall serve on a regular basis, or intensively on short-term assignments, consistent with the assignment description.
(a) A sponsor may remove an RSVP volunteer from service for cause. Grounds for removal include, but are not limited to: Extensive and unauthorized absences; misconduct; failure to perform assignments and or failure to accept supervision.
(b) The sponsor shall establish appropriate policies on removal from service as well as procedures for appeal.
The sponsor and RSVP project itself may function as a volunteer station or may initiate special volunteer activities provided that CNCS agrees these activities are in accord with program objectives and will not hinder overall project operations.
The revisions read as follows:
(b) Assign staff member responsible for day to day oversight of RSVP volunteers within the volunteer station and for assessing the impact of volunteers in addressing community needs;
(c) Keep a Letter of Agreement for each client who receives in-home service;
(e) Comply with all applicable civil rights requirements including providing RSVP volunteers with disabilities reasonable accommodation to perform the essential functions of their service;
(f) * * *
(2) Resources required for performance of assignments including reasonable accommodation to RSVP volunteers with disabilities to perform the essential functions of their service; and
(3) Supervision.
As funds become available, CNCS solicits application for RSVP grants from eligible organizations through a competitive process.
(a) * * *
(1) Submit required information determined by CNCS.
(b)
(2) * * *
(iv) Ensuring innovation and geographic, demographic, and programmatic diversity across CNCS RSVP grantee portfolio; and
(c) * * *
(2) CNCS and the sponsoring organization are parties to the NGA. The NGA will document the sponsor's commitment to fulfill specific programmatic objectives and financial obligations. It will document the extent of CNCS' obligation to provide assistance to the sponsor.
(d)
(e)
(a)
(2) A sponsor is responsible for identifying non-CNCS funds which may include in-kind contributions.
(b)
(c)
(d)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) All applicable CNCS policies; and
(5) All other applicable CNCS requirements.
(b) Project support provided under a CNCS grant shall be furnished at the lowest possible cost consistent with the effective operation of the project.
(e) Payments to settle discrimination complaints, either through a settlement agreement or formal adjudication, are not allowable costs.
(f) Written CNCS approval/concurrence is required for a change in the approved service area.
An eligible agency or organization who wishes to sponsor an RSVP project without CNCS funding must make an application through the designated grants management system which is approved by CNCS and documented through the Notice of Grant Agreement (NGA).
(a) All technical assistance and materials provided to CNCS funded RSVP volunteer projects; and
Issuance of an NGA to a sponsor of a non-CNCS funded project does not create a financial obligation on the part of CNCS for any costs associated with the project.
A non-CNCS funded project sponsor's noncompliance with the NGA may result in suspension or termination CNCS' agreement and all benefits specified in § 2553.82.
(c) * * *
(2) This section does not prohibit a sponsor from soliciting and accepting voluntary contributions from the community at large to meet its local support obligations under the grant or from entering into agreements with parties other than beneficiaries to support additional volunteers beyond those supported by CNCS.
(g)
(2) A sponsor or volunteer station may retain its independence and may continue to carry out its mission, including the definition, development, practice, and expression of its religious beliefs, provided that it does not use CNCS funds to support any inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization, as part of the programs or services funded. If an organization conducts such activities, the activities must be offered separately, in time or location, from the programs or services funded under this part.
(h)
It is within CNCS' discretion to determine if Counsel is employed and counsel fees, court costs, bail and other expenses incidental to the defense of an RSVP volunteer are paid in a criminal, civil or administrative proceeding, when such a proceeding arises directly out of performance of the volunteer's activities. The circumstances under which CNCS may pay such expenses are specified in 45 CFR part 1220.
The purpose of performance measurement is to strengthen the RSVP project and foster continuous improvement. Performance measures are used to assess how an applicant for a grant approaches the design of volunteer activities and how those activities impact community needs.
An application to CNCS for funding under RSVP must contain:
(a) In a year one renewal application:
(1) Performance measures.
(2) Estimated performance data for the project years covered by the application.
(b) In a year two or three continuation application:
(1) Performance measures.
(2) Estimated performance data for the project years covered by the application. (3) Actual performance data, where available, for the preceding completed project year.
(a) CNCS may establish performance measures that will apply to RSVP projects, which sponsors will be responsible for meeting.
(b) An applicant is responsible for choosing its own project specific performance measures.
(a) An applicant for CNCS funds is required to submit any uniform performance measure CNCS may establish for all applicants. Requirements, including types of performance measures, will be communicated in the notice of funding and other related materials.
(b) CNCS may specify additional requirements related to performance measures on an annual basis in program guidance and related materials.
(c) Applicants for CNCS funds will submit performance measures through the grant application. CNCS will provide standard forms.
(a) CNCS reviews and approves performance measures for all applicants that apply for funding.
(b) An applicant must follow CNCS provided guidance and formats when submitting performance measures.
(c) Final performance measures, as negotiated between the applicant and CNCS, will be documented in the approved grant application.
CNCS will set specific reporting requirements, including frequency and deadlines, concerning performance measures established in the grant award. A sponsor is required to report on the actual results that occurred when implementing the grant and to regularly measure the project's performance.
When a sponsor finds it is not on track to meet its performance measures, the sponsor must develop a plan to get back on track or submit a request to CNCS to amend its performance measures. CNCS may limit when amendments to performance measure can be submitted as well as limit the types of changes a sponsor can make to performance measures. The request must include all of the following:
If a sponsor fails to meet a target performance measure established in the approved grant application, CNCS may take one or more of the following actions:
(a) Reduce the amount, suspend, or deny refunding of the grant, in accordance with the provisions of § 2553.31;
(b) Terminate the grant, in accordance with 45 CFR part 1206.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is proposing to amend its existing rule related to the minimum amount that competitive products as a whole are required to contribute to institutional costs annually. The proposed rule changes were developed during the Commission's second review of whether the appropriate share level should be retained, eliminated, or modified. The Commission invites public comment on the proposed rule.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In this proceeding, the Commission conducts its second 39 U.S.C. 3633(b) review of the appropriate share that competitive products contribute to institutional costs.
Postal Service products are characterized as either market dominant or competitive. 39 U.S.C. 3642(b)(1). Market dominant products are those products over which the Postal Service exercises sufficient market power to effectively set prices substantially above costs, raise prices significantly, decrease quality, or decrease output, without risk of losing a significant level of business to other firms offering similar products.
In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposes that a formula be used to calculate the minimum amount that competitive products as a whole are required to contribute to institutional costs annually (
On November 22, 2016, the Commission issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking establishing the instant docket, appointing a Public Representative, and providing interested persons with an opportunity to comment on the Commission's examination of the appropriate share.
The Postal Service, the Public Representative, Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. (Amazon), the American Catalog Mailers Association (ACMA), Former Utility Regulators (FUR), the Greeting Card Association (GCA), the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (NALC), the Association for Postal Commerce (PostCom), Stamps.com, United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), and a collective group of market dominant mailers and competitive shippers filed initial comments.
Business Optimization Services (BOS), eBay, Inc. (eBay), the National Postal Policy Council (NPPC), National Association of Presort Mailers (NAPM), GCA, MDMCS, the Postal Service, the Public Representative, Amazon, and UPS filed reply comments. In addition, representatives for Amazon and UPS filed declarations supporting the reply comments.
Several motions were filed by Amazon and UPS between January 4, 2017, and February 9, 2017, relating to access to non-public materials.
Section III of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking provides an overview of 39 U.S.C. 3633 and a discussion of the Commission's two previous decisions concerning the appropriate share that competitive products are required to contribute to institutional costs.
Section IV discusses the proposed change to the appropriate share requirement. The Commission explains its proposed formula-based approach and analyzes its proposed formula pursuant to the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3633(b).
In section V, the Commission provides an analysis of the relevant Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report pursuant to section 703(d) of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), Public Law 109-435, 120 Stat. 3198 (2006).
