| Page Range | 8605-8741 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 8741 - Delegation of Certain Functions and Authorities Under Section 1235 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 83 FR 8739 - Delegation of Certain Functions and Authorities Under Section 1252 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 | |
| 83 FR 8660 - Office of Postsecondary Education; Solicitation of Third-Party Comments Concerning the Performance of Accrediting Agencies; Correction | |
| 83 FR 8651 - Certain Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Germany: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 83 FR 8703 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; 30 CFR 551, Geological and Geophysical Explorations of the Outer Continental Shelf | |
| 83 FR 8616 - Titanium Dioxide; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance | |
| 83 FR 8664 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses | |
| 83 FR 8666 - Final Test Guidelines; Series 810-Product Performance Test Guidelines; Notice of Availability | |
| 83 FR 8676 - Medicare Program; Public Meetings in Calendar Year 2018 for All New Public Requests for Revisions to the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Coding and Payment Determinations | |
| 83 FR 8654 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Alaska Groundfish and Halibut Seabird Working Group; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 8609 - Tribal Transportation Program; Delay of Compliance Date | |
| 83 FR 8634 - Cost Accounting Standards: Clarification of the Exemption From Cost Accounting Standards for Firm-Fixed-Price Contracts and Subcontracts Awarded Without Submission of Certified Cost or Pricing Data | |
| 83 FR 8735 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8904 | |
| 83 FR 8661 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah River Site | |
| 83 FR 8655 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Coral Reef Conservation Program Survey | |
| 83 FR 8654 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 8734 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request on Information Collection Tools Relating to the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) | |
| 83 FR 8665 - Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permits for Tennessee Valley Authority-Gallatin Fossil Plant (Sumner County, Tennessee) | |
| 83 FR 8668 - Notification of Decision Not To Withdraw Proposed Determination To Restrict the Use of an Area as a Disposal Site; Pebble Deposit Area, Southwest Alaska | |
| 83 FR 8659 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 8662 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah | |
| 83 FR 8663 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico | |
| 83 FR 8662 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada | |
| 83 FR 8718 - Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 | |
| 83 FR 8712 - Bain Capital Specialty Finance, Inc., et al. | |
| 83 FR 8653 - Establishment of a Team Under the National Construction Safety Team Act | |
| 83 FR 8653 - Open Meeting of the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board | |
| 83 FR 8710 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
| 83 FR 8606 - IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 83 FR 8656 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 8672 - Notice of Agreement Filed | |
| 83 FR 8735 - Renewal of Currently Approved Information Collection: Comment Request for Application for Intellectual Property Use Forms | |
| 83 FR 8650 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Quarterly Financial Report | |
| 83 FR 8728 - Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy; Notice of Open Meeting | |
| 83 FR 8636 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Trawl Catcher Vessels in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska | |
| 83 FR 8635 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish; 2018 River Herring and Shad Catch Cap Reached for the Directed Atlantic Mackerel Commercial Fishery | |
| 83 FR 8710 - 190th Meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 8636 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 620 in the Gulf of Alaska | |
| 83 FR 8687 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) Regulation on Agency Protests | |
| 83 FR 8711 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests: 2019-2021 IMLS Grants to States Program “State Program Reporting System” | |
| 83 FR 8708 - Notice To Reopen the Public Comment Period on the Western Energy Company's Rosebud Mine Area F Draft Environmental Impact Statement | |
| 83 FR 8658 - Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 8657 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Update to the 2012 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan and Public Report for the Barry M. Goldwater Range and Prepare a New Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for Marine Corps Air Station-Yuma, Luke AFB, Including Fort Tuthill and Auxiliary Field #1, Arizona | |
| 83 FR 8731 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 8647 - Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 83 FR 8655 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21321 | |
| 83 FR 8679 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 8663 - 30-Day Federal Register Notice-Extension of Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
| 83 FR 8657 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 8649 - Dietary Guidelines for Americans: Request for Comments on Topics and Questions | |
| 83 FR 8682 - National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: Meeting | |
| 83 FR 8666 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Detergent Gasoline | |
| 83 FR 8671 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Annual Public Water Systems Compliance Report (Renewal) | |
| 83 FR 8731 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; British Embassy Defense Staff | |
| 83 FR 8695 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Application for Displacement/Relocation/Temporary Relocation Assistance for Persons | |
| 83 FR 8675 - Solicitation for Nominations for Members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) | |
| 83 FR 8674 - Request for Information Regarding Patient-Reported Outcome Measures | |
| 83 FR 8696 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) | |
| 83 FR 8693 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality | |
| 83 FR 8694 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Single Family Mortgage Insurance on Hawaiian Homelands | |
| 83 FR 8695 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Capital Needs Assessments-CNA e Tool | |
| 83 FR 8690 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Choice Neighborhoods | |
| 83 FR 8701 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 83 FR 8697 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Public Housing Agency Executive Compensation Information | |
| 83 FR 8691 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Evaluation of the Supportive Services Demonstration | |
| 83 FR 8698 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) | |
| 83 FR 8681 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 8651 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Surveys for User Satisfaction, Impact and Needs | |
| 83 FR 8719 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade, Under Nasdaq Rule 5705, the Shares of the Horizons Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF | |
| 83 FR 8719 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade the Shares of the GraniteShares Bitcoin ETF and the GraniteShares Short Bitcoin ETF, a Series of the GraniteShares ETP Trust, Under Rule 14.11(f)(4), Trust Issued Receipts | |
| 83 FR 8717 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the iShares Gold Exposure ETF, a Series of the iShares U.S. ETF Trust, Under Exchange Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund Shares | |
| 83 FR 8727 - Investor Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 8640 - Special Regulations of the National Park Service; Glen Canyon National Recreation Area; Motor Vehicles | |
| 83 FR 8703 - Notice of Continuation of Concession Contracts | |
| 83 FR 8701 - Notice of Extension of Concession Contracts and Intent To Award Temporary Concession Contracts | |
| 83 FR 8700 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Reporting Systems for Public Law 102-477 Demonstration Project | |
| 83 FR 8709 - Certain Mobile Device Holders and Components Thereof; Commission's Determination To Affirm a Domestic Industry Finding Under Modified Reasoning; Issuance of a General Exclusion Order; Issuance of Sixteen Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the Investigation | |
| 83 FR 8672 - Telomerase Activation Sciences, Inc. and Noel Thomas Patton; Analysis To Aid Public Comment | |
| 83 FR 8730 - E.O. 13224 Designation of ISIS-Bangladesh, aka Caliphate in Bangladesh, aka Caliphate's Soldiers in Bangladesh, aka Soldiers of the Caliphate in Bangladesh, aka Khalifah's Soldiers in Bengal, aka Islamic State Bangladesh, aka Islamic State in Bangladesh, aka ISB, aka ISISB, aka Abu Jandal al-Bangali, aka Neo-JMB, aka Neo-Jamaat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh, aka New-JMB as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 83 FR 8729 - E.O. 13224 Designation of ISIS-West Africa (ISIS-WA), aka ISIS West Africa, aka ISIS West Africa Province, aka Islamic State of Iraq and Syria West Africa Province, aka Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant-West Africa (ISIL-WA), aka Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 83 FR 8731 - Notice of Relocation; Change of Physical Address for the Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Regional Office | |
| 83 FR 8728 - E.O. 13224 Designation of the Maute Group, aka IS-Ranao, aka Islamic State of Lanao, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 83 FR 8729 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Mahad Moalim as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 83 FR 8684 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 8685 - National Cancer Institute Amended; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 8684 - National Cancer Institute Amended; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 8683 - National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 8684 - Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 8683 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 8624 - Hearing Aid Compatibility Standards | |
| 83 FR 8658 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 8661 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Annual Report on Appeals Process RSA-722 | |
| 83 FR 8728 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Abu Musab al-Barnawi aka Habib Yusuf as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 83 FR 8689 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 8728 - E.O. 13224 Designation of ISIS-Philippines, aka ISIS in the Philippines, aka ISIL Philippines, aka ISIL in the Philippines, aka IS Philippines, aka ISP, aka Islamic State in the Philippines, aka Islamic State in Iraq and Syria in South-East Asia, aka Dawlatul Islamiyah Waliyatul Masrik, DIWM, aka Dawlatul Islamiyyah Waliyatul Mashriq, aka IS East Asia Division, aka ISIS Branch in the Philippines, aka ISIS' “Philippines Province” as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 83 FR 8685 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 8688 - Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan Template and Progress Report | |
| 83 FR 8729 - In the Matter of the Designation of ISIS-Bangladesh (and Other Aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended | |
| 83 FR 8727 - E.O. 13224 Designation of ISIS-Egypt, aka Islamic State in Egypt, aka Islamic State Egypt, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 83 FR 8730 - In the Matter of the Designation of ISIS-Philippines (and Other Aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended | |
| 83 FR 8729 - E.O. 13224 Designation of ISIS-Somalia, aka Islamic State in Somalia, aka ISS, aka ISIS in East Africa, aka Abnaa ul-Calipha as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 83 FR 8730 - In the Matter of the Designation of ISIS-West Africa (ISIS-WA) Also Known as ISIS West Africa Also Known as ISIS West Africa Province Also Known as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria West Africa Province Also Known as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant-West Africa (ISIL-WA) Also Known as Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended | |
| 83 FR 8610 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Indiana NSR/PSD; Indiana PM2.5 | |
| 83 FR 8612 - Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Rule Part 225, Control of Emissions From Large Combustion Sources | |
| 83 FR 8619 - Wireless Emergency Alerts; Emergency Alert System | |
| 83 FR 8732 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements | |
| 83 FR 8638 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Flint, MI, and Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Owosso, MI | |
| 83 FR 8698 - Request for Nominations to the Board of Trustees | |
| 83 FR 8605 - Airworthiness Directives; AgustaWestland S.p.A. Helicopters |
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Army Department
Navy Department
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
National Institutes of Health
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Federal Procurement Policy Office
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain AgustaWestland S.p.A. (AgustaWestland) Model AW189 helicopters. This AD requires replacing the seal and filler wedges of all emergency exit windows. This AD was prompted by a report that some windows were improperly glued when installed. The actions of this AD are intended to correct an unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 4, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations & Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
On November 2, 2017, at 82 FR 50847, the
The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2016-0216, dated October 28, 2016, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo Helicopters (previously Finmeccanica S.p.A., previously AgustaWestland) Model AW189 helicopters, serial numbers 49007 through 49021, 49023, 49029, 49033, 49035, 89001, 89003, 89004, 92001, 92003, and 92005. The EASA AD does not apply to windows that have been reinstalled at least once since helicopter delivery and windows that are part of bubble window kit part number (P/N) 8G5620F00111.
EASA advises that some windows were installed with glue applied in locations that were not in accordance with the approved design. This condition, if not corrected, could prevent the jettisoning of helicopter emergency exit windows, possibly affecting the evacuation of crew and passengers during an emergency situation, EASA advises. EASA consequently requires replacement of the seal and the filler wedges of the emergency exit windows installed in the cockpit doors and cabin.
The FAA is in the process of updating AgustaWestland's name change to Leonardo Helicopters on its type certificate. Because this name change is not yet effective, this AD specifies AgustaWestland.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
We reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Bollettino Tecnico No. 189-118, dated October 20, 2016. This service information specifies replacing the seal and filler wedges on all cockpit door and cabin emergency exit windows of Model AW189 helicopters, except on those windows that have been replaced or that are part of bubble window kit P/N 8G5620F00111.
We estimate that this AD affects 2 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect that removing and replacing the window seals and fillers requires 40 work-hours and that parts cost about $834, for a total cost of $4,234 per helicopter and $8,468 for the U.S. fleet.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue
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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
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 applies to Model AW189 helicopters, serial number 49007 through 49021, 49023, 49029, 49033, 49035, 89001, 89003, 89004, 92001, 92003, and 92005, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as improperly glued emergency exit windows. This condition could result in the window failing to jettison, preventing the occupants from exiting the helicopter during an emergency.
This AD becomes effective April 4, 2018.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Within 75 hours time-in-service, replace the seal and filler wedges of each cabin and cockpit door emergency exit window, except bubble windows installed in accordance with bubble window kit part number 8G5620F00111.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations & Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Leonardo Helicopters Bollettino Tecnico No. 189-118, dated October 20, 2016, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0216, dated October 28, 2016. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5600, Window/Windshield System.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument conditions in the affected areas.