Section VI discusses comments received in this docket that have not been addressed elsewhere in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, organized by whether the commenter proposed that the current 5.5-percent appropriate share be increased, maintained, or eliminated.
Sections VII and VIII explain the proposed changes to the rules and take administrative steps in order to allow for comments on the proposed changes by interested persons.
The PAEA requires that competitive products collectively cover what the Commission determines to be an appropriate share of the Postal Service's institutional costs. 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3). The Commission is required to revisit the appropriate share regulation at least every 5 years to determine if the contribution requirement should be “retained in its current form, modified, or eliminated.” 39 U.S.C. 3633.
In making such a determination, the Commission is required to consider “all relevant circumstances, including the prevailing competitive conditions in the market, and the degree to which any costs are uniquely or disproportionately associated with any competitive products.”
In promulgating its initial competitive product rules following the enactment of the PAEA, the Commission set the minimum competitive product contribution level at 5.5 percent.
Although the Commission projected, based on the recommended rates at the time, that competitive products would contribute 6.9 percent to institutional costs in test year 2008,
Ultimately, the Commission considered the amount that competitive products had historically contributed to the Postal Service's institutional costs as a reasonable means of quantifying the appropriate share at that time.
The Commission completed its first review of the appropriate share, required by section 3633(b), in Docket No. RM2012-3.
The Commission found three “prevailing competitive conditions in the market” relevant to its analysis: (1) Whether any evidence existed suggesting that the Postal Service had benefitted from a competitive advantage with respect to competitive products; (2) changes to the Postal Service's market share with respect to competitive products between 2007 and 2011; and (3) changes to the market and to the Postal Service's competitors between 2007 and 2011.
With regard to competitive advantage, the Commission first noted the FTC
The second market condition considered by the Commission was the Postal Service's share of the market.
The third and final market condition considered by the Commission was changes to the market and the Postal Service's competitors since the initial appropriate share level was set in 2007.
In considering the second element of section 3633(b) related to unique or disproportionate costs, the Commission found that there were no unique or disproportionate costs associated with competitive products that would affect the appropriate share.
The Commission also discussed multiple factors that it considered relevant to its review of the appropriate share.
First, the Commission addressed the contribution level of competitive products to institutional costs over the preceding 5 years.
The Commission then considered changes to competitive product offerings and the mail mix that occurred over the preceding 5 years. The two major changes that the Commission identified were the transfer of both commercial First-Class Mail Parcels and Commercial Standard Mail Parcels to the competitive product list.
The final factor addressed by the Commission was the level of uncertainty regarding the Postal Service's business and financial condition in FY 2012.
In concluding its first 5-year review, the Commission determined that “[t]aken together, the totality of these relevant considerations support[ed] a conclusion that retaining the . . . appropriate share contribution level [at 5.5 percent] [was] appropriate at [that] time.”
In Docket No. RM2007-1, the Commission used the historical contribution of competitive products to set the initial appropriate share percentage. In Docket No. RM2012-3, the Commission examined the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3633(b) in an analysis that blended qualitative and quantitative factors, the result of which led the Commission to maintain the minimum appropriate share at 5.5 percent. In this review of the appropriate share, the Commission analyzes the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3633(b) and proposes to change its approach to setting the minimum appropriate share by using a formula that would annually update the required amount based on market conditions.
When an agency action represents a change in policy or approach, three criteria must be met in order to justify the change: (1) The agency must acknowledge that it is changing its policy; (2) the agency must provide a reasoned explanation for the new policy; and (3) the policy must be permissible under the controlling statute.
At the time the appropriate share was initially set in Docket No. RM2007-1, the postal regulatory system was undergoing substantial changes as a result of the enactment of the PAEA. In setting the appropriate share at 5.5 percent, the Commission selected an “easily understood” percentage based on competitive products' historical contribution to institutional costs
Five years later, in Docket No. RM2012-3, the Commission maintained the appropriate share at a static 5.5 percent. At that time, the Postal Service had only offered competitive products for 5 years. Without any evidence that the Postal Service was benefiting from a competitive advantage or that the market was not competitive, the Commission determined maintaining the appropriate share at 5.5 percent was the correct course. Order No. 1449 at 16-19.
Relevant circumstances have changed since the Commission's last review and over the 11 years since the enactment of the PAEA. The economy has recovered since the global financial crisis of the late 2000s, and no major dockets regarding the nature of postal services (
The proposed change in approach is also permissible under title 39. As noted above, 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3) provides that the Commission shall promulgate and periodically revise the regulations that “ensure that all competitive products collectively cover what the Commission determines to be an appropriate share of the institutional costs of the Postal Service.” 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3). In addition, the Commission must review the appropriate share at least every 5 years, taking into consideration the three elements set forth in 39 U.S.C. 3633(b).
The plain language of section 3633 reflects an express delegation of authority to the Commission, by Congress, to determine what share of institutional costs is appropriate for competitive products to cover. Furthermore, Congress intended for the Commission to have flexibility with regard to the use of a specific approach.
Although there is no committee or conference report issued for the bill that was enacted into law, the legislative history underlying the PAEA confirms the plain meaning interpretation of section 3633. The PAEA was the product of blending different versions of postal reform legislation authored by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Drafts between 2000 and 2005 all included the same conflicting language: House versions of the bill would have required competitive products to make “a reasonable contribution” to institutional costs, while Senate versions of the bill would have required competitive products to cover “their share” of institutional costs.
The committee report accompanying H.R. 22, the House of Representatives' 2005 postal reform bill, noted that “the requirement that competitive products collectively make a reasonable contribution to overhead” was a “broad standard” which contained “inherent flexibility,” and that the standard was “not intended to dictate a particular approach that the [Commission] should follow.”
Below, the Commission discusses the two major components of its proposed formula-based approach, explains all other terms in the formula, and describes how the formula would function in order to calculate the appropriate share. Following that, the Commission addresses how its formula-based approach satisfies the elements of section 3633(b).
As indicated above, due to changes in the market and an increase in the availability and accessibility of information over the last 11 years, the Commission is proposing the regular application of a formula-based approach to setting the appropriate share. This approach uses two components to annually capture changes in the market and the Postal Service's position in that market: the Postal Service Lerner Index and the Competitive Market Output.
Section 3633(b) requires the Commission to consider “the prevailing competitive conditions in the market”
The role of market power under section 3633(b) is focused not on whether the Postal Service would face effective competition in the offering of a single product, but on the Postal Service's level of market power in offering competitive products generally. As such, it requires a broader view of market power than the inquiry under section 3642.
Market power arises when a competitor in the market: (1) Can profitably set prices well above its costs and (2) enjoys some protection against entry or expansion by other competitors that would normally erode such prices and profits.
In previous reviews, the Commission analyzed prevailing competitive conditions in the market and ascertained the Postal Service's market power using a qualitative approach. However, an alternative method of gauging the Postal Service's market power is quantitatively through a Lerner index.
A Lerner index measures market power for a given firm by measuring how far that firm's price is from its marginal cost, which is the cost of producing one additional good at a given level of volume.
The equation below represents the formula for a general Lerner index:
Because the Postal Service is a multi-product firm, it does not have a single marginal cost and price; rather, it consists of many products, each with its own marginal cost and set of prices. Therefore, to create a Lerner index specific to the Postal Service's competitive products, the general formula must be adapted to capture all competitive products. To do so, the Commission develops a Lerner index for the Postal Service's competitive products as a whole using the average unit volume-variable cost and revenue-per-piece for all competitive mail, as described below.
For the marginal cost variable, marginal cost data for the Postal Service are available through the Postal Service's Cost and Revenue Analysis (CRA) report.
For the price variable, the Commission uses average revenue-per-piece, which incorporates all of the prices for all competitive products. The PFA presents revenue data by product. The Commission divides the sum of all competitive product revenue by the sum of all competitive product volume to calculate competitive product revenue-per-piece.
The formula for calculating a Lerner index specific to the Postal Service's competitive products is:
The Postal Service Lerner Index, as well as the year-over-year percentage change in the Index, is reported for FY 2007 through FY 2017 in Table IV-1 below.
A typical Lerner index ranges from 0 to 1.
As shown in Table IV-1, the Postal Service Lerner Index has increased from 0.228 in FY 2007 to 0.356 in FY 2017. Within this time period, there have been some relatively large year-over-year shifts, particularly in FY 2009, FY 2010, and FY 2016. These likely reflect the effects of the global financial crisis of the late 2000's and changes in market demand.
The global financial crisis of the late 2000's constituted a severe economic shock and reduced consumer demand. Reductions in consumer demand for Postal Service competitive products in FY 2009 were a significant factor in decreasing the Postal Service's competitive volume, and therefore its revenue and costs. These volume losses were disproportionately concentrated in categories with unit contributions below the average for competitive products. As a result, the average unit contribution of competitive mail increased, which resulted in the increase in the Postal Service Lerner Index.
As the economy recovered from the global financial crisis of the late 2000's, demand increased and as a result the Postal Service's competitive volume, revenue, and costs increased in FY 2010. The Postal Service also exercised its pricing flexibility under PAEA, and its use of pricing innovations such as competitive negotiated service agreements and flat-rate pricing contributed to a large increase in the average unit contribution of competitive mail. The increase in unit contribution outpaced the increase in average unit revenue, leading to an increase in the Postal Service Lerner Index in FY 2010.
In FY 2016, the volume of USPS Ground
The Postal Service Lerner Index suggests that the Postal Service's market power has grown over the last 10 years. This growth, however, did not necessarily occur at the expense of the Postal Service's competitors. It is possible that the Postal Service's competitors have experienced similar growth in market power, due to the fact that overall demand for competitive delivery has increased dramatically over the last 10 years. In order to put the Postal Service's market power in context relative to the market as a whole, the Commission uses the Competitive Market Output in the formula, which captures the overall size of the competitive market in which the Postal Service operates.
While the Postal Service Lerner Index measures the Postal Service's market power in the competitive market, the second component of the Commission's formula, the Competitive Market Output, measures the overall size of the competitive market.
Evaluating the overall size of the market provides context for assessing prevailing competitive conditions. Capturing the overall size of the competitive market is also important because the Postal Service's ability to increase contribution for competitive products should increase when the competitive market grows and decrease when the competitive market shrinks. The appropriate share should balance
In order to measure the size of the competitive market, it is first necessary to define what the competitive market encompasses. For this appropriate share analysis, the competitive market encompasses two groups. The first group is the Postal Service's competitive products. As noted above, under the PAEA, Postal Service competitive products are any products that do not fall within the market dominant product definition.
The second group is “similar products” offered by the Postal Service's competitors. This group excludes any competitors' products that the Postal Service does not actually compete with. For example, the Postal Service does not accept parcels weighing more than 70 pounds, so competitors' parcels over 70 pounds are excluded from the competitive market definition.
Each of these groups has its own corresponding data source, and the two are combined to calculate the overall size of the competitive market.
For the revenue of Postal Service's competitive products, the Commission uses the PFA. For the revenue of Postal Service's competitors offering similar products, the Commission uses data obtained from two surveys conducted by the United States Census Bureau: The Quarterly Services Survey (QSS) and the Services Annual Survey (SAS).
To measure the Postal Service's competitive product revenue, the Commission uses the total competitive revenue reported in the PFA. These data are shown in Table IV-2 below.
Revenue data for competitors offering similar products is obtained from the QSS and SAS. The QSS is a survey conducted by the United States Census Bureau to estimate operating revenues for each service sector of the economy. Revenue data are classified by subsector, with the relevant subsector in this case being North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 492—“Couriers and Messengers.”
These
The PFA data and QSS/SAS data are combined to produce the Competitive Market Output. This information, along with the year-over-year percentage change in the Competitive Market Output, is reported in Table IV-5 below.
Table IV-5 illustrates that the Competitive Market Output data follow broad economic trends, declining from FY 2008 to FY 2010 during the global financial crisis of the late 2000s and increasing thereafter. However, Postal Service's revenue increased by a greater percentage than its competitors' revenue, due, in part, to its use of pricing flexibility, including the introduction of flat-rate pricing and negotiated service agreements between
With the two components discussed above, the Commission proposes to calculate the appropriate share using the following formula:
The Commission proposes to adjust the appropriate share annually by using the formula to calculate the minimum appropriate share for the upcoming fiscal year. Because the data necessary to calculate the minimum appropriate share for an upcoming fiscal year (which begins each October 1st) are not final until the most recent ACD is issued (typically at the end of March), the Commission proposes to report the new appropriate share level for the upcoming fiscal year as part of its ACD. The adjusted appropriate share would then be applicable for the upcoming fiscal year.
This formula is recursive in order to fully incorporate changes in the Postal Service's market power and the overall market size from year to year.
As an example of how the formula functions, if the current year appropriate share is 5.5 percent, the Postal Service Lerner Index grew by 6 percent in the prior year, and Competitive Market Output declined by 3 percent in the prior year, the appropriate share for the next year is calculated as follows:
Using 5.7 percent as the starting point for calculating the appropriate share for the following year, if the Postal Service Lerner Index grew by 2 percent and Competitive Market Output grew by 3 percent, then the calculation would be:
In order to calculate the appropriate share for future years, the Commission must first establish the beginning appropriate share percentage for the calculation, as well as the beginning fiscal year. In the terminology of the formula, this means defining the starting value of
The Commission sets the beginning appropriate share level for the formula at 5.5 percent because that was the initial appropriate share set in FY 2007. As noted above in section III, the initial appropriate share of 5.5 percent was based on historical contribution levels, as well as the consideration that setting the appropriate share too high would create risks for the Postal Service.
The Commission would begin the formula calculation starting in FY 2007, calculating each subsequent fiscal year's appropriate share. This would ensure that the appropriate share fully reflects changes in the market since the PAEA was enacted. As discussed above, prevailing competitive conditions in the market and market uncertainties, as measured by the Postal Service's market power and the overall size of the market, have changed since FY 2007. Using FY 2007 as a starting point (
Table IV-6 below illustrates the application of the formula starting with an appropriate share of 5.5 percent in FY 2007.
As
In this section, the Commission explains how its proposed formula-based approach captures the prevailing competitive conditions in the market and other relevant circumstances as required by 39 U.S.C. 3633(b). In addition, the Commission discusses whether any costs classified as institutional under the Commission's costing methodology are uniquely or disproportionately associated with Postal Service competitive products, as required by 39 U.S.C. 3633(b).
In past appropriate share determinations, the Commission has identified specific market conditions that are indicative of the prevailing competitive conditions in the market: (1) The existence (or nonexistence) of evidence suggesting that the Postal Service has benefitted from a competitive advantage with respect to competitive products; (2) changes to the Postal Service's market share with respect to competitive products since the Commission's last review; and (3) changes to the package delivery market and to the Postal Service's competitors since the Commission's last review.
The formula-based approach developed by the Commission captures the three specific market conditions that the Commission has considered in its previous appropriate share determinations.
In analyzing evidence of competitive advantage on the part of the Postal Service, the Commission has previously looked to the FTC's report regarding whether the Postal Service's competitive products have a net competitive advantage, as well as evidence of predatory pricing by the Postal Service.
The Commission discusses the FTC Report and its assessment of whether subsequent events have affected the FTC's findings in section V,
The Postal Service Lerner Index also indicates whether the Postal Service is engaged in predatory pricing for its competitive products as a whole, because if such were the case then the index value would be negative.