Harry Hodges, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route
The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, March 29, 2018.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44719, 44721.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Final rule; confirmation.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is confirming the interim final rule published on October 31, 2017, that delayed the deadline for Tribes to comply with Tribal Transportation Program requirements to collect data on proposed roads for the National Tribal Transportation Facility Inventory (NTTFI).
This rule is effective February 28, 2018.
Mr. LeRoy Gishi, Division of Transportation, Office of Indian Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, (202) 513-7711,
Regulations governing the Tribal Transportation Program published in 2016.
On October 31, 2017, BIA published an interim final rule delaying the November 7, 2017, deadline for compliance with § 170.443 to November 7, 2019.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The E.O. directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more because this rule affects only surface transportation for Tribes.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions because it does not affect costs or prices.
(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises because the rule addresses Tribal surface transportation within the United States.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12360. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a summary impact statement, because the rule primarily addresses the relationship between the Federal Government and Tribes. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government regulations with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. We
This rule contains information collection requirements, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collections under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) under OMB Control Number 1076-0161, which expires December 31, 2019. Please note that an agency may not sponsor or request, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”, 42 U.S.C. 4321
This rulemaking is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), and 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
Highways and roads, Indians—lands.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; correcting amendment.
This action corrects codification errors for New Source Review (NSR) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules in the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP).
This final rule is effective on February 28, 2018.
Paymon Danesh, Environmental Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6219,
On two separate occasions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made inadvertent codification errors when it approved revisions to Indiana's SIP. The first of these took place on October 29, 2012 (77 FR 65478). At that time, EPA approved revisions to Indiana's infrastructure SIP at 326 IAC 2-2-1 and 326 IAC 2-2-4, and amended the list of EPA-approved Indiana regulations at 40 CFR 52.770(c). In the final rule published in the
The second action took place on July 2, 2014 (79 FR 37646). At that time, EPA approved revisions to Indiana's NSR and PSD regulations at 326 IAC 2-2-1 and 326 IAC 2-2-4 and amended the list of EPA approved Indiana regulations at 40 CFR 52.770(c). In the final rule published in the
This action amends the regulatory text to correct these errors. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting incorrect citations in previous actions. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. We find that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action is not an E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because this action is not significant under E.O. 12866. Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary Information section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601
This technical correction action does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by E.O. 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of E.O. 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with E.O. 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Accordingly, 40 CFR part 52 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the Illinois state implementation plan (SIP) to amend requirements applicable to certain coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). These amendments require the Will County 3 and Joliet 6, 7, and 8 EGUs to permanently cease combusting coal; allow other subject EGUs to cease combusting coal as an alternative means of compliance with mercury emission standards; allows the transfer of an existing sulfur dioxide (SO
This final rule is effective on March 30, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0397. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategy Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031,
Throughout this document whenever
On June 24, 2011, Illinois EPA submitted to EPA state rules to address the visibility protection requirements of Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the regional haze rule, as codified in 40 CFR 51.308. This submission included the following provisions contained in Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code (IAC), Part 225 (Part 225): Sections 225.291, 225.292, 225.293, 225.295 and 225.296 (except for 225.296(d)), and Appendix A to Part 225. On July 6, 2012, EPA approved these provisions (77 FR 39943).
On June 23, 2016, Illinois submitted revisions to these rules and on January 9, 2017, Illinois submitted additional information explaining the revisions.
On August 31, 2017 (82 FR 41376), EPA proposed to approve the revisions to the Illinois air pollution control rules at 35 IAC Part 225, specifically, sections 225.291, 225.292, 225.293, 225.295 (except for 225.295(a)(4)), and 225.296 (except for 225.296(d)) and 225 Appendix A. As discussed in the proposal, the revisions meet all applicable requirements under the CAA, consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the CAA and the regional haze rule. The implementation of CPS for the regional haze SIP rules show that the proposed revisions result in significant reductions of emissions of SO
EPA received two comments on the proposed approval of Illinois' plan.
In support of this assertion, the commenter notes that in 2016, Illinois EPA issued a Construction Permit to Midwest Generation, LLC authorizing the construction of a Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) system on Will County 4. According to the commenter, DSI is a type of “dry flue gas desulfurization technology,” as defined by 40 CFR 63.10042. While recognizing that “the explicit and primary purpose” of this Construction Permit is “to control sulfur dioxide (SO
The commenter concludes that this “proposed SIP amendment is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence because U.S. EPA does not acknowledge that MWG installed dry flue gas desulfurization technology at Will County 4. In light of this new factual information, there is no need for the amendment as it relates to the FGD exemption for Will County 4 . . . U.S. EPA's new proposal to provide an FGD exemption for Will County 4 is moot, and an entirely unnecessary component of the proposed SIP amendments. Even worse, U.S. EPA's uninformed decision to provide an unnecessary exemption could be used as a basis to justify the removal of
As documented in EPA's analysis of the proposed rule, Illinois has met all applicable requirements under the CAA, and the proposed SIP revision is consistent with section 110 of the CAA. Illinois has shown that the revisions to the CPS will result in a reduction of more than 6,000 tons of SO
More specifically, EPA approved the FGD exemption for Joliet 6 in Illinois' original regional haze plan as meeting the statutory requirements of the CAA, so that “transferring” this exemption to Will County 4 does not change the plan such that EPA's original assessment is altered (82 FR 41376-41378). This is because Will County 4 remains subject to the EGU group wide SO
Furthermore, EPA does not agree that approval of the SIP revision will ultimately result in the removal of the DSI system at Will County 4. Midwest Generation, LLC installed the DSI system to control SO
Additionally, because Midwest Generation has already installed the DSI system and is operating it pursuant to the Construction Permit, removal of the DSI system is a physical change. Any physical change to Will County 4 must be reviewed for applicability under the state's permitting program. If Midwest Generation removes the DSI system, it would be required to evaluate the resulting increases in actual emissions, including SO
EPA abbreviated pounds per million British thermal units as “lbs/mmBtu” in our proposed approval of Illinois' revisions to the CPS published on August 31, 2017. The use of that term merely reflects the use of that abbreviation in the state's regulations to mean pounds per million British thermal units. EPA used “lbs/mmBtu” consistently throughout the rule so it is unlikely that there would be any confusion.
EPA is approving the revisions to the Illinois air pollution control rules at 35 IAC Part 225, specifically, sections 225.291, 225.292, 225.293, 225.295 (except for 225.295(a)(4)), and 225.296 (except for 225.296(d)) and 225.Appendix A. Illinois EPA submitted the revisions to Part 225 on June 23, 2016, and submitted supplemental information on January 9, 2017.
Illinois' final rule also included revisions to Parts 214 (Sulfur Limitations) and 217 (Nitrogen Oxide Emissions), and other sections of the Part 225 rules. At Illinois' request, EPA is not taking any action on those revisions, and, as noted above, on Illinois' addition of 35 IAC 225.295(a)(4).
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Illinois Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
• 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 30, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of titanium dioxide (CAS Reg. No. 13463-67-7) in pre-harvest crops when used as an inert ingredient (colorant) at a concentration of not more than 45% in foliar applications of pesticide formulations containing anthraquinone. Landis International, Inc., on behalf of Arkion Life Sciences, LLC submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of titanium dioxide resulting from this use.
This regulation is effective February 28, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 30, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0257, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0257 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 30, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0257, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.1195, instead of 40 CFR 180.920 as requested. Exemptions under section 180.920 cover residues applied to growing crops. Because the petitioner requested an exemption to cover residues only in pre-harvest crops with foliar pesticide applications containing anthraquinone, the Agency has determined that the broader exemption in section 180.920 is not appropriate. For ease of reference, the Agency is establishing this exemption in section 180.1195, which contains other limited exemptions for residues of titanium dioxide.
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for titanium dioxide including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with titanium dioxide follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
The available toxicity studies on titanium dioxide via the oral route of exposure clearly demonstrate a lack of toxicity. The several studies in mice, rats, dogs, cats, rabbits and other species of varying durations do not indicate toxicity, even at very high doses (
The available inhalation studies indicate that the primary toxicity of titanium dioxide is due to deposition of the inhaled particles. Although these studies suggest equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity due to prolonged exposure to titanium dioxide particles, EPA has determined that these effects are not relevant for assessing risk from exposure to titanium dioxide when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations based on the following. First, tumors were only observed in two of the available studies and only in one species. In one study, those tumors were only observed in rats continually exposed to ultrafine particles of titanium dioxide. In the second study, tumors were only observed from exposure to fine particles of titanium dioxide at extremely high concentrations (250 mg/m
The titanium dioxide used in pesticide formulations is considered pigmentary grade, not ultrafine or nanoscale. Consequently, the tumors observed from exposure to ultrafine particles of titanium dioxide are not relevant for assessing exposure to the type of titanium dioxide used in pesticide formulations. Following the reclassification of the tumors observed in the second inhalation study, EPA does not consider these effects to be strong evidence of carcinogenicity from exposure to fine-particle-sized titanium dioxide. Even assuming this study indicates the potential for carcinogenicity, EPA does not expect any reasonably foreseeable uses of titanium dioxide in pesticide formulations that might result in residential exposures to approach the levels of exposure necessary to elicit the effects seen in the available inhalation study. The levels at which effects were observed in that study greatly exceed any reasonable dose for toxicity testing and any likely residential exposure levels. Moreover, when used as an inert in pesticide formulations, titanium dioxide will be bound to other materials, which means there will not be significant inhalation exposure to titanium dioxide particles themselves.
This position is consistent with the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety's (NIOSH) recent assessment that ultrafine but not fine titanium dioxide would be considered a “potential occupational carcinogen.” The NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin “Occupational Exposure to Titanium Dioxide” concludes that “[t]he lung tumors observed in rats after exposure to 250 mg/m
Because the predominant form of titanium dioxide used commercially, and the form used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations is pigment grade, which is not in the ultrafine or nanoscale particle size range but rather in the fine particle size range, EPA concludes that carcinogenicity is not a concern from exposure to titanium dioxide resulting from its use as an inert ingredient in pesticides.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by titanium dioxide as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the final rule published in the
Because the available data indicate no toxicity via the oral route of exposure, no endpoint of concern for that route of exposure has been identified in the available database. This conclusion is in agreement with the conclusion of the World Health Organization (WHO) Committee on Food Coloring Materials that no Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) need be set for the use of titanium dioxide based on the range of acute, sub-acute, and chronic toxicity assays, all showing low mammalian toxicity. Similarly, no significant toxicity of titanium dioxide is expected via the dermal route of exposure, so no endpoint was identified.
Because the effects seen in inhalation studies occurred at doses above the levels at which pesticide exposure is expected and for particle sizes that are different from the size of titanium dioxide used in pesticide formulations, the Agency has concluded that those risks are not relevant for assessing risk from pesticide exposure and therefore, did not identify an endpoint for assessing inhalation exposure risk.
1.
Residues of titanium dioxide are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as an inert ingredient in many different circumstances: When used in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops as a pigment/coloring agent in plastic bags used to wrap growing bananas or colorant on seeds for planting (40 CFR 180.920); when used in pesticide formulations applied to animals (40 CFR 180.930); when used as a Ultraviolet (UV) protectant in microencapsulated formulations of the insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin at no more than 3.0% by weight (40 CFR 180.1195); when used as a UV stabilizer in pesticide formulations of napropamide at no more than 5% of the product formulation (40 CFR 180.1195); and when used in pesticide placed at entrance to bee hives intended to control varroa mites in hive at a maximum of 0.1% weight/weight (wt/wt) (40 CFR 180.1195). Titanium dioxide is also approved for use as a colorant in food (21 CFR 73.575); in drugs (21 CFR 73.1575); and in cosmetics (21 CFR 73.2575 and 73.3126).
Although dietary exposure may be expected from use of titanium dioxide in pesticide formulations applied to bee hives and on other crops (as well as from other non-pesticidal sources), a quantitative exposure assessment for titanium dioxide was not conducted because no endpoint of concern was identified in the database.
2.
3.
Titanium dioxide may be used in non-pesticide products such as paints, printing inks, paper and plastic products around the home. Additionally titanium dioxide may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticides that include residential uses, however based on the discussion in Unit IV.B., a quantitative residential exposure assessment for titanium dioxide was not conducted.
4.
Because titanium dioxide does not have a toxic mode of action or a mechanism of toxicity, this provision does not apply.