As
In analyzing changes to the Postal Service's market share, the Commission previously has looked to factors such as the Postal Service's revenue and volume share in the overall market. Order No. 1449 at 16-18. The Postal Service's market share can be directly calculated by dividing the Postal Service's competitive product revenue (shown in section IV.B.2.a,
The change in the Postal Service's market share by revenue would likely be reflected in both components of the Commission's proposed formula. If there were a large shift in revenue share between the Postal Service and competitors in the market, this would be reflected in the composition of the Competitive Market Output. Although the overall Competitive Market Output may not change dramatically, the numbers in the underlying calculation would reflect shifts between competitors and the Postal Service. If this revenue shift were to benefit the Postal Service, it would likely take the form of increased profitability, as the upward shift in revenue share would indicate increased demand for Postal Service deliveries. If the shift were to decrease the Postal Service's revenue, the Postal Service would likely experience a decrease in profitability. The Postal Service Lerner Index would reflect any increase or decrease in profitability that results from the changed prices due to increased or decreased demand for its products.
In analyzing changes to the market and the competitors in it, the Commission has looked to such factors as growth in the overall market and firms entering or exiting the market. Order No. 1449 at 18-19. Overall growth in the market is directly reflected in the Competitive Market Output.
Both the Postal Service Lerner Index and Competitive Market Output reflect the entry and exit of firms from the market. If a firm enters the market and generates new business, the Competitive Market Output would increase. If a firm enters and takes business from the Postal Service, whether through pricing or innovation, the Postal Service would have to price closer to marginal cost in order to remain competitive, which would reduce the Postal Service Lerner Index. If a firm exits the market, the business it generated may be lost, which would be reflected in a decrease in the Competitive Market Output. Alternatively, the remaining competitors might alter their pricing strategies to gain that business, changing either the Postal Service Lerner Index or, depending on the nature of the pricing, the Competitive Market Output, or both.
The second element of section 3633(b) requires the Commission to consider “the degree to which any costs are uniquely or disproportionately associated with any competitive products.” 39 U.S.C. 3633(b). In this section, the Commission first summarizes the comments and reply comments that relate to the Commission's costing methodology and then provides its analysis of the degree to which any costs are uniquely or disproportionately associated with any competitive products.
Commenters and reply commenters addressing the degree to which any costs are uniquely or disproportionately associated with competitive products and the Commission's costing methodology generally fall into two groups: (1) Those who allege the costing methodology is flawed and assert that it should result in an increased appropriate share and (2) those who contend the Commission's costing methodology is accurate and that there are no unique or disproportionate costs associated with competitive products that are not already attributed to competitive products.
UPS and Carlton allege a number of errors with the Commission's costing methodology as it relates to cost attribution. UPS asserts that “[m]any costs currently classified as `institutional' are `uniquely or disproportionately associated with' competitive products.” UPS Comments at 28. UPS takes the position that “Congress saw the minimum contribution requirement as a means to ensure competitive products are held responsible for all costs with which they are `disproportionately associated,' even when competitive products are not
For example, UPS notes that most Postal Service management costs are classified as institutional. UPS Comments at 28-29. UPS asserts that, as competitive product volume increases relative to market dominant product volume, so too must the time and attention of management toward competitive products, and costs should be attributed accordingly.
FUR and Sidak contend that the Postal Service has an incentive to attribute too many costs to market dominant products and too few to competitive products.
UPS and Carlton assert that the Commission's costing methodology incentivizes the Postal Service to operate with an inefficiently high level of fixed costs, which enables the Postal Service to provide competitive products at an artificially low marginal cost by limiting the percentage of overall costs which can be specifically attributed to competitive products.
NAPM, MDMCS, and Amazon assert that this proceeding is the incorrect forum to address costing methodologies and that a separate docket should be opened if changes to cost models are needed.
NAPM “disagree[s] with UPS's contention that the Postal Service's cost models are not transparent or accurate.” NAPM Reply Comments at 2. Similarly, Amazon maintains that “[t]he Commission has given the accuracy of its cost attribution methodology thorough scrutiny in costing rulemakings over the last decade.” Amazon Reply Comments at 14. Panzar also echoes this, stating that the methodology used is the economically appropriate way to attribute costs. Panzar Reply Decl. at 3. The Postal Service denies the claim that its costing methodology fails to account for any costs which are properly attributable to individual products and explains that the costing system has been developed through public, adversarial proceedings. Postal Service Reply Comments at 30-32. Amazon asserts that UPS's contention that some institutional costs are caused by competitive products is supported by neither data nor evidence of a causal relationship. Amazon Reply Comments at 16-17.
As most recently discussed in Docket No. RM2016-2, the costing methodology employed by the Postal Service and the Commission is directed at determining those costs which are “attributable to each class or type of mail service through reliably identified causal relationships.” Order No. 3506 at 14. The requirement that cost attribution must be based on reliably identified causal relationships comes directly from section 3622 of the PAEA.
The Commission finds that there are no costs uniquely or disproportionately associated with competitive products that are not already attributed to competitive products. Under the Commission's methodology, any cost that is uniquely or disproportionately associated with any competitive product is identified as an attributable cost because it exhibits a reliably identifiable causal relationship with a specific competitive product. With regard to costs that are disproportionately associated with competitive products, the Commission's cost attribution methodology identifies relationships between costs and cost drivers, which include mail characteristics such as weight and shape (
Under the Commission's methodology, the Commission also classifies any cost that is uniquely associated with any product (including any competitive product) as attributable to that product. These costs are often referred to as product-specific costs. For example, advertisements for a specific product and supplies for money orders are unique costs attributed to specific products under the Commission's methodology.
By definition, costs identified as institutional are those that cannot be causally linked to any specific product. Although UPS asserts that certain institutional costs are disproportionately associated with competitive products, UPS fails to provide any evidence of reliably identified causal relationships between the institutional costs it identifies and specific competitive products. For example, UPS states that the vast majority of management costs are treated as institutional, and it asserts that “[Postal Service] management is clearly focused today on growing the competitive products business.” UPS Comments at 28. In support, UPS quotes two news articles and an industry publication, which indicate the Postal
The comments alleging that the Postal Service operates with an inefficiently high level of fixed costs appear to conflate fixed costs with institutional costs and variable costs with attributable costs. Under the Commission's methodology not all attributable costs are variable, and not all institutional costs are fixed. Carlton also understates the extent to which fixed costs are attributed to individual products under the Commission's costing methodology due to the methodology's use of cost drivers. For example, if the Postal Service were to select inefficient processing technologies, the increased costs of those technologies would be attributed to the products using them, through the additional labor costs required to utilize the processing machines. An inefficient mail processing machine would require additional workhours in order to process the same amount of mail as a more efficient machine. Under the Commission's methodology, these workhours would be attributed to the products utilizing these machines, which would increase those products' marginal costs. Additionally, the economic fixed costs of facility space and depreciation would be attributed to the products utilizing the inefficient machine in the same proportion as workhours. This process, known as “piggybacking,” is a way of attributing indirect costs to specific products.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission concludes that its costing methodology already accounts for “the degree to which any costs are uniquely or disproportionately associated with any competitive products.” To the extent that any costs can be attributed to specific competitive products, they are already distributed under the Commission's current costing methodology and are not included in the institutional costs of the Postal Service.
As noted above, section 3633(b) also requires the Commission to consider “all relevant circumstances.” In previous orders regarding the appropriate share, the Commission has analyzed “other relevant circumstances” that could affect the appropriate share determination. Such circumstances have included: (1) Transfers to the competitive product list; (2) changes to the mail mix; (3) uncertainties in the marketplace; and (4) risks from setting the appropriate share too high or too low. The proposed formula-based approach incorporates all of these circumstances.
In its previous review, the Commission considered changes in competitive product offerings due to transfers from the market dominant product list to the competitive product list. Since the last review of the appropriate share, four products have been transferred to the competitive product list: Single-Piece Parcel Post; Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International Packages (Small Packets) and Rolls; Inbound Surface Parcel Post; and First-Class Mail Parcels.
Mail mix changes occur as demand for postal products shifts. Since FY 2007, demand for market dominant products has declined and demand for competitive products has grown, as shown by their respective volumes in Figure IV-3 below.
As
Another relevant circumstance that the Commission has identified in the past is uncertainty in the postal system as a whole. During the Commission's last review of the appropriate share, several dockets regarding the nature of postal services were pending before the Commission that had the potential to bring about fundamental changes in the postal system.
Additionally, the Commission notes that over the last 5 years there have been significant innovative developments and changes in e-commerce and the delivery industry.
In previous orders regarding the appropriate share, the Commission has analyzed potential risks involved in setting the appropriate share too high or too low as part of section 3633(b)'s “other relevant circumstances” element.
If the appropriate share level were set too high, the Postal Service would be forced to raise its prices to non-competitive levels in order to meet the minimum contribution required by the appropriate share. At these higher prices, consumers would likely stop using the Postal Service and transfer their volume to cheaper competitors. Depending on the scale of the volume
Conversely, if the appropriate share were set too low, the Postal Service might be incentivized to discount its prices in order to gain market share. Such actions, however, would come at the expense of the Postal Service's profitability. Both the PAEA and the Postal Service's financial challenges incentivize profitability,
The appropriate share has historically avoided the extremes of both being set too high and being set too low, and the proposed formula-based approach would continue to do so. Historically, the appropriate share has neither prevented the Postal Service from competing in the market, nor allowed the Postal Service to dominate the market. As Table IV-7 shows, the formula-based approach would have allowed the Postal Service to avoid both extremes over the past 10 years.
As Table
The proposed formula-based approach to determining the appropriate share is less subjective and more responsive to changing market conditions than the considerations the Commission relied upon in the past. It accounts for each of the considerations required by 39 U.S.C. 3633(b): The prevailing competitive conditions in the market; the degree to which any costs are uniquely or disproportionately associated with competitive products; and all other relevant circumstances. The proposed approach encompasses factors previously considered by the Commission, and it adjusts annually in order to reflect changes in market conditions. For these reasons, the Commission proposes to change to a formula-based approach.
As part of its enactment of the PAEA, Congress sought to determine whether the Postal Service's competitive products enjoyed any legal advantages over private companies providing similar products.
In the instant proceeding, because the Commission proposes revisions to its regulations pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3) and (b), an analysis pursuant to section 703(d) of the PAEA is necessary. In the sections below, the Commission discusses the FTC Report's net economic effect analysis, addresses comments related to section 703(d) received in this proceeding, describes the scope of the Commission's section 703(d) review, identifies events occurring since the FTC Report's issuance, and determines whether those events have affected the validity of the FTC's estimate of the net economic effect. The Commission does not address FTC recommendations because the FTC did not include any recommendations in the FTC Report.
The FTC issued its report in December 2007, which considered both the implicit subsidies enjoyed by and legal constraints imposed on the Postal Service's competitive products due to
The FTC listed multiple quantifiable implicit subsidies that the Postal Service received due to its status as a governmental entity.
In addition, the FTC discussed the borrowing authority permitted by the PAEA as a potential advantage the Postal Service receives unrelated to its status as a governmental entity.
The FTC listed six quantifiable legal constraints imposed on the Postal Service due to its status as a governmental entity. The first legal constraint included was the costs associated with the Alaska Bypass.
The FTC also identified certain employment and labor law restrictions limiting the Postal Service, and specifically included the Postal Service's inability to access subsidies offered to private employers under the Medicare Part D program in its calculation. FTC Report at 38-39, 56. The largest quantifiable legal constraint identified by the FTC was the wage premium the Postal Service must pay its employees due to the statutes that govern the Postal Service's relationship with its employees.
Additionally, the FTC was able to quantify two pricing restrictions imposed on the Postal Service as a result of the PAEA related to market dominant Periodicals and non-profit mail.
In accounting for the differences between the various implicit subsidies and legal constraints placed on competitive products due to the Postal Service's unique legal status, the FTC determined that the Postal Service's costs were $330 million to $782 million higher than they would be otherwise, while the implicit subsidies the Postal Service enjoyed totaled $39 million to $117 million.
As part of its comments in the instant proceeding, the Postal Service asserts that no credible study has undermined the fundamental validity of the FTC's findings, and that, if anything, the FTC
UPS states that the FTC Report's conclusions were incomplete because the FTC did not include an estimate of the value of either the letter or mailbox monopolies. UPS Comments at 10. UPS asserts that because these monopolies provide the Postal Service with an advantage over the private sector, the FTC's inability to estimate their value makes it impossible to conclude from the FTC's Report that the Postal Service operates at a net competitive disadvantage relative to the private sector.
Although the Commission's review under section 703(d) is limited, the Amazon Reply Comments highlight some of the flaws with UPS's proposed recalculation. UPS relies on a previous Commission analysis of the postal monopoly and a paper by UPS Economist Robert Shapiro (Shapiro Paper). Amazon points out that the Commission's analysis of the postal monopoly did not estimate “the cost advantages enjoyed by the Postal Service over private carriers” and instead focused on the contribution the Postal Service would lose if the postal monopoly was repealed. Amazon Reply Comments at 24. As it relates to the Shapiro Paper, Amazon notes Shapiro estimated the Postal Service received a $14.5 billion benefit from its postal monopoly but contends this estimate contains multiple flaws.
Like the Postal Service, UPS does not address any subsequent events that affect the continuing validly of the FTC's estimate of net economic effect and focuses its comments on the accuracy of the FTC Report itself.
The Public Representative focuses specifically on subsequent events occurring in the market since the FTC Report was issued. PR Comments at 12-13. He notes the transfer of various mail services from the market dominant product list to the competitive product list has eliminated any impact the market dominant price cap had on those products.
In this analysis, the Commission first defines the scope of its review pursuant to section 703(d) and then discusses events subsequent to the FTC Report that may affect the validity of the FTC Report's estimate of the net economic effect. Finally, the Commission performs a supplementary analysis, which supports its conclusion that the FTC's finding of a Postal Service net economic disadvantage continues to be valid.
Section 703(d) directs the Commission to “take into account the recommendations of the Federal Trade Commission, and subsequent events that affect the continuing validity of the estimate of the net economic effect.” The statute does not define the phrase “take into account.” The dictionary provides that the phrase “to take into account” is the definition for the word “consider.”
Likewise, the statute does not specifically define “subsequent event.” Section 703(d) is clear that the Commission's review is limited only to those subsequent events that affect the continuing validity of the FTC's net economic effect estimate. As discussed above, the FTC was tasked with identifying federal and state laws that apply differently to the Postal Service with respect to competitive products and using that information to estimate the laws' net economic effect on the Postal Service.
Two commenters focus on what was excluded from the FTC's original estimate of the net economic effect and not on events occurring since the FTC Report's issuance that would affect the validity of that estimate. The Postal Service focuses on the FTC's failure to include healthcare, retirement, and workers' compensation costs and competitors' business flexibility, while UPS asserts that the FTC Report failed to estimate the value of the postal monopoly and the Postal Service's economies of scope. Both the Postal Service and UPS call for the Commission to reassess and recalculate the FTC's net economic effect estimate for information known at the time of the FTC Report that the FTC chose not to include or found was not quantifiable.
The reassessment and recalculation the Postal Service and UPS request is outside the scope of what section 703(d) calls on the Commission to do. As stated previously, section 703(d) requires the Commission to consider whether subsequent events affect the continuing validity of the FTC's estimate of net economic effect. As a result, the Commission does not reassess the FTC's original conclusions as to what implicit subsides and legal constraints should be included in and excluded from the estimate of the net economic effect and whether these constraints and subsidies were quantifiable.
In the analysis that follows, the Commission considers whether subsequent events have affected the validity of the FTC's estimate of the net economic effect and discusses what effects such events have on the FTC's estimate. The Commission then offers a supplemental analysis in support of its conclusion.