Due to titanium dioxide's low potential hazard and the lack of a hazard endpoint, it was determined that a quantitative risk assessment using safety factors applied to a point of departure protective of an identified hazard endpoint is not appropriate for titanium dioxide. For the same reasons that a quantitative risk assessment based on a safety factor approach is not appropriate for titanium dioxide, a Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF) is not needed to protect the safety of infants and children.
Taking into consideration all available information on titanium dioxide, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure to titanium dioxide under reasonable foreseeable circumstances. Therefore, the establishment of an exemption from tolerance under 40 CFR 180.1195 for residues pre-harvest crops of titanium dioxide, when used as an inert ingredient (colorant) up to 45% in foliar pesticide formulations containing anthraquinone, is safe under FFDCA section 408.
Although EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of titanium dioxide that may be used in pesticide formulations, an analytical enforcement methodology is not necessary for this exemption from the requirement of tolerance. The limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.1195 for titanium dioxide (CAS Reg. No. 13463-67-7) when used as an inert ingredient (colorant) up to 45% in foliar pesticide formulations containing anthraquinone.
This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(c) Titanium dioxide (CAS Reg. No. 13463-67-7) is exempted from the requirement of a tolerance for residues in or on growing crops, when used as an inert ingredient (colorant) in foliar applications at no more than 45% of the formulations containing anthraquinone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document adopts revisions to Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) rules to improve utility of WEA as a life-saving tool. By this action, the Commission adopts rules that will improve the accuracy with which Participating CMS Providers transmit Alert Messages to the specified target area. This document also adopts rules to preserve Alert Messages on mobile devices, inform consumers about WEA capabilities at the point of sale, define participation in WEA, and extend the compliance deadline for Spanish language alerting. Through this action, the Commission hopes to empower state and local alert originators to utilize WEA during emergencies.
James Wiley, Attorney Advisor, Cybersecurity and Communications
This is a summary of the Commission's Second Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration (
1. In this
2. The WEA system is a tool for authorized federal, state and local government entities to geographically target alerts and warnings to the WEA-capable mobile devices of Participating CMS Providers' subscribers. The Warning Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act gives the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) authority to adopt “relevant technical standards, protocols, procedures and other technical requirements” governing WEA. In September 2016, the Commission adopted the
3.
4. The
5. If some or all of a Participating CMS Provider's network infrastructure is technically incapable of matching the specified target area, Participating CMS Providers must deliver the Alert Message to an area that best approximates the target area on and only on those aspects of its network infrastructure that are incapable of matching the target area. Any Participating CMS Provider that is technically capable of matching the target area is required to do so. Inability to comply with this rule by November 30, 2019 does not constitute technical incapability. In addition, a Participating CMS Provider must match only the portion of the target area that falls within its network's coverage area. The
6. The requirement to match the target area applies only to new mobile devices offered for sale after November 30, 2019 and to existing devices capable of being upgraded to support this matching standard. For existing mobile devices that cannot be upgraded, Participating CMS Providers must deliver the Alert Message to their “best approximation” of the target area. These devices will still be considered “WEA-capable” as of November 30, 2019, as long as the CMS Provider delivers Alert Messages to these devices using its “best approximation” of the target area. WEA-capable mobile devices with location services turned off (or otherwise unavailable) at the time of the Alert Message receipt should display the Alert Message by default, provided they are within a Participating CMS Provider's best approximation of the target area.
7. In matching the target area, Participating CMS Providers may not limit emergency managers' ability to use the full 360 characters of alphanumeric text allocated for displayable WEA Alert Messages. The record indicates that it is technically feasible for Participating CMS Providers to transmit polygon coordinates to mobile devices without
8. The
9.
10.
11. The
12.
13. These definitions will become effective 60 days from their publication in the
14.
15.
16.
17. The cost of modifying an existing standard is less than the cost of creating a new standard. Assuming that enhanced geo-targeting will require the development of three new standards and the modification of 12 standards, the
18.
19. The
20. In addition, alert preservation will allow subscribers to review details in WEA messages such as shelter locations, improving their ability to seek safety. Additional disclosure requirements will allow consumers to choose a provider and a phone that will bring them WEA alerts that they might otherwise miss.
21. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
22. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), see 5 U.S.C. 603, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was included in the FNPRM in PS Docket No. 15-91. The Commission sought written comment on the proposals in this docket, including comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis conforms to the RFA.
23. This Report and Order contains new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
24. In this document, we have assessed the effects of new consumer disclosure and election renewal requirements, and find that these rules will impose reasonable implementation costs on small businesses with fewer than 25 employees.
25. The Commission will send a copy of this Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
26. Accordingly,
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Communications common carriers, Emergency alerting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 10 to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o), 201, 303(r), 403, and 606; sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of Pub. L. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884.
(k)
(l)
(a) A CMS provider that elects to transmit WEA Alert Messages, in part or in whole as defined by § 10.10(k) and (l), shall electronically file with the Commission a letter attesting that the Provider:
(c) CMS Providers electing to transmit alerts “in part” shall use the following notification:
NOTICE REGARDING TRANSMISSION OF WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS (Commercial Mobile Alert Service)
[[CMS provider]] has chosen to offer wireless emergency alerts, including enhanced geo-targeting, within portions of its service area, as defined by the terms and conditions of its service agreement, on wireless emergency alert capable devices. There is no additional charge for these wireless emergency alerts.
Wireless emergency alerts, including enhanced geo-targeting, may not be available on all devices or in the entire service area, or if a subscriber is outside of the [[CMS provider]] service area. For details on the availability of this service and wireless emergency alert capable devices, including the availability and benefits of enhanced geo-targeting, please ask a sales representative, or go to [[CMS provider's URL]].
Notice required by FCC Rule 47 CFR 10.240 (Commercial Mobile Alert Service)
(a) This section establishes minimum requirements for the geographic targeting of Alert Messages. A Participating CMS Provider will determine which of its network facilities, elements, and locations will be used to geographically target Alert Messages. A Participating CMS Provider must deliver any Alert Message that is specified by a circle or polygon to an area that matches the specified circle or polygon. A Participating CMS Provider is considered to have matched the target area when they deliver an Alert Message to 100 percent of the target area with no more than 0.1 of a mile overshoot. If some or all of a Participating CMS Provider's network infrastructure is technically incapable of matching the specified target area, then that Participating CMS Provider must deliver the Alert Message to an area that best approximates the specified target area on and only on those aspects of its network infrastructure that are incapable of matching the target area. A Participating CMS Provider's network infrastructure may be considered technically incapable of matching the target area in limited circumstances, including when the target area is outside of the Participating CMS Provider's network coverage area, when mobile devices have location services disabled, and when legacy networks or devices cannot be updated to support this functionality.
(c) In matching the target area, Participating CMS Providers may not limit the availability of 360 characters for the Alert Message text.
WEA mobile device functionality is dependent on the capabilities of a Participating CMS Provider's delivery technologies. Mobile devices are required to perform the following functions:
(h) Preservation of Alert Messages in a consumer-accessible format and location for at least 24 hours or until deleted by the subscriber.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission amends its hearing aid compatibility (HAC) rules to enhance equal access to the national telecommunications network by people with hearing loss and implement the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act. The changes incorporate by reference a revised technical standard for volume control for wireline telephones, expand the scope of the wireline HAC rules, add a volume control requirement for wireless handsets, and eliminate an outdated wireless technical standard.
Effective March 30, 2018, except 47 CFR 68.501 through 68.504, which contain modified information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and which will become effective after the Commission publishes a document in the
The incorporation by reference of ANSI/TIA-4965-2012 is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 30, 2018. The incorporation by reference of the material in § 20.19 was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 6, 2008 and August 16, 2012. The incorporation by reference of the other material in § 68.317 was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 23, 1996.
Susan Bahr, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-0573 or email:
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, document FCC 17-135, adopted on October 24, 2017, released on October 26, 2017, in CG Docket No. 13-46, WT Docket Nos. 07-250 and 10-254. The full text of this document will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
Document FCC 17-135 concerns the Commission's rules for HAC for wireline and wireless handsets. The Commission previously sought comment on these issues in
Wireline telephones manufactured or imported into the United States on or after February 28, 2020, must comply with the revised wireline volume control technical standard (ANSI/TIA-4965-2012) incorporated by reference into 47 CFR 68.317. Wireline telephones manufactured or imported into the United States before February 28, 2020, may comply with either ANSI/TIA-4965-2012 or the existing wireline volume control standard referenced in 47 CFR 68.317(a)(1). Wireline telephones used for advanced communications services (ACS telephonic CPE) must comply with the applicable provisions of 47 CFR part 68 as amended by document FCC 17-135 if they are manufactured or imported on or after February 28, 2020. However, §§ 68.501 through 68.504 contain information collections that have not yet been approved by OMB. In the event that OMB approval does not occur before February 28, 2020, the FCC will publish a document in the
Wireless handsets submitted for equipment certification or for a permissive change relating to hearing aid compatibility starting March 1, 2021, must comply with the wireless volume control requirements set forth in 47 CFR 20.19. Any grants of certification issued to wireless handsets not equipped with such volume control that were submitted for certification before March 1, 2021, remain valid for HAC purposes.
Wireless handsets submitted for equipment certification or for a permissive change relating to HAC beginning August 28, 2018, must comply with the M3 and T3 ratings associated with the ANSI C63.19-2011 standard. Any grants of certification issued for wireless handsets that were submitted for certification before August 28, 2018, under ANSI C63.19-2011, or previous versions of ANSI 63.19, remain valid for HAC purposes.
The Office of Federal Register (OFR) recently revised its regulations to require that agencies must discuss in the preamble of a final rule ways that the materials the agency is incorporating by reference are reasonably available to interested parties or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available to interested parties. In addition, the preamble of the final rule must summarize the material. Several standards are incorporated by reference: (a) Paragraph 4.1.2 (including table 4.4) of ANSI/EIA-470-A-1987; (b) paragraph 4.3.2 of ANSI/EIA/TIA-579-1991; (c) ANSI/TIA-4965-2012; (d) ANSI C63.19-2007; and (e) ANSI C63.19-2011. These standards address the use of wireless and wireline handsets by people with hearing loss, including people who use hearing aids.
The standards listed as (a), (b) and (c) apply to inductive coupling and volume control for wireline telephones, and by document FCC 17-135, to ACS telephonic CPE. Standards (a) and (b) were previously incorporated in the
The Commission sent a copy of document FCC 17-135 to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
Document FCC 17-135 contains modified information collection requirements, which are not applicable until approval is obtained from OMB. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public to comment on the information collection requirements contained in document FCC 17-135 as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-13. The Commission will publish a separate document in the
1. The Commission amends § 68.317 of its rules to incorporate a revised technical standard for volume control in wireline telephones, ANSI/TIA-4965-2012 (2012 ANSI Wireline Volume Control Standard). The revised standard, developed by TIA technical standards committee, significantly improves the measurement of volume amplification in two ways. First, instead of measuring the volume received by the user with an IEC-318 coupler, which is designed to form a seal with the telephone handset, the standard uses a HATS, which takes into account the lack of a seal between a telephone receiver and the ears of users in real-life settings. Thus, the HATS more closely mirrors how handsets are actually used, offering an improved measurement.
2. Further, instead of measuring loudness in terms of ROLR, where gain is measured relative to each phone's normal unamplified, or nominal, sound level, the new standard uses “conversational gain,” where gain is measured relative to an absolute benchmark based on the sound of face-to-face conversation at a distance of 1 meter. This approach eliminates the variation in maximum amplification levels that results from maximum amplification being measured relative to each telephone's nominal sound level.
3. The specified volume levels are formulated to be approximately equivalent to those commonly achieved under the prior standard by older wireline telephones. Thus, telephones will be in compliance with the volume control requirements if they provide at least 18 dB and no more than 24 dB Conversational Gain at the maximum setting. The 18 dB Conversational Gain minimum must be achieved without significant clipping of the speech signal used for testing. The upper limit of 24 dB Conversational Gain may be exceeded if the volume automatically resets to 24 dB Conversational Gain or below upon hang-up.
4. By providing consumers with phones that have standardized, easy-to-understand volume amplification levels measured using a HATS, this action will improve telephone communications, including communication needed for emergencies, for individuals with hearing loss.