Of the implicit subsidies and legal constraints separately accounted for in the FTC's calculation, the Commission finds that there has only been one law linked to a separately delineated element within the FTC's calculation that has been amended, thereby constituting an event subsequent to the FTC Report's issuance that affects the validity of the estimate of the net economic effect. In the FTC Report, the FTC explains that the Department of Transportation's regulation of international mail air transport rates cost the Postal Service up to $98 million more in FY 2006 than if the Postal Service were permitted to independently negotiate the rates on the free market as private companies were. FTC Report at 44, 56. The FTC apportioned $5 million to $13 million of the $98 million total costs associated with the legal constraint to competitive products specifically.
In 2008, Congress eliminated the Department of Transportation's authority to regulate the prices paid by the Postal Service for air transport of international mail, allowing the Postal Service to negotiate terms for international air mail transportation contracts directly with airlines as private companies do.
The Commission finds no other changes to federal or state law affected the legal constraints estimate. The FTC Report estimated the total cost of the legal constraints imposed on the Postal Service ranged from $330 million to $782 million. FTC Report at 64. As Table V-1 demonstrates, after the constraint of international air transportation rate regulation is removed and the legal constraint total is recalculated, the total cost of the legal constraints imposed on the Postal Service is $325 million to $769 million.
As the Commission found no changes to the laws that generate the Postal Service's implicit subsidies, the Commission continues to accept the FTC's conclusion concerning the total cost of the implicit subsidies enjoyed by the Postal Service as $39 million to $117 million. Applying the updated estimate of the effect of legal constraints, Table V-1 demonstrates that the updated estimated net economic effect is $208 million to $730 million in net competitive
The Commission determines that the FTC's finding of a Postal Service net economic disadvantage continues to be valid. Although the subsequent event discussed above altered the overall estimate of the net economic effect, it does not undermine the FTC's overall finding of a net economic disadvantage.
Although the Commission's conclusion is based on legal changes occurring subsequent to the FTC Report's issuance, the Commission also performs a supplemental analysis by updating the high-end costs associated with both the implicit subsidies and legal constraints based on current competitive product revenue. This supports the Commission's finding that the FTC's estimate of a net competitive disadvantage remains valid.
As noted above, the FTC estimated the low-end cost impact of the quantifiable implicit subsidies and legal constraints on competitive products by using competitive products' 5.5-percent mandatory contribution to institutional costs, which was the appropriate share mandated at the time of the FTC's review.
The FTC's estimates of the high-end cost impact of the quantifiable implicit subsidies and legal constraints on competitive products was based on competitive product revenue, which at the time of the FTC's review was 13 percent of total Postal Service revenue. FTC Report at 55-57. Over the past 10 years, the Postal Service's competitive product revenue has increased, in part due to the increased number of competitive product offerings as a result of product transfers from the market dominant product list.
While the
The updated range of the implicit subsidies and legal constraints support the Commission's determination that the FTC's initial estimate of a Postal Service net economic disadvantage remains valid.
In considering the effect of the sole subsequent event since the FTC Report's issuance, the Commission concludes the legal change to the Postal Service's ability to negotiate terms for international air mail transportation does not affect the continuing validity of the FTC's finding that the Postal Service operates at a net economic disadvantage.
To the extent comments and reply comments are directly applicable to the Commission's proposed approach or analysis above, the Commission summarizes and discusses them in the applicable sections,
UPS, Sidak, Carlton, GCA, and FUR recommend that the Commission increase the appropriate share.
UPS and Sidak assert that the Postal Service possesses a competitive advantage over its competitors as a result of the economies of scale and scope arising from the postal monopoly.
UPS notes that, in terms of both volume and revenue, competitive products comprise a much larger part of the Postal Service's business today than they did in 2007, when the 5.5-percent level was initially set.
In addition, multiple commenters emphasize what they view to be risks associated with maintaining a low appropriate share requirement. UPS asserts that the growth of Postal Service competitive products dissuades entry and expansion of competitors and disincentivizes competitor innovation and investment. UPS Comments at 25-26. Sidak opines that the Postal Service is incentivized to underprice its competitive products in order to increase the scale of its operations. Sidak Decl. at 11-12. He states that increasing the appropriate share is necessary to protect market dominant consumers and ensure financial stability for the Postal Service.
FUR echoes this, stating that under assigning institutional costs burdens market dominant mailers and distorts the competitive market. FUR Comments at 3. FUR asserts that the current appropriate share requirement bears no relationship to any actual cost or revenue numbers, which is particularly problematic given the Postal Service's high level of institutional costs. This lack of a relationship heightens the potential for the Postal Service to cross-subsidize competitive products with market dominant products. FUR Comments at 11-12.
Sidak and Carlton also take the position that a low appropriate share requirement inhibits dynamic efficiency, wherein firms compete by introducing new products, entering new markets, or developing cost-reducing innovations, in favor of static efficiency, which lacks such innovation.
As discussed in the sections below, most commenters advocate that the appropriate share requirement be either left at its current level or eliminated entirely.
Amazon, the Postal Service, and the Public Representative disagree with UPS's concerns about an unlevel playing field, contending those concerns lack evidentiary support, especially in light of the Postal Service's modest market share and its competitors' financial health and investments in innovation.
With regard to Sidak's assertions concerning the Postal Service's incentives to underprice competitive products to gain scale at the expense of profit, Amazon, Panzar, and the Postal Service all maintain that such arguments are unfounded.
With regard to Sidak's and FUR's arguments regarding the institutional cost recovery burden placed on market dominant products, the Public Representative asserts that such arguments are misleading.
With regard to UPS's, Sidak's, and Carlton's assertions that competitive products have driven increases in institutional costs, the Postal Service responds that institutional costs have risen due to the growth in delivery points, an increase in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) supplemental liability payment, and a methodology change for city carriers—not the growth of competitive products. Postal Service Reply Comments at 32-33. With regard to Sidak's and Carlton's assertions concerning the effects of a low appropriate share requirement on dynamic efficiency, Amazon and Panzar both maintain that such arguments are unsound because there is evidence of both innovation and new entrants into the market.
The Commission addresses UPS's and Sidak's comments asserting that the Postal Service has a competitive advantage and that the playing field is not level in section V,
Concerning UPS's, Sidak's, and Carlton's assertions that competitive volume is driving a larger percentage of the Postal Service's institutional costs, the Commission finds that this assertion misconstrues the nature of institutional costs, which, by definition, do not have a reliably identifiable causal relationship with any specific Postal Service product(s). Therefore, an increase in institutional costs cannot be driven by competitive products because if such a cost increase could be attributed to competitive products then it would not be an institutional cost. The Commission further discusses the distinction between attributable and institutional costs in section IV.C.2,
With regard to Sidak's view that the Postal Service is incentivized to underprice its competitive products in order to increase the scale of its operations, the Commission finds that given the low volume of competitive products relative to the Postal Service's overall operations, underpricing competitive products would not be effective in significantly expanding the Postal Service's scale. Additionally, the incremental cost test restricts the extent to which the Postal Service can underprice competitive products by ensuring that competitive products recover, at a minimum, their incremental costs.
With regard to Sidak's and FUR's assertions that a higher appropriate share is necessary to protect market dominant mailers, the Commission notes that the commenters representing the interests of market dominant mailers in this proceeding do not have the same concerns and generally take an opposite view on if and by how much the appropriate share should be changed.
With regard to FUR's assertion that the lack of any specific connection
With regard to Sidak's and Carlton's comments concerning dynamic efficiency, the Commission finds that the market itself does not appear to be lacking innovation. The delivery industry since the enactment of the PAEA has been defined by innovation and entry, including the introduction of more efficient vehicles, improved dynamic routing algorithms, Sunday delivery by the Postal Service, and the growth of Amazon as both a customer of, and competitor to, other delivery services.
UPS contends that the appropriate share level should ideally be based on the stand-alone costs of the Postal Service's competitive services. UPS Comments at 33. In the alternative, UPS asserts that the best proxy for the appropriate share level would be attributable cost shares—
As an alternative to this proposal, UPS states that if the Commission is not inclined to use attributable cost shares, then it should use revenue shares—
GCA also proposes a methodology for increasing the appropriate share, which is based on an average of the actual contribution competitive products have made to institutional costs since FY 2010. GCA Comments at 6-7. GCA's proposed methodology would yield an appropriate share level of between 10.5 and 11 percent.
All reply commenters not affiliated with UPS generally oppose UPS's proposed approaches. Panzar specifically objects to UPS's proposal of a stand-alone competitive enterprise measure because he asserts it is a method for determining the maximum price and is inappropriate for setting a price floor. Panzar Reply Decl. at 6.
Several commenters object to UPS's proposed attributable cost shares approach. Amazon asserts that UPS's proposal is unfair to mailers, shippers, and consumers and would tilt the playing field in the marketplace against the Postal Service. Amazon Reply Comments at 22, 33-34. Amazon, Panzar, MDMCS, and GCA all assert that UPS's proposal essentially amounts to fully-allocated costing, an approach which the Commission has previously rejected.
The Postal Service maintains that UPS's proposal is “illogical and unworkable” because in order for market dominant products to pay their attributable cost share, market dominant rates would have to be raised significantly, likely in violation of 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)'s price cap. Postal Service Reply Comments at 12-13. Additionally, the Postal Service asserts that UPS's proposal amounts to an equal markup requirement which fails to account for prevailing market conditions, and as such contradicts the underlying purpose of the appropriate share provision.
The Postal Service contends that UPS's proposal would fail to account for the asymmetric distribution of worksharing, which results in market dominant products having a higher cost coverage than competitive products and thus being better positioned to contribute more to institutional costs. Postal Service Reply Comments at 13-14. The Postal Service asserts that UPS's proposed methodology is arbitrary because competitive products' attributable costs are disproportionately concentrated in transportation, which competitive products consume more of than market dominant products. The Postal Service maintains that there is no reason to conclude that institutional costs should be allocated on the same basis.
Several commenters are concerned that UPS's proposal would harm competition. NPPC characterizes an appropriate share of 29.4 percent as “wholly unrealistic, not to mention noncompetitive (and probably unachievable).” NPPC Reply Comments at 5. MDMCS asserts that UPS's proposal would require substantial competitive product price increases, which could jeopardize the Postal Service's position in the market and undermine the contribution that competitive products currently make to institutional costs. MDMCS Reply Comments at 1. NAPM contends that a substantial increase in the appropriate share would compel the Postal Service to raise competitive product prices substantially, jeopardizing its position in the market and, derivatively, the
The Public Representative asserts that “[r]egardless of the method used to calculate the benchmark contribution requirement, if the minimum contribution level is continually revised upward based on the most recent contribution level, the required contribution will increase as competitive product profits increase to ever higher levels until they become, in effect, a ceiling.” PR Reply Comments at 7. He warns that such a scenario could “increase competitive product prices in the near future to a level higher than the market will bear and thus . . . reduce [competitive products'] revenue and contribution.”
The Public Representative criticizes UPS's proposed revenue shares methodology, stating that such an approach ignores the fact that the increasing share of total revenue derived from competitive products is partially based on the decline in market dominant volumes.
Several reply commenters were also opposed to GCA's proposed approach. The Postal Service asserts that historic institutional cost contribution levels do not yield a meaningful analysis of the market and would be unsupported by the PAEA and Commission precedent. Postal Service Reply Comments at 34-37. Amazon criticizes GCA's proposal on the ground that it “would still be below the actual contribution from competitive products in any year since [FY] 2013 . . . .” Amazon Reply Comments at 47. Amazon asserts that the non-binding nature of GCA's proposal illustrates why the Commission should eliminate the appropriate share requirement.
With regard to UPS's proposal that the appropriate share be based on the stand-alone cost of the Postal Service's competitive business, the Commission finds that UPS appears to misconstrue the nature of stand-alone costs. Stand-alone costs are the costs used in evaluating the maximum price that can be charged to customers in order to avoid cross-subsidizing other products offered by a firm.
With regard to UPS's proposal that the appropriate share be based on attributable cost shares, the Commission notes multiple issues with UPS's proposed approach. First, using attributable cost shares alone fails to take into account the relevant circumstances and prevailing competitive conditions in the market, as required by section 3633(b). The Postal Service's attributable cost shares do not provide any insight into its market power, the size of the overall competitive market, or any other prevailing competitive conditions. Although changes in attributable cost shares partly reflect transfers to the competitive product list from the market dominant product list, they are also affected to a much larger degree by the decline in market dominant mail volumes and costs.
Second, UPS's attributable cost shares proposal is tantamount to fully-allocated costing. Such an approach, which would allocate institutional costs to products based on those products' relative shares of total attributable costs, has long been rejected by the Commission and by economists in general as being inherently arbitrary.
With regard to UPS's alternate proposal that the appropriate share be based on revenue shares, the Commission finds it suffers from similar weaknesses to the attributable cost shares proposal. First, considering revenue alone does not take into account the statutory criteria and Commission precedent. Moreover, the Postal Service's total revenue is also driven by its market dominant revenue, and market dominant mail has experienced declining demand since FY 2007 and a reduction in its revenue share relative to competitive product revenue. Should those trends continue, declines in market dominant revenue would increase the appropriate share for competitive products under the UPS proposal. The substantial impact that unrelated factors (
The Commission agrees with UPS's suggestion that the appropriate share should adjust annually. At this time, the Commission finds that an annual adjustment would better reflect market conditions and mitigate the risks of the appropriate share being set too high or too low. As a result, the proposed formula-based approach would adjust the minimum appropriate share annually.
With regard to GCA's proposal that the appropriate share be based on an average of the actual contribution competitive products have made to institutional costs, the Commission finds it also suffers from several deficiencies. First, as with UPS's other proposals, relying on historic contribution alone does not address the prevailing competitive conditions in the market or the other required elements of
The Public Representative, NPPC, and PostCom
Although there are minor divergences in the commenters' views, the Public Representative, NPPC, and PostCom generally advocate that the Commission maintain or slightly increase the appropriate share.
All three commenters discuss why they see the competitive market as functioning correctly. For example, the Public Representative maintains that UPS's and FedEx's profits indicate healthy competition in the competitive market. PR Comments at 17. He asserts that UPS and FedEx together comprise roughly 84 percent of the total competitive market, while the Postal Service comprises only about 15 percent.
Despite advocating for the appropriate share to be maintained at 5.5 percent, the commenters acknowledge the changes that have occurred in the competitive market. For example, the Public Representative identifies changes to the market, including the growth of e-commerce and the rise of Amazon, and notes that the Postal Service's financial condition remains precarious. PR Comments at 15. He acknowledges that competitive volumes have increased relative to market dominant volumes, but he states that competitive volumes remain a minor share of overall volume.
All three commenters also raise concerns about the risks of setting the appropriate share too high and harming competition. The Public Representative asserts that if the Commission were to raise the appropriate share level, it could fuel industry-wide price increases for competitive products that solely benefit competitors. PR Comments at 17, 18. He is also concerned that “there is simply too little margin for error,” and that too high of an appropriate share would “cause a loss of otherwise profitable volumes” for the Postal Service.
PostCom urges the Commission to avoid “radical action that could serve to unfairly hamstring the Postal Service's pricing flexibility and endanger its ability to compete in the competitive marketplace.” PostCom Comments at 1. PostCom asserts that the current appropriate share has not impeded the Postal Service's ability to compete, but it is concerned that a large increase in the appropriate share would be disruptive to the Postal Service and overall market.
As discussed in the sections above and below, many commenters advocate for a much larger increase in the appropriate share or for the appropriate share to be eliminated.