5. Any existing inventory and installed base of telephones that comply with the current version of § 68.317 of the Commission's rules may remain in place until retired. The record does not support a determination that the potential benefits of requiring existing telephones to comply with the 2012 Wireline Volume Control Standard are greater than the potential costs.
6. The Commission does not adopt its proposal to require covered manufacturers to test a sample of products that they make available for purchase to assess whether these products are providing a uniform and appropriate range of volume to meet the telephone needs of people with hearing loss. Based on input from commenters, currently required testing will be sufficient. The Commission also does not adopt its proposal to require wireline telephone manufacturers to consult with consumers and their representative organizations under a specified timetable, to assess the 2012 Wireline Volume Control Standard after it goes into effect. Because HAC technical standards are subject to revision over time, the Commission expects that there will be regular opportunities for industry and consumer stakeholders to confer with one another in the course of further reevaluation of the 2012 Wireline Volume Control Standard.
7. Section 710(b)(1) of the Act, as amended by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), Public Law 111-260, 102, 124 Stat. 2751, Public Law 111-265, 124 Stat. 2795, directs the Commission to require that “[a]ll customer premises equipment used with advanced communications services that is designed to provide 2-way voice communication via a built-in speaker intended to be held to the ear in a manner functionally equivalent to a telephone” must “provide internal means for effective use with hearing aids that are designed to be compatible with telephones which meet established technical standards for hearing aid compatibility.” 47 U.S.C. 610(b)(1). The Act defines “advanced communications services” to include interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP service. 47 U.S.C. 153(1).
8. The Commission therefore amends its rules to specify that VoIP telephones and other wireline equipment described in 47 U.S.C. 710(b)(1)(C), collectively termed “ACS telephonic CPE,” must comply with the same HAC requirements that apply to other wireline telephones, including compliance with volume control and inductive coupling standards, as well as, for purposes of HAC compliance, the same testing, attestations of compliance, registration, labeling, and complaint handling requirements that currently apply to CPE that is directly connected to the public switched telephone network.
9. To ensure that the terminal equipment database managed by the Administrative Council for Terminal
10. The record in this proceeding confirms that the public interest and the objectives mandated by section 710 of the Act will be served by modifying the Commission's HAC rules for wireless handsets to include a volume control requirement designed to accommodate people with hearing loss. Given the significantly expanded reliance on wireless telephone communications—and concomitant decline in wireline phone usage—the Commission affirms its belief that a volume control requirement that specifies certain levels of amplification as an element of hearing aid compatibility is just as necessary for wireless handsets as it is for wireline phones, to ensure the provision of effective telecommunications for people with hearing loss. This is especially true in emergency situations where having access to a phone—be it one's own device or a device belonging to someone else on the scene—can mean the difference between life and death. Further, a volume control requirement will not only improve communications for those using hearing aids and cochlear implants, it also will help millions of Americans with hearing loss who do not use these devices.
11. The Commission's conclusions are supported in the record. Two surveys reveal that the existing volume control features contained in wireless handsets often do not produce sufficient amplification to enable people with hearing loss to comprehend wireless telephone conversations through acoustic coupling. Although TIA and CTIA dispute the significance of the survey results, noting that less than 30 percent of the complaints about wireless phones pertained to loudness or volume, we find that these results provide persuasive evidence that current wireless handset volume controls are insufficient to ensure that wireless handsets can be effectively used with hearing aids and that people with hearing loss have effective access to the wireless phone network. Even if only 29 percent of the estimated 48 million Americans with hearing loss were able to benefit from wireless volume control, the Commission concludes that the resulting benefits to some 13.9 million people are sufficient to justify a requirement for wireless phones to provide effective communication through amplification.
12. TIA also asserts that wireless handsets already allow users to adjust the volume on wireless handsets to provide an acceptable, comfortable user experience, but provides no specific or quantitative information on the extent to which amplification levels in wireless handsets have improved since 2010, nor how these levels have been effective in enabling individuals with hearing loss to receive and understand speech received through wireless handsets. Further, there is no indication in the record that industry volume control standards currently required for wireless handsets were formulated to specifically address the needs of consumers with hearing loss. The record also provides no basis for accepting claims that consumer education is sufficient to address consumer concerns about volume control. Ratings for wireless handsets currently are available only for RF interference reduction and inductive coupling capability, not volume amplification, and selecting a different handset is not a viable option if wireless handsets with effective amplification are not available.
13. Commenters did not supply specific cost data,
14. The Commission also believes that any costs associated with meeting certain levels of volume control in wireless handsets will be mitigated by the flexibility afforded by this order. Rather than relying on a government-mandated technical solution, the Commission adopts a general volume control requirement that provides standards-setting organizations with an opportunity to submit for Commission approval a technical standard that they believe will enable a phone to meet this general requirement and can be implemented in a cost-effective manner. Additionally, because the extended timeline for implementation of the requirement will apply only to handsets newly submitted for HAC certification, volume control meeting the standard that the Commission approves can be incorporated into the mobile handset environment in a cost-effective manner.
15. The Commission notes that its legal authority to adopt a volume control requirement for wireless phones stems from section 710(a) and (b) of the Act and the stated purposes of the HAC provisions of the Act. 47 U.S.C. 610(a), (b); Public Law 100-394, sec. 2. The Commission previously found that sections 710(a) and (b) both authorize the adoption of volume control requirements for wireline telephones, published at 61 FR 42181, August 14,
16. The volume control requirement applies to all wireless handset models newly submitted for HAC certification on or after March 1, 2021. New wireless handset models submitted on or after that date for certification as hearing aid compatible for RF interference reduction and inductive coupling must also comply with the new volume control rule (including technical standards approved by the Commission). By setting a three-year compliance timeline, the Commission allows one year for the completion and adoption of a technical standard for wireless volume control by a standards development organization (SDO) (which began earlier in 2017) and adoption by the Commission, and an additional two years for manufacturers to implement such technical standard in new handset models submitted for HAC certifications through the Commission's existing equipment authorization process. The Commission grandfathers all hearing aid compatible handsets that were certified as HAC compliant without volume control provided they were submitted for certification prior to the three-year compliance deadline.
17. The adopted timeframe will provide ample opportunity for informed development of a wireless volume control technical standard and the incorporation of such standard into the Commission's rules, as well as for manufacturers to obtain the necessary testing equipment, and to implement design alterations needed to ensure that their new products meet the standard. Further, this approach will afford manufacturers and service providers the flexibility to work through their inventories of older models to meet their M- and T-rating HAC deployment benchmarks, while ensuring that in the ensuing years effective volume control will increasingly become a standard feature as new hearing aid compatible models universally incorporate volume control. In this manner, companies will not be required to retrofit or recertify any HAC-compliant grandfathered models or drop any such models from their portfolios prematurely to comply with the volume control requirements.
18. Upon the completion of a wireless volume control technical standard, the Commission anticipates that it can expeditiously begin a rulemaking process to evaluate the standard and incorporate it by reference into the wireless HAC rules. The Commission will monitor developments in this regard and take appropriate steps if standards development and adoption do not proceed as expected.
19.
20. To rectify this and achieve consistency with the current Commission requirements for HAC labeling and disclosure for wireless handsets, the Commission requires manufacturers of wireless handsets and service providers to ensure that packaging on each handset covered by the volume control requirement adopted herein clearly displays information to enable consumers to determine the handset's amplification capabilities. The Commission requires compliance with this labeling requirement to be concurrent with the implementation of the volume control requirement—
21. At this time, the Commission does not specify either the format or language for the volume control label. However, beginning with the three-year compliance deadline discussed above, if a handset is certified as compliant with a HAC technical standard relating to volume control that specifies acceptable numerical metrics or qualitative ratings for handset volume control (comparable to the M- and T-ratings provided under the RF interference reduction and inductive coupling standards), the labeling for handsets granted HAC certification for volume control must include the relevant amplification metrics or ratings. In addition, as is currently required for M- and T-ratings, an explanation of such amplification metrics or ratings must be included in the device's user manual or as an insert in the packaging material for the handset.
22. To the extent that a technical standard for volume control is approved by an SDO and adopted or authorized by the Commission, compliance with the standard will constitute compliance with the Commission's new wireless volume control rule. Based on current information about volume control and related technical standards, the Commission suggests that a wireless volume control standard could include: (a) The use of conversational gain for measuring receive loudness; (b) the establishment of minimum value(s) for the acceptable maximum volume(s); (c) the use of a HATS; and (d) the use of two pressure measurements for holding the handset next to the ear—one for people who use hearing aids, and one for people who do not use hearing aids.
23. The Commission adopts its proposal to eliminate the 2007 version of ANSI C63.19 (2007 Wireless RF Interference/Inductive Coupling Standard) as an option for measuring and rating the HAC compliance of wireless handsets and to require the use of ANSI C63.19-2011 (2011 Wireless RF Interference/Inductive Coupling Standard), which has been available as an option for many handsets since 2012.
24. In 2007, the Commission incorporated ANSI C63.19-2007 into its rules. This standard specifies testing procedures for determining the M-rating (RF interference reduction) and T-rating (inductive coupling capability) of digital wireless handsets that operate over the air interfaces that, at the time the standard was promulgated, were commonly used for wireless services in the 800-950 MHz and 1.6-2.5 GHz bands. In 2012, the Commission incorporated ANSI C63.19-2011 into its rules. This standard expanded the range of frequencies over which inductive coupling can be tested to include frequencies between 698 MHz and 6 GHz (to take into account other new technologies), and established a direct
25. Parties commenting on this issue agree that use of the 2011 Wireless RF Interference/Inductive Coupling Standard provides the most accurate available RF interference reduction and inductive coupling ratings for handsets generally. Accordingly, the Commission amends its rules to require that manufacturers use the 2011 Wireless RF Interference/Inductive Coupling Standard exclusively to obtain certification for future wireless handsets as HAC compliant.
26.
27. The Commission allows service providers and manufacturers until August 28, 2018, to transition to the 2011 Wireless RF Interference/Inductive Coupling Standard. The Commission grandfathers handsets previously certified under the 2007 Wireless RF Interference/Inductive Coupling Standard or any previous RF interference reduction or inductive coupling standard, including GSM handsets that were previously certified under the power-down exception.
28. The Commission reminds manufacturers and service providers that its rules require them generally to ensure that consumers have the information they need about the availability of hearing aid compatible wireline and wireless phones and the accessibility features of these phones. Specifically, the Commission reminds these entities of the following obligations.
•
•
•
•
29. Consumers may also obtain information about hearing aid compatible wireless handsets from the Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Reports filed by wireless manufacturers and service providers and the Commission's summaries of those reports.
30. On October 8, 2010, LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc., and several other manufacturers of wireless handsets filed a Petition for Partial Reconsideration (LG Petition) of the Commission's
31. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) into the
32. Document FCC 17-135 amends the hearing aid compatibility (HAC) rules with the goal of ensuring that Americans with hearing loss are able to access wireline services, wireless services and wireline ACS through a wide array of phones, including voice-over-internet-protocol (VoIP) telephones. The Commission takes the following actions to ensure that individuals who rely on HAC technologies will have access to emerging communications technologies
• Adopts a new standard to improve the method used to measure volume control on wireline handsets that will be phased in over two years;
• adopts rules to require certain customer premises equipment (CPE) used with ACS, including VoIP telephones, to be HAC compliant;
• adopts a rule requiring volume control on wireless handsets sufficient to meet the communications needs of people with hearing loss;
• eliminates two superseded rules—the inductive coupling standard (2007 Wireless RF Interference/Inductive Coupling Standard) and a power-down exception for certain GSM handsets—and adopts a deadline after which all wireless handsets submitted for new certifications of hearing aid compatibility must adhere to the 2011 Wireless RF Interference/Inductive Coupling Standard; and
• reminds manufacturers and service providers of their existing obligations to provide consumers with sufficient information to make informed decisions about their wireless handset purchases.
In the Order on Reconsideration of document FCC 17-135, the Commission dismisses as moot a pending Petition for Partial Reconsideration concerning the power-down rule, 47 CFR 20.19(e)(1)(iii), because it eliminates the rule in the Report and Order. The above rules reflect adjustments, such as transition times prior to new rules taking effect, that may be particularly helpful to small entities.
33. The Commission received no comments directly addressing the IRFA.
34. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
35. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rule changes. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
36. The entities which may be affected by the rules include: Small entities; wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite); all other telecommunications; telephone apparatus manufacturing; radio and television broadcasting and wireless equipment manufacturing; electronic computer manufacturing; computer terminal manufacturing; and software publishers.
37. Certain rule changes adopted in document FCC 17-135 modify or add requirements governing reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance obligations. As described above and below, the adoption of these requirements factors in the needs of small entities.
38. First, the Commission incorporates the 2012 Wireline Volume Control Standard into the wireline volume control rules and eliminates the currently applicable standard after a transition period. This action alters the compliance obligations of wireline telephone apparatus manufacturers, including small entities, by requiring them to use a different method for testing and evaluating compliance with the volume control requirement.
39. Second, the Commission explicitly applies the Commission's wireline telephone volume control and other HAC rules to equipment used for ACS, which includes VoIP devices. The Commission also applies related labeling, certification, complaint processing, and registration requirements, to handsets used with ACS. These actions impose new compliance obligations and reporting and recordkeeping obligations on some wireline telephone apparatus manufacturers, electronic computer manufacturers, computer terminal manufacturers, and software publishers, including small entities.
40. Third, the Commission adopts a rule for wireless handsets to address volume control. This action imposes new compliance obligations and may impose additional reporting and recordkeeping obligations on wireless telecommunications carriers and wireless communications equipment manufacturers, including small entities.
41. Fourth, the Commission eliminates the 2007 Wireless RF Interference/Inductive Coupling Standard and a power-down exception, and requires wireless handsets to comply with the existing 2011 Wireless RF Interference/Inductive Coupling Standard to achieve more effective coupling between handsets and hearing aids or cochlear implants. This action could alter the compliance obligations of wireless telecommunications carriers and wireless communications equipment manufacturers, including small entities. However, such changes would not result in new regulatory burdens. In fact, it is the Commission's understanding that the 2011 Wireless RF Interference/Inductive Coupling Standard already is used almost exclusively.
42. Fifth, the Commission reminds manufacturers and service providers of their existing obligations to provide consumers with sufficient information to make informed decisions about their handset purchases. These requirements are not new. So there are no new compliance obligations.
43. The Commission considered ways to reduce potential burdens and/or allow sufficient transition time for new requirements, which may be especially helpful to small entities. First, regarding the Commission's incorporation of the 2012 Wireline Volume Control Standard into the wireline volume control rules, the Commission notes that the 2012 Wireline Volume Control Standard is a performance standard, not a design standard. To minimize the difficulty of adjusting to the revised standard, document FCC 17-135 allows a phase-in period during which manufacturers may comply with either the existing standard or the 2012 Wireline Volume Control Standard. To limit any potential burdens regarding the impact of the proposed rule change on previously manufactured telephones, the Commission allows the existing inventory and installed base of telephones that comply with the existing volume control standard to remain in place until retired.
44. In the
45. Second, regarding the Commission's new requirement that wireline CPE used with VoIP or other ACS comply with the wireline HAC and volume control requirements of part 68, the Commission notes that the standards provided in the rules are performance standards, not design standards. To minimize the difficulty of adjusting to the revised standard, document FCC 17-135 allows a two-year phase-in period before compliance is required. The Commission is aware that some manufacturers are already voluntarily complying with some of the new HAC requirements. To limit any potential burdens regarding the impact of the rule change on previously manufactured telephones, the Commission allows the existing inventory and installed base of ACS telephonic CPE to remain in place until retired. The Commission applies the relevant part 68 rules regarding complaint handling, labeling, certifications, and Suppliers' Declarations of Conformity to ACS telephonic CPE. Among other things, these rules provide for HAC consumer complaints to be filed with state public utility commissions or with the Commission, require labels to be affixed to telephones that are HAC compliant, permit equipment to be certified by Telecommunication Certification Bodies, and in the alternative, permit suppliers to make their own Declarations of Conformity. In the
46. Third, regarding the Commission's adoption of rules requiring wireless handsets to provide volume control that produces sound levels suitable for persons with hearing loss (including persons with and without hearing aids), these rules also reflect a performance, not a design, standard. The introduction of new handsets that comply with a volume control standard is spread out over about seven years, which corresponds to the timeline of other wireless HAC requirements. In addition, reduced requirements apply to smaller manufacturers and service providers, and a total exemption is applied to the smallest manufacturers and service providers. The record shows that many wireless handsets already need to comply with volume control standards adopted by European and Asian standards groups; thus, it is possible that in complying with those standards, much of the cost of complying with this rule is already being borne by wireless manufacturers and service providers. Moreover, in the
47. Fourth, regarding the Commission's adoption of a requirement for manufacturers to use the 2011 Wireless RF Interference/Inductive Coupling Standard exclusively and to eliminate the power-down exception to the existing wireless HAC rule, the Commission notes that the 2011 Wireless RF Interference/Inductive Coupling Standard is a performance standard, not a design standard. The revised rule will be implemented for new HAC certifications, and all prior certifications are grandfathered. Further, while HAC certifications will be necessary for increasing portions of a manufacturer's offered handset models over the next seven years under other recently adopted requirements, reduced requirements apply to smaller manufacturers and service providers, and a total exemption is applied to the smallest manufacturers and service providers. In the
48. Fifth, regarding the Commission's reminder to manufacturers and service providers concerning their existing obligations to provide consumers with sufficient information to make informed decisions about their handset purchases, these obligations include placing HAC information on handset packaging, providing accessible customer support, and posting information on wireless service providers' websites. These are not new obligations, so there are no new costs. The Commission has not identified any alternative to these rules that would have further lessened the economic impact on small entities while remaining consistent with its objectives of improving the ways that Americans with hearing loss can access our nation's wireline and wireless communications services.
49. The Commission has sent a copy of document FCC 17-135, including this FRFA, in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
50. None.
51. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), 610, document FCC 17-135 is adopted, and parts 20 and 68 of title 47 are amended.
52. The Petition for Partial Reconsideration filed October 8, 2010 by LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc., Motorola, Inc., Nokia Inc., Research in Motion Corp., Samsung Information Systems America, Inc., and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. in WT Docket No. 07-250 is dismissed.
53. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center shall send a copy of document FCC 17-135, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Incorporation by reference, Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications, Telephones.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 20 and 68 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 610, 615, 615a, 615b, 615c, unless otherwise noted.
(b) * * *
(1)
(2)
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) The handset would comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section if the power as so reduced were the maximum power at which the handset could operate;
(C) Customers are informed of the power reduction mode as provided in paragraph (f)(3) of this section. Manufacturers and service providers covered by this paragraph must also comply with all other requirements of this section; and
(D) The handset was certified as meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section with the power reduction prior to August 28, 2018.
(f) * * *
(1)
(ii)
(k) * * *
(2) The Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology are delegated authority, by notice-and-comment rulemaking if required by statute or otherwise in the public interest, to issue an order amending this section to the extent necessary to approve any version of the technical standards for radio frequency interference, inductive coupling, or volume control adopted subsequently to ANSI C63.19-2007 for use in determining whether a wireless handset meets the appropriate rating over frequency bands and air interfaces for which technical standards have previously been adopted either by the Commission or pursuant to paragraph (k)(1) of this section. This delegation is limited to the approval of changes to the technical standards that do not raise major compliance issues. Further, by such approvals, the Chiefs may only permit, and not require, the use of such subsequent versions of the technical standards to establish hearing aid compatibility.
(l) The standards required in this section are incorporated by reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th St. SW, Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270, and is available from the source indicated below. They are also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to
(1) IEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA), 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141, (732) 981-0060, email to
(i) ANSI C63.19-2007, American National Standard Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing Aids, June 8, 2007.
(ii) ANSI C63.19-2011, American National Standard Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing Aids, May 27, 2011.
(2) [Reserved]
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 610.
Secs. 4, 5, 303, 710, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1068, 1082 (47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 303, 610).
The purpose of the rules and regulations in this part is to provide for uniform standards for the protection of the telephone network from harms caused by the connection of terminal equipment and associated wiring thereto, and for the compatibility of hearing aids and telephones so as to ensure that, to the fullest extent made possible by technology and medical science, people with hearing loss have equal access to the national telecommunications network, including advanced communications services.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, and excluding subpart F, which applies only to ACS telephonic CPE, the rules and regulations of this part apply to direct connection of all terminal equipment to the public switched telephone network for use in conjunction with all services other than party line services. Sections 68.4, 68.5, 68.6, 68.112, 68.160, 68.162, 68.316, and 68.317, and other sections to the extent they are made applicable by subpart F of this part, also apply to ACS and ACS telephonic CPE that is manufactured in the United States or imported for use in the United States on or after February 28, 2020.
(b) Be accompanied by instructions in accordance with § 68.218(b)(2).
Secs. 4, 5, 303, 710, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1068, 1082 (47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 303, 610).
The additions and revision read as follows:
(a)(1) A telephone manufactured in the United States or imported for use in the United States prior to February 28, 2020, complies with the volume control requirements of this section if it complies with:
(i) The applicable provisions of paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section; or
(ii) Paragraph (h) of this section.
(2) A telephone manufactured in the United States or imported for use in the United States on or after February 28, 2020, complies with the volume control requirements of this section if it complies with paragraph (h) of this section.
(h) A telephone complies with the Commission's volume control requirements if it is equipped with a receive volume control that provides, through the receiver in the handset of the telephone, at the loudest volume setting, a conversational gain greater than or equal to 18 dB and less than or equal to 24 dB Conversational Gain
(i) The standards required in this section are incorporated by reference with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th St. SW, Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270, and is available from the source indicated below. They are also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to
(1) The following standards are available from the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), 1320 North Courthouse Road, Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22201, (877) 413-5184, email to
(i) Paragraph 4.1.2 (including table 4.4) of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard ANSI/EIA-470-A-1987, Telephone Instruments with Loop Signaling, July 1987.
(ii) Paragraph 4.3.2 of ANSI/EIA/TIA-579-1991, Acoustic-to-Digital and Digital-to-Acoustic Transmission Requirements for ISDN Terminals, February 1991.
(iii) ANSI/TIA-4965-2012, Telecommunications; Telephone Terminal Equipment; Receive Volume Control Requirements for Digital and Analog Wireline Handset Terminals, approved October 19, 2012.
(2) [Reserved]
(e) No person shall use or make reference to a Supplier's Declaration of Conformity in a deceptive or misleading manner or to convey the impression that such a Supplier's Declaration of Conformity reflects more than a determination by the responsible party that the device or product has been shown to be capable of complying with the applicable technical criteria.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(i) The equipment approval is shown to have been obtained by misrepresentation;
(ii) The responsible party willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the terms and conditions of its equipment approval; or
(iii) The responsible party willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any rule, regulation or order issued by the Commission under the Communications Act of 1934 relating to terminal equipment.
(2) Before revoking such authorization, the Commission, or the Enforcement Bureau under delegated authority, will issue a written Notice of Intent to Revoke part 68 Authorization, or a Joint Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Notice of Intent to Revoke part 68 Authorization, pursuant to §§ 1.80 and 1.89 of this chapter. The notice will be sent to the responsible party for the equipment at issue at the address provided to the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments. A product that has had its authorization revoked may not be reauthorized for a period of six months from the date of revocation of the approval. A responsible party for ACS telephonic CPE that has had its authorization revoked or that has been assessed a forfeiture, or both, may request reconsideration or make administrative appeal of the decision pursuant to part 1 of the Commission's rules: Practice and Procedure, part 1 of this chapter.
(a)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(1) Any consumer instructions required to be included with approved ACS telephonic CPE by the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments;
(2) For ACS telephonic CPE that is not hearing aid compatible, as defined in § 68.316:
(i) Notice that FCC rules prohibit the use of that handset in certain locations; and
(ii) A list of such locations (
(d)
The complaint procedures of §§ 68.414 through 68.423 shall apply to complaints regarding the hearing aid compatibility of ACS telephonic CPE.
The database registration and labeling provisions of §§ 68.354, 68.610, and 68.612 shall apply to ACS telephonic CPE that is approved as hearing aid compatible and is manufactured in or imported to the United States on or after February 28, 2020. After that date, the information required by the Administrative Council on Terminal Attachments shall be submitted within 30 days after the date that the equipment is manufactured in or imported into the United States.
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Cost Accounting Standards Board.
Final rule.
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Board, is publishing, without change from the proposed rule, a final rule revising the exemption from CAS for firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts and subcontracts awarded on the basis of adequate price competition without submission of cost or pricing data. This final rule clarifies that the exemption applies to FFP contracts and subcontracts awarded on the basis of adequate price competition without submission of certified cost or pricing data.
Ida Pham, Acting Staff Director, Cost Accounting Standards Board (telephone: 202-881-9062; email:
The CAS Board's regulations and Standards are codified at 48 CFR chapter 99. This final rule amends of a CAS Board regulation other than a Standard, and as such is not subject to the statutorily prescribed rulemaking process for the promulgation of a Standard at 41 U.S.C. 1502(c) [formerly, 41 U.S.C. 422(g)].
In October 2011, the CASB issued a proposed rule to clarify the CAS exemption provided by 48 CFR 9903.201-1(b)(15) (76 FR 61660). Since 2000, this provision has provided an exemption from CAS for FFP contracts and subcontracts awarded on the basis of adequate price competition without submission of cost or pricing data. In proposing to add the word “certified” before “cost or pricing data,” the Board explained that at the time the CAS rule was promulgated in 2000, the term cost or pricing data was understood to mean certified cost or pricing data. However, as a result of changes made to the Federal Acquisition Regulation in 2010 by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, the term could also be read to mean cost or pricing data without the certification. The Board sought to avoid confusion and provide clarity to the government contractor community on its original intent, which was to implement section 802 of the NDAA for FY 2000 (Pub. L. 106-65). Section 802 adopted the recommendation of the Cost Accounting Standards Board Review Panel, which stated that when certified cost or pricing data were not obtained for FFP contracts and subcontracts, the safeguards provided by CAS were likewise not necessary. For additional background on the proposed rule, go to (76 FR 61660).
Two comments were received in response to the proposed rule, both of which expressed support for the proposed change. Accordingly, the CAS Board is adopting and finalizing the proposed rule without change.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, Subchapter I) does not apply to this rulemaking, because this rule imposes no additional paperwork burden on offerors, affected contractors and subcontractors, or members of the public which requires the approval of OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
This rule serves to clarify the elimination of certain administrative requirements associated with the application and administration of the Cost Accounting Standards by covered Government contractors and subcontractors, consistent with the provisions of “Streamlined Applicability of Cost Accounting Standards” at Section 802 of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. In addition, because the final rule will achieve greater consistency between the CAS and the FAR, the rule promotes simplification for contractors. The economic impact on contractors and subcontractors is, therefore, expected to be minor. As a result, the CAS Board has determined that this final rule will not result in the promulgation of an “economically significant rule” under the provisions of Executive Order 12866, that a regulatory impact analysis is not required, and the requirements of E.O. 13771,
Cost accounting standards, Government procurement.
For the reasons set forth in this preamble, chapter 99 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below:
Public Law 111-350, 124 Stat. 3677, 41 U.S.C. 1502.
(b) * * *
(15) Firm-fixed-price contracts or subcontracts awarded on the basis of adequate price competition without submission of certified cost or pricing data.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is reducing the Atlantic mackerel possession limit for Federal limited access Atlantic mackerel permitted vessels based on a projection that the 2018 river herring and shad catch cap for that fishery has been reached. This action is necessary to comply with the regulations implementing the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan and is intended to limit the harvest of river herring and shad in the Greater Atlantic Region.
Effective 00:01 hr local time, February 27, 2018, through December 31, 2018.
Alyson Pitts, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9352.
Regulations governing the Atlantic mackerel fishery can be found at 50 CFR part 648, including requirements for setting annual catch cap allocations for river herring and shad. NMFS set the 2018 river herring and shad catch cap for the directed Atlantic mackerel fishery at 82 mt as part of a final rule to implement the 2016 through 2018 Atlantic mackerel specifications (81 FR 24504, April 4, 2016).
The NMFS Administrator of the Greater Atlantic Region (Regional Administrator) monitors river herring and shad catch from the directed Atlantic mackerel fishery based on vessel and dealer reports, state data, and other available information. The regulations at § 648.24 require that when the Regional Administrator projects that when 95 percent of the river herring and shad catch cap has been caught by the directed Atlantic mackerel fishery (
The Regional Administrator has determined, based on vessel and dealer reports, state data, and other available information, that Federal limited access Atlantic mackerel vessels will have caught 95 percent of the river herring and shad catch cap by February 20, 2018. The regulations at § 648.24(d) require NMFS to provide at least a 72 hour notice to the public before any Atlantic mackerel possession reduction or fishery closure. Therefore, effective 00:01 hr local time, February 27, 2018, federally permitted vessels targeting Atlantic mackerel may not fish for, catch, possess, transfer, land, or sell more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of Atlantic mackerel per trip or calendar day through December 31, 2018. Vessels with more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of Atlantic mackerel that have entered port before 00:01 hr local time, February 27, 2018, may land and sell more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of Atlantic mackerel from that trip.
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. This action restricts the catch of Atlantic mackerel for the remainder of the fishing year. Data have only recently become available indicating that directed Atlantic mackerel trips by federally permitted vessels will have caught 95 percent of the river herring and shad catch cap established for the 2018 calendar year. Once NMFS projects that river herring and shad catch will reach 95 percent of the catch cap, NMFS is required by Federal regulation to implement a 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) Atlantic mackerel possession limit and prohibit vessels from landing Atlantic mackerel more than once per calendar day through December 31, 2018. The regulations at § 648.24(b)(6) require such action to ensure that such vessels do not exceed the river herring and shad catch cap for the Atlantic mackerel fishery. If implementation of this closure is delayed to solicit prior public comment, the river herring and shad catch cap for this fishing year will likely be exceeded, thereby undermining the conservation objectives of the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. NMFS further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reasons stated above.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 620 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2018 total allowable catch of pollock for Statistical Area 620 in the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 23, 2018, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., March 10, 2018.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (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 A season allowance of the 2018 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA is 27,314 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017) and inseason adjustment (82 FR 60327, December 20, 2017).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the A season allowance of the 2018 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 27,000 mt and is setting aside the remaining 314 mt as bycatch 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 pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA.
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 pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 22, 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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2018 Pacific cod total allowable catch apportioned to trawl catcher vessels in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 23, 2018, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., June 10, 2018.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (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. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.
The A season allowance of the 2018 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to trawl catcher vessels in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 1,528 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017) and inseason adjustment (82 FR 60327, December 20, 2017).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the A season allowance of the 2018 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to trawl catcher vessels in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 1,378 mt and is setting aside the remaining 150 mt as bycatch 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 catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the effective date of this
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting 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 directed fishing closure of Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 22, 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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bishop International Airport, Flint, MI, and establish separate Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Owosso Community Airport, Owosso, MI. The FAA is proposing this action due to the closure of the Athelone Williams Memorial Airport, Davison, MI, which is included in the Flint, MI, airspace description, and the cancellation of the instrument approach procedures at the Genesys Regional Medical Center, Grand Blanc, MI, also included in the Flint, MI, airspace description, and to update the Bishop International Airport airspace and the Owosso Community Airport airspace to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. The geographic coordinates of the Bishop International Airport and Prices Airport, Linden, MI, would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Comments must be received on or before April 16, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0020; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-28, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bishop International Airport, Flint, MI, and establish separate Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Owosso Community Airport, Owosso, MI, to support instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports, and remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface that is no longer required at Athelone Williams Memorial Airport and Genesys Regional Medical Center.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0020; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-28.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:
Modifying the Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Bishop International Airport, Flint, MI, by updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, and replacing the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement” in the airspace legal description;
Modifying the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.9-mile radius (decreased from a 10.5-mile radius) at Bishop International Airport; removing the extension to the north referencing the Flint ILS localizer; adding an extension 2.4 miles each side of the 016° radial of the Flint VORTAC extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 7.9 miles north of the airport; adding an extension 2.4 miles each side of the 179° radial of the Flint VORTAC extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 7.9 miles south of the airport; removing the Owosso Community Airport, Owosso, MI, from the airspace description (a separate Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be created for Owosso Community Airport as it no longer adjoins the Flint, MI, Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface with this amendment); removing Athelone Williams Memorial Airport, Davison, MI, from the airspace description; removing the PETLI LOM from the airspace description; removing Genesys Regional Medical Center, Grand Blanc, MI, from the airspace description; updating the geographic coordinates for Bishop International Airport and Prices Airport, Linden, MI, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and removing exclusionary language contained in the legal description to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L; and
Establishing Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile radius of Owosso Community Airport, Owosso, MI.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the closure of the Athelone Williams Memorial Airport and the cancellation of the instrument procedures at the Genesys Regional Medical Center, as they no longer require a Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. This action would enhance safety and the management of IFR operations at these airports.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5-mile radius of Bishop International Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of Bishop International Airport, and within 2.4 miles each side of the 016° radial of the Flint VORTAC extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 7.9 miles north of Bishop International Airport, and within 2.4 miles each side of the 179° radial of the Flint VORTAC extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 7.9 miles south of Bishop International Airport, and within a 6.4-mile radius of Prices Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Owosso Community Airport.
National Park Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
The National Park Service proposes to amend its special regulations for Glen Canyon National Recreation Area to manage the use of motor vehicles on and off park roads. The rule would require a permit to operate a motor vehicle off roads in selected locations, designate routes and areas where motor vehicles may be used off roads, and allow the superintendent to establish closures and restrictions based upon specific criteria. The rule would also allow certain types of off-road vehicles on some paved and unpaved roads in the recreation area. Unless provided for by special regulation, operating a motor vehicle off roads within areas of the National Park System is prohibited.
Comments must be received by April 30, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024-AD93, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
William Shott, Superintendent, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, P.O. Box 1507, Page, Arizona 86040, by phone at 928-608-6205, or by email at
Congress established Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (the recreation area) in 1972 “to provide for the public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of Lake Powell and lands adjacent thereto in the states of Arizona and Utah and to preserve the scenic, scientific, and historic features contributing to the public enjoyment of the area.” 16 U.S.C. 460dd.
The recreation area encompasses 1,254,117 acres in northern Arizona and southeastern Utah. The recreation area allows for a variety of recreational opportunities, including on- and off-road motor vehicle use. The recreation area contains Lake Powell, the second-largest human-made lake in North America, which provides the opportunity to recreate in a natural environment and access remote backcountry areas. The recreation area is located in the heart of the Colorado Plateau region, which offers a natural diversity of rugged water- and wind-carved canyons, buttes, mesas, and other outstanding physiographic features. Evidence of 11,000 years of human occupation and use of resources in the recreation area provides a continuing story of the prehistoric, historic, and present-day affiliation of humans and their environment. The recreation area constitutes a substantial part of the outstanding public lands of the Colorado Plateau.
The National Park Service (NPS) manages the recreation area under the NPS Organic Act (54 U.S.C. 100101
Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands, was issued in 1972 and amended by Executive Order 11989 in 1977. Executive Order 11644 required federal agencies to issue regulations designating specific areas and routes on public lands where the use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) may be used. NPS implemented these Executive Orders by promulgating a regulation at 36 CFR 4.10 (Travel on park roads and designated routes). Under 36 CFR 4.10, the use of motor vehicles off established roads is not permitted unless routes and areas are designated for off-road motor vehicle use by special regulation. Under 36 CFR 4.10(b), such routes and areas “may be designated only in national recreation areas, national seashores, national lakeshores and national preserves.” The proposed rule would designate routes where motor vehicles may be used off roads in the recreation area in compliance with 36 CFR 4.10 and Executive Orders 11644 and 11989.
The use of motor vehicles to reach off-road destinations in Glen Canyon predates the establishment of the recreation area in 1972. After Lake Powell began to fill behind the Glen Canyon Dam in 1963, the public began driving off road to access the new lake for recreational activities. This ORV use continued following the establishment of the recreation area in 1972. ORV use is currently occurring in four general locations within the recreation area:
•
•
•
•
A comprehensive planning process begun by the NPS after the establishment of the recreation area resulted in a General Management Plan (GMP) that was published in 1979. The GMP designated a system of paved and unpaved roads open to vehicle travel and closed several existing unpaved roads in the backcountry. The paved and unpaved network of roads identified in the GMP is open to motor vehicle travel, subject to restrictions on the types of vehicles that are allowed on specific roads. These roads are referred to in this proposed rule as “GMP roads.” All other roads within the recreation area are closed to public motor vehicle travel. Driving a motor vehicle off any paved or unpaved GMP road is considered off-road motor vehicle use.
The Orange Cliffs Special Management Unit is located in the northeast portion of the recreation area. This Unit adjoins Canyonlands National Park, is similar in physiography, and has many of the same management issues as the Canyonlands Maze District. The Canyonlands National Park and Orange Cliffs Unit of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Backcountry Management Plan (NPS 1995) and the accompanying environmental assessment (NPS 1993) consist of an inter-park management plan developed to increase consistency and protection for visitors to both the Maze District of Canyonlands and the Orange Cliffs in Glen Canyon. The backcountry management plan was predicated on the GMP, which states that the Orange Cliffs Special Management Unit is to be “maintained as a critical backdrop for Canyonlands National Park and as a major vantage point for spectacular views into the park.” The Orange Cliffs Unit is managed “to maintain a relatively primitive, undeveloped atmosphere” and to provide “year-round access to Panorama Point” (NPS 1979).
The NPS has been managing ORV use in the recreation area for several decades. Although NPS had implemented ORV management plans for various parts of the recreation area in 1981 (Lone Rock Beach) and 1988 (20 accessible shoreline areas on Lake Powell), past planning efforts failed to comply with the NPS regulation that requires a special regulation to designate off-road use areas. In 2005, the NPS was challenged in federal court over the failure to comply with Executive Orders 11644 and 11989, and 36 CFR 4.10(b) (
A detailed history of prior NPS management of on- and off-road vehicle use can be found in the FEIS, which can be viewed online at
This proposed rule would establish a special regulation pursuant to 36 CFR 4.10(b) to manage ORV use at the recreation area. The special regulation would implement the preferred alternative (Alternative E) for the recreation area described in the FEIS. The preferred alternative provides the largest range of experiences for visitors and enhances experiences of different user groups, such as motor vehicle users and those who seek a more primitive camping experience. The preferred alternative is designed to protect resources while enhancing the visitor experience by identifying and designating specific areas capable of ORV use while prohibiting ORV use in areas where resources and values may be at risk. The final rule will implement the alternative selected in the Record of Decision, which will be signed by the Intermountain Regional Director prior to publication of the final rule.
In order to effectively manage the use of motor vehicles in the recreation area, the NPS is proposing definitions to distinguish among a range of vehicle types. Under Executive Order 11644, an ORV means any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over natural terrain. Under this broad definition, an ORV may be a truck, an all-terrain vehicle (ATV), a sedan, a dirt bike, or any other motor vehicle that is capable of off-road travel. Among ORVs, the proposed rule would distinguish between conventional motor vehicles, off-highway vehicles (OHVs), and street-legal ATVs, as follows:
•
•
•
Under the proposed rule's definitions, conventional motor vehicles would not include OHVs or street-legal ATVs. The proposed rule would allow certain types of ORVs (conventional motor vehicles, OHVs, or street-legal ATVs) to operate in designated ORV areas, on designated ORV routes, and on paved and unpaved roads identified in the GMP.
Existing NPS regulations at 36 CFR 4.2 adopt state traffic and vehicle laws to manage the use of motor vehicles within NPS-administered areas, unless specifically addressed by NPS regulations. The proposed rule would implement specific regulations governing the use of ORVs in the recreation area, and would allow the superintendent to impose additional closures, restrictions, or conditions to resolve visitor safety or resource protection concerns that are not addressed by state law. All other issues (
The proposed rule would require a special use permit to operate a motor vehicle off GMP roads in the recreation area. Permits would be required for all designated ORV locations except for designated routes in Middle Moody Canyon, East Gypsum Canyon, Imperial Valley, and Gunsight Springs. The NPS would issue a decal with each permit that would be required to be affixed to each vehicle in a manner and location determined by the superintendent. Decals would be required for each ORV operating in designated ORV areas or on designated ORV routes in the recreation area where a permit is required. Families could submit a single application for permits for multiple vehicles that are registered to members of that family. Annual permits would be valid for one calendar year from the date of issuance; two-week permits would also be available and valid from the date of issuance.
Permit applications (NPS Form 10-933 “Application for Special Use Permit—Vehicle/Watercraft Use”) would be available at headquarters (691 Scenic View Drive, Page, AZ 86040), at recreation area entrance stations when staffed, on the recreation area's website, and at other locations as designated by the superintendent. Permits would be issued after the applicant reads educational materials and acknowledges that he or she has read, understood, and agrees to abide by the rules governing ORV use in the recreation area and the terms and conditions of the permit. Permit applications could be mailed to the recreation area at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, P.O. Box 1507, Page, AZ 86040-1507, brought to headquarters or an entrance station, or completed online. After the NPS processes completed permit applications, it would mail or provide a permit to the applicant with instructions and educational materials, including a decal to be affixed to each permitted ORV. Violating the terms or conditions of any permit would be prohibited and may result in the suspension or revocation of the permit and the denial of future permits.
To the extent practicable, the NPS intends to recover the costs of administering this special use permit program under 54 U.S.C. 103104. In order to obtain a special use permit to operate a motor vehicle off roads in the recreational area, the proposed rule would require operators to pay a permit fee to allow the NPS to recover these costs.
The proposed rule would prohibit ORV use off GMP roads in the recreation area, except for NPS-designated ORV routes and areas. The proposed rule contains management prescriptions for each location, including seasonal closures, speed limits, quiet hours, and the types of ORV that would be allowed. These locations would be identified on maps located at headquarters (691 Scenic View Drive, Page, AZ 86040), visitor contact stations, and on the recreation area's website. Certain locations within some designated ORV areas would be designated as vehicle-free zones to provide a different camping experience for those who prefer to be separated from motor vehicle use. All locations designated for ORV use would be posted with appropriate signs that include applicable rules and regulations. The lakeside boundary of accessible shoreline areas that are designated for ORV use will fluctuate with the level of Lake Powell, but the remaining boundary of such areas will remain fixed.
To provide for the safety of ORV operators at the Lone Rock Beach Play Area, the NPS is proposing to require the display of a solid red or orange safety flag that is a minimum of six by 12 inches in size and that is attached to either:
• The ORV so that the safety flag is at least eight feet above the surface level of the ground, or
• the protective headgear of the operator of a motorcycle so that the safety flag is at least 18 inches above the top of the operator's head.
To reduce the degree and geographic extent of impacts from vehicle noise on soundscapes in the recreation area, NPS is proposing to implement a 96 dBA noise limit on all vehicles. Noise level would be measured by NPS staff using the SAE J1287 standard. Enforcement of this standard may include courtesy checks, checkpoints, and individual contacts. Measurements would be taken using certified equipment and protocols as is done with traffic radar. The proposed rule would require motor vehicles to have a functioning muffler system. These requirements would be in addition to state motor vehicle and operator requirements that are adopted by 36 CFR 4.2.
The proposed rule would continue to allow conventional motor vehicles on all paved and unpaved GMP roads in the recreation area. Street-legal ATVs would be allowed to operate on paved GMP roads except for the Lees Ferry Access Road. OHVs and street-legal ATVs would be allowed to operate on most unpaved GMP roads. OHVs and street-legal ATVs would be prohibited on GMP roads in the Orange Cliffs Special Management Unit, except for the Poison Spring Loop. On-road OHV and street-legal ATV use would be subject to the same restrictions and rules as conventional motor vehicle use. The speed limit on unpaved GMP roads would be 25 mph or as posted. The speed limits on paved GMP roads would not change and would remain as currently posted. GMP roads would be designated and posted with road numbers. Signs would indicate the status of a road segment as open or closed to OHV and street-legal ATV use
Independent from the authority in 36 CFR 1.5, the proposed rule would allow the superintendent to close or reopen designated areas or routes to motor vehicle use, or designate roads for street-legal ATV or OHV use, or portions thereof, or impose conditions or restrictions on the use of off-road motor vehicles after taking into consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural resource protection, lake levels, and other management activities and objectives. The superintendent would provide public notice of all such actions through one or more of the methods listed in 36 CFR 1.7.
Executive Order 11644, as amended by Executive Order 11989, was adopted to address impacts on public lands from ORV use. The Executive Order applies to ORV use on federal public lands that is not authorized under a valid lease, permit, contract, or license. Section 3(a)(4) of Executive Order 11644 provides that ORV “[a]reas and trails shall be located in areas of the National Park System, Natural Areas, or National Wildlife Refuges and Game Ranges only if the respective agency head determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, aesthetic, or scenic values.” Since the E.O. clearly was not intended to prohibit all ORV use everywhere in these units, the term “adversely affect” does not have the same meaning as the somewhat similar terms “adverse impact” and “adverse effect” used in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In analyses under NEPA, a procedural statute that provides for the study of environmental impacts, the term “adverse effect” includes minor or negligible effects.
Section 3(a)(4) of the Executive Order, by contrast, concerns substantive management decisions and must be read in the context of the authorities applicable to such decisions. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area is an area of the National Park System. Therefore, NPS interprets the Executive Order term “adversely affect” consistent with its NPS Management Policies 2006. Those policies require that the NPS only allow “appropriate use” of parks and avoid “unacceptable impacts.”
This rule is consistent with those requirements. It will not impede attainment of the recreation area's desired future conditions for natural and cultural resources as identified in the FEIS. NPS has determined that this rule will not unreasonably interfere with the atmosphere of peace and tranquility or the natural soundscape maintained in natural locations within the recreation area. Therefore, within the context of the resources and values of the recreation area, motor vehicle use on the routes and areas designated by this rule would not cause an unacceptable impact to the natural, aesthetic, or scenic values of the recreation area.
Section 8(a) of the Executive Order requires agency heads to monitor the effects of ORV use on lands under their jurisdictions. On the basis of information gathered, agency heads may from time to time amend or rescind designations of areas or other actions as necessary to further the policy of the Executive Order. The preferred alternative in the FEIS includes monitoring and resource protection procedures and periodic review to provide for the ongoing evaluation of impacts of motor vehicle use on protected resources. The superintendent has authority to take appropriate action as needed to protect the resources of the recreation area.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
This rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action because once finalized, it will have costs less than zero.
This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the SBREFA. This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. The designated ORV routes and areas are located entirely within the recreation area, and would not result in direct expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments. This rule addresses public use of NPS lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. Access to private property adjacent to the recreation area will not be affected by this rule. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. The proposed rule is limited in effect to federal lands managed by the NPS and would not have a substantial direct effect on state and local government. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department's consultation policy and have determined that tribal consultation on the rule is not required because the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes. In support of the Department of Interior and NPS commitment for government-to-government consultation with the 19 Native American tribes and bands associated with the recreation area, and as a reflection of the shared boundary of the recreation area and the Navajo Nation, the NPS has engaged in a continuing process of consultation with these tribes and bands. This consultation has taken the form of correspondence, phone conversations, and meetings during the preparation of the FEIS.
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. OMB has approved the information collection requirements associated with NPS Special Park Use Permits and has assigned OMB Control Number 1024-0026 (expires 01/31/20) and in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10, the agency may continue to conduct or sponsor this collection of information while the submission is pending at OMB). We estimate the annual burden associated with this information collection to be 21,750 hours per year. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This rule constitutes a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. We have prepared the FEIS under the NEPA. The FEIS is summarized above and available online at
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
It is the policy of the Department of the Interior, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written comments regarding this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the NPS proposes to amend 36 CFR part 7 as follows:
54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102; Sec. 7.96 also issued under DC Code 10-137 and DC Code 50-2201.07.
(f)
(1)
(2)
(ii) Annual permits are valid for one calendar year from the day they are issued. Two-week permits are valid from the day issued.
(iii) A permit applicant must acknowledge that he or she understands and agrees to abide by the rules governing off-road vehicle use in the recreation area.
(iv) Each motor vehicle permitted to operate off GMP roads must display an NPS decal issued by the superintendent and affixed to the vehicle in a manner and location specified by the superintendent.
(v) Permits may be requested at the recreation area headquarters in Page, Arizona, at recreation area entrance stations when staffed, on the recreation area website, or at other locations as designated by the superintendent.
(vi) Violating any term, condition, or requirement of an off-road vehicle permit is prohibited and may result in the suspension or revocation of the permit and the denial of future permits, in addition to the penalties provided by § 1.3 of this chapter.
(3)
(ii) Motor vehicles may be used off GMP roads at the following locations and subject to the following management prescriptions in the recreation area, except for vehicle-free zones where off-road vehicle use is prohibited:
(4)
(ii) Operating a prohibited vehicle on a GMP road is prohibited.
(5)
(i) Motor vehicles must have a functioning muffler system. Operating a motor vehicle that emits more than 96 decibels of sound (using the SAE J1287 test standard) is prohibited. Creating or sustaining unreasonable noise considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct, impact on park users, location, and other factors which would govern the conduct of a reasonably prudent person is prohibited during quiet hours.
(ii) All motor vehicles operating in Lone Rock Beach Play Area must be equipped with a solid red or orange safety flag that is a minimum of six by 12 inches in size and that is attached to the vehicle so that the safety flag is at least eight feet above the surface of the level ground, or attached to the protective headgear of a person operating a motorcycle so that the safety flag is at least 18 inches above the top of the person's head. Operating a motor vehicle without a safety flag at Lone Rock Beach Play Area is prohibited.
(iii) Operating a motor vehicle in excess of 15 mph (unless otherwise posted) at the following off-road motor vehicle areas—Lone Rock Beach, Blue Notch, Bullfrog North and South, Copper Canyon, Crosby Canyon, Dirty Devil, Farley Canyon, Hite Boat Ramp, Neskahi, Nokai Canyon, Paiute Canyon, Paiute Farms, Red Canyon, Stanton Creek, and White Canyon—is prohibited.
(iv) Operating a motor vehicle in excess of 25 mph (unless otherwise posted) on off-road motor vehicle routes in Ferry Swale, Middle Moody Canyon Trailhead, East Gypsum Canyon Overlook, Imperial Valley, and Gunsight Springs Trailhead is prohibited.
(v) Operating a motor vehicle within a designated off-road motor vehicle area during posted quiet hours with the exception of entering and exiting the area is prohibited.
(vi) Operating a generator or audio device, such as a radio, deck or compact disc player, within a designated off-road motor vehicle area during posted quiet hours is prohibited. During the hours of permitted operation, generators must be adequately muffled and not create excessive noise as defined in 36 CFR 2.12(a)(1).
(vii) Operating a motor vehicle within a posted “vehicle-free” zone is prohibited.
(6)
(ii) The superintendent will provide public notice of all such actions through one or more of the methods listed in § 1.7 of this chapter.
(iii) Violating any such closure, condition, or restriction is prohibited.
(iv) The superintendent may suspend or revoke an existing permit, and may deny future applications for an off-road motor vehicle permit based upon violations of any such closure, condition, or restriction.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Request for comment; extension of comment period.
In response to a request, NHTSA is extending the comment period on the Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles with Automated Driving Systems Request for Comment (RFC) to March 20, 2018. The RFC was published in the
The comment period for the request for comment published January 18, 2018, at 83 FR 2607, is extended. Written comments must be received on or before March 20, 2018 in order to be considered timely.
Comments must refer to the docket number above and be submitted by one of the following methods:
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you must include the docket number identified in the heading of this notice.
Note that all comments received, including any personal information provided, will be posted without change to
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9324.
For research issues, Ellen Lee, Human Injury Research Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Research, telephone: 202-366-1435, email:
For rulemaking issues, David Hines, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, telephone 202-366-1810, email
For legal issues, Stephen Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel, Vehicle Rulemaking and Harmonization, Office of Chief Counsel, 202-366-2992, email
On January 18, 2018, NHTSA published a request for comment (RFC) (83 FR 2607) to identify regulatory barriers in the existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to the testing, compliance certification, and compliance verification of motor vehicles with Automated Driving Systems (ADSs) and certain unconventional interior designs. The RFC solicited public comments and stated that the closing date for comment is on March 5, 2018.
On February 8, 2018, NHTSA received a request for a 15-day extension of the comment period from the Association of Global Automakers, Inc. and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. That request can be found in the docket for the RFC listed above under
NHTSA also notes that, on February 13, 2018, it published a notice of a public meeting on regulatory barriers to be held at the Department of Transportation headquarters in Washington, DC on March 6, 2018, from 10 a.m. through 3:30 p.m., EST (83 FR 6148). NHTSA is holding this public meeting to present to the public a summary of the RFC and activities underway at NHTSA and across the industry to identify and remove barriers that might impede safe deployment of ADSs. The combination of the comment period extension and the public meeting will provide the public with even greater opportunities to learn about efforts to address regulatory barriers and to provide meaningful input through oral remarks or written comment.
NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date, and will also consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable. Instructions for submitting comments are described in the Public Participation section of the RFC (83 FR 2607, January 18, 2018).
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 21, 2018 pursuant to authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.95.
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) solicit written comments on the topics and questions to be examined in the review of scientific evidence supporting the development of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
The topics and questions are available for review and public comment. Electronic or written/paper comments will be accepted through midnight Eastern Time on March 30, 2018.
The topics and questions are available on the internet at
•
•
Kristin Koegel, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Food and Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture, (703) 305-7600 or by email at
Section 301 of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5341) requires the Secretaries of USDA and HHS to publish the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (Dietary Guidelines) jointly at least every five years. Recent editions of the Dietary Guidelines have provided food and nutrition advice for Americans ages two years and older to promote health and help prevent chronic disease. The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines, and subsequent editions, must address the mandate from the Agricultural Act of 2014 which requires the provision of nutritional and dietary guidelines and information for women who are pregnant and children, from birth to 2 years of age.
To inform effective management of resources and enhance transparency, the Departments are identifying topics and questions to be considered in the review of scientific evidence supporting the development of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines. In establishing this list of topics and questions, the Departments considered the following criteria for prioritization:
•
•
•
•
USDA and HHS request comments on the topics and questions to be examined in the review of scientific evidence supporting the development of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines. Specifically, USDA and HHS request comments in support or opposition of the proposed topics and questions available at
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before April 30, 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(s) and instructions should be directed to Brandi Maxson, U.S. Census Bureau, HQ-6K181, Washington, DC 20233, Telephone (301) 763-6600 (or via the internet at
The Census Bureau is planning to resubmit to the Office of Management and Budget for approval, the Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) program information collection forms. The QFR forms to be submitted for approval are: The QFR 200 (MT) long form (manufacturing, mining, wholesale trade, and retail trade); QFR 201 (MG) short form (manufacturing); and the QFR 300 (S) long form (information services and professional and technical services). The Census Bureau is not requesting any changes to the current forms.
The QFR program collects and publishes up-to-date aggregate statistics on the financial results and position of U.S. corporations. The QFR target population consists of all corporations engaged primarily in manufacturing with total assets of $250,000 and over, and all corporations engaged primarily in mining; wholesale trade; retail trade; information; or professional and technical services (except legal services) industries with total assets of $50 million and over.
The QFR program is a principal federal economic indicator that has published up-to-date aggregate statistics on the financial results and position of U.S. corporations since 1947. The QFR provides critical source data to the Bureau of Economic Analysis' (BEA) quarterly estimates of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross Domestic Income (GDI), key components of the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA). The QFR data are also vital to the Federal Reserve Board's (FRB) Financial Accounts. Title 13 of the United States Code, Section 91 requires that financial statistics of business operations be collected and published quarterly. Public Law 114-72 extended the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to conduct the QFR Program under Section 91 through September 30, 2030.
The main purpose of the QFR is to provide timely, accurate data on business financial conditions for use by government and private-sector organizations and individuals. Primary public users include U.S. governmental organizations with economic measurement and policymaking responsibilities such as the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Bureau of Labor Statistic and the Federal Reserve Board. In turn, these organizations provide guidance, advice, and support to the QFR program. The primary non-governmental data users are a diverse group including universities, financial analysts, unions, trade associations, public libraries, banking institutions, and U.S. and foreign corporations.
The Census Bureau uses two forms of data collection: Mail out/mail back paper survey forms and a secure encrypted internet data collection system called Centurion. Centurion has automatic data checks and is context-sensitive to assist respondents in identifying potential reporting problems before submission, thus reducing the need for follow-up from Census Bureau staff. Data collection through Centurion is completed via the internet, eliminating the need for downloading software and ensuring the integrity and confidentiality of the data.
Companies are asked to respond to the survey within 25 days of the end of the quarter for which the data are being requested. Census Bureau staff contact companies that have not responded by the designated time through letters and/or telephone calls to encourage participation.
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
International Trade Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 30, 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 Joe Carter—Office of Strategic Planning, 1999 Broadway—Suite 2205, Denver, CO 80220, (303) 844-5656,
The International Trade Administration provides a multitude of international trade related programs to help U.S. businesses. These programs include information products, services, and trade events. To accomplish its mission effectively, ITA needs ongoing feedback on its programs. This information collection item allows ITA to solicit clients' opinions about the use of ITA products, services, and trade events. To promote optimal use and provide focused and effective improvements to ITA programs, we are requesting approval for this clearance package; including: Use of Comment Cards (
The International Trade Administration is seeking approval for the following data collection methods to provide flexibility in conducting customer satisfaction surveys and to reduce the burden on respondents: (1) An email message delivering a hot link to a web enabled survey with an email reminder sent if the client does not respond to the survey within two weeks; (2) a telephone survey/interview; and (3) a web-enabled survey conducted in-person at trade shows/events via a laptop, tablet or mobile phone so participants can immediately respond without having to provide their email address.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain small diameter seamless carbon and alloy standard, line and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from Germany would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of the AD order.
Applicable February 28, 2018.
John McGowan, 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) 482-3019.
On August 1, 2017, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset review of the AD order on seamless pipe from Germany, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of
The scope of the order includes small diameter seamless carbon and alloy standard, line and pressure pipes (seamless pipes) produced to the ASTM A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of the order also includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters below, regardless of specification.
For purposes of the order, seamless pipes are seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel pipes, of circular cross-section, not more than 114.3 mm (4.5 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, manufacturing process (hot-finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. These pipes are commonly known as standard pipe, line pipe or pressure pipe, depending upon the application. They may also be used in structural applications. Pipes produced in non-standard wall thicknesses are commonly referred to as tubes.
The seamless pipes subject to the order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7304.19.10.20, 7304.19.50.20, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
The following information further defines the scope of the order, which covers pipes meeting the physical parameters described above:
Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) standard A-106 may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”) code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM standard A-335 must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for A-106 and the ASME codes. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard.
Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements.
Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification.
Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications. Such triple certification of pipes is common because all pipes meeting the stringent A-106 specification necessarily meet the API 5L and ASTM A-53 specifications. Pipes meeting the API 5L specification necessarily meet the ASTM A-53 specification. However, pipes meeting the A-53 or API 5L specifications do not necessarily meet the A-106 specification. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers triple certify the pipes. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers.
The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple certified pipes is in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants and chemical plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications.
The scope of the order includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, and whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of the order. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the A-335, A-106, A-53, or API 5L standards shall be covered if used in a standard, line or pressure application.
For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in A-106 applications. These specifications generally include A-162, A-192, A-210, A-333, and A-524. When such pipes are used in a standard, line or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of the order.
Specifically excluded from the order are boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to A-335, A-106, A-53 or API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line or pressure applications. In addition, finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) are excluded from the scope of the order, if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in the scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications. Finally, also excluded from the order are redraw hollows for cold-drawing when used in the production of cold-drawn pipe or tube.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the AD order on seamless pipe from Germany.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the order will be the date of publication in the
This five-year sunset review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice.
The Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) will meet Thursday, March 15, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, and Friday, March 16, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time. All sessions will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 15, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, and Friday, March 16, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held at the American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20006.
Matthew Scholl, Information Technology Laboratory, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930, Telephone: (301) 975-2941, Email address:
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) will meet Thursday, March 15, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, and Friday, March 16, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time. All sessions will be open to the public. The ISPAB is authorized by 15 U.S.C. 278g-4, as amended, and advises the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on information security and privacy issues pertaining to Federal government information systems, including thorough review of proposed standards and guidelines developed by NIST. Details regarding the ISPAB's activities are available at
The agenda is expected to include the following items:
Note that agenda items may change without notice. The final agenda will be posted on the website indicated above. Seating will be available for the public and media. Pre-registration is not required to attend this meeting.
Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements. In addition, written statements are invited and may be submitted to the ISPAB at any time. All written statements should be directed to the ISPAB Secretariat, Information Technology Laboratory, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United States Department of Commerce, announces the establishment of a National Construction Safety Team pursuant to the National Construction Safety Team Act. The Team was established to study building performance and emergency response and evacuation during Hurricane Maria, which made landfall in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico on September 20, 2017.
The National Construction Safety