UPS states the current 5.5-percent appropriate share does not ensure a level playing field, fails to account for competitive products' growth, and “bears no rational relationship to current market conditions.” UPS Comments at 1-2. UPS takes the position that competitive products are
Carlton states that maintaining the current 5.5-percent appropriate share “would promote the inefficient expansion of USPS' competitive products, as well as harm innovation and the dynamic efficiency of the parcel delivery industry.” Carlton Reply Decl. at 5. UPS dismisses the concerns raised by other commenters that raising the appropriate share would be detrimental to consumers and the Postal Service. It asserts that such arguments fail to consider the harm the Postal Service causes to dynamic efficiency, and asserts that no commenter demonstrated that the Postal Service's ability to compete would be harmed by an increase in the appropriate share. UPS Reply Comments at 34-35.
As discussed in detail in section IV,
Although several commenters advocating for the appropriate share to be maintained or slightly increased assert that the current appropriate share has been successful at preserving competition and has allowed the Postal Service to grow its competitive business, those commenters also acknowledge the substantial changes that the competitive market has experienced over the past 11 years. As the Commission discusses in section IV.A,
Although under current market conditions the minimum appropriate share provided by the formula would increase over the current 5.5-percent requirement, the operation of the formula and the proposed annual adjustment of the appropriate share should mitigate many of the concerns raised by the commenters who advocate for the Commission to maintain or slightly increase the appropriate share. For example, several commenters express concern that the appropriate share will be set too high and harm the Postal Service's ability to compete (which they assert, in turn, will hurt competition as a whole and the Postal Service's finances). In section IV.C.3.d,
Amazon, Panzar, the Postal Service,
Several commenters cite the competitive nature of the market as a reason for eliminating the appropriate share. The Postal Service asserts that the current market is competitive—even more competitive than it was when the appropriate share was last reviewed—and that the Postal Service's competitors are profitable and growing. Postal Service Comments at 6-7, 17. It represents that its market position has remained relatively unchanged since the last review, although it acknowledges that the market has grown overall.
Among the commenters advocating for elimination of the appropriate share, commenters generally maintain that the Postal Service does not have a competitive advantage, and many assert that the Postal Service is operating at a competitive disadvantage. The Postal Service, ACMA, and BOS state that the Postal Service remains at a competitive disadvantage relative to its competitors.
Several commenters assert that the Postal Service is engaging in fair competition and, as a result, the appropriate share is unnecessary. MDMCS states the requirement is “an irrelevant anachronism,” because it is unnecessary to level the playing field, prohibit cross subsidization, or ensure that competitive products contribute to institutional costs. MDMCS Comments at 1. Similarly, Amazon and Panzar take the position that the appropriate share requirement is not necessary to provide
ACMA, MDMCS,
Panzar, NALC, and MDMCS assert that there is no need for a minimum appropriate share because the Postal Service has increased competitive prices, the contribution of competitive products to institutional costs has exceeded the minimum appropriate share, and there has been no evidence of predatory pricing or unfair subsidization on the part of the Postal Service.
Amazon and MDMCS assert that the minimum share requirement is not necessary to protect against cross-subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products because the Commission already employs its incremental cost test to prevent cross-subsidization. This test ensures that competitive products cover their incremental costs, and these commenters maintain that as long as competitive product prices cover those products' incremental costs, there is no risk of cross-subsidization.
Amazon asserts that the Postal Service “is aggressively pursuing contribution from competitive products, not trying to minimize it.” Amazon Comments at 19. Amazon explains that this has resulted in the growth of contribution to institutional costs by competitive products since the last review of the appropriate share, and it posits that much of this growth has been the result of above-inflation price increases.
Amazon and Panzar take the position that the appropriate share requirement is not necessary to provide a margin of safety with regard to the Postal Service's cost estimates.
Amazon, Panzar,
MDMCS also expresses concern that having any appropriate share requirement is risky because market conditions could change unexpectedly (
Several commenters state generally that they are opposed to eliminating the appropriate share.
UPS asserts that the appropriate share is critical to ensuring the Postal Service competes on a level playing field. UPS Reply Comments at 7. UPS takes the position that “without a significant contribution requirement, the playing field is artificially tilted in the Postal Service's favor.”
UPS opposes several of the views held by other commenters. UPS disagrees with the Postal Service's characterization that its position in the market has remained unchanged since the Commission last reviewed the appropriate share.
Carlton asserts that the problems with the current 5.5-percent appropriate share would be exacerbated if the appropriate share were eliminated. Carlton Reply Decl. at 5. He states that the Postal Service's incentives differ from those of the private firms because the Postal Service has less incentive to decrease costs, use capital assets wisely, maximize profits, and innovate.
UPS echoes this, stating if the Postal Service downsized its operations as market dominant mail volumes declined, it would have been more expensive to add competitive products. UPS Reply Comments at 10. However, because it did not, UPS sees the Postal Service's low incremental costs as reflecting “its high fixed costs rather than genuine economic efficiency.”
Several commenters contend that the market has become sufficiently competitive such that the appropriate share is no longer necessary. The Commission's analysis, however, demonstrates that the market continues to develop and change. As the Commission discusses in sections IV.B and IV.C.1, the Postal Service has gained some market power and increased its market share since the Commission's last review of the appropriate share, while the market as a whole has grown. As discussed in detail in section IV,
Many commenters take the position that either the playing field is level or the Postal Service operates at a competitive disadvantage, which they maintain supports elimination of the appropriate share. Those commenters point to a lack of predatory pricing on the part of the Postal Service, above-inflation price increases by both the Postal Service and its competitors, and increased contribution from competitive products to institutional costs. UPS and its representatives take the opposite view, maintaining that the playing field is not level, that the Postal Service's price increases are insufficient to alleviate concerns, that the Postal Service has made significant gains in areas like last-mile delivery, and that competitor profitability is irrelevant.
As discussed in section V,
As explained in section IV.C.1.a,
Although UPS asserts that competitor performance is not relevant to the Commission's inquiry, the Commission disagrees. Section 3633(b) requires the Commission to consider “the prevailing competitive conditions in the market,” which necessitates that the scope of the Commission's review look at the competitive market in which the Postal Service operates. The Commission includes the Competitive Market Output in the proposed formula to capture changes in the competitive market as whole.
Panzar advocates that the Postal Service be permitted to price its competitive products at their incremental costs. While setting price at marginal cost (or, for multi-product firms such as the Postal Service and its competitors, average incremental costs), is the economically efficient point, the Postal Service and its competitors have priced well above this point since FY 2007, and there is no evidence that competition has significantly suffered. As discussed in sections IV.B and IV.C,
Although the Commission does not find that elimination of the appropriate share is the most appropriate course of action in light of current market conditions, the Commission will consider it in future reviews as one of the options set forth in the plain language of 39 U.S.C. 3633(b). The competitive market remains in a state of flux, innovation, and growth, with more efficient vehicles, dynamic routing algorithms, and Sunday delivery becoming increasingly common, and alternative forms of delivery (
In order to implement the Commission's proposed formula-based approach, existing § 3015.7(c), which describes the appropriate share, must be revised.
Proposed § 3015.7(c)(1) establishes the formula to be used in calculating the appropriate share and defines each term, as discussed above.
Proposed § 3015.7(c)(2) describes the process by which the Commission shall update the appropriate share for each fiscal year. As discussed in section IV.B.3,
As indicated above, both components of the Commission's proposed formula-based approach rely on CRA data that is submitted by the Postal Service as part of its ACR.
Additional information concerning this rulemaking may be accessed via the Commission's website at
1. Interested persons may submit comments no later than 60 days from the date of the publication of this document in the
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. Moeller continues to be appointed to serve as the Public Representative in this proceeding.
3. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
By the Commission.
Administrative practice and procedure.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
39 U.S.C. 503; 3633.
(c)(1) Annually, on a fiscal year basis, the appropriate share of institutional costs to be recovered from competitive products collectively, at a minimum, will be calculated using the following formula:
(2) The Commission shall, as part of each Annual Compliance Determination, calculate and report
| 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 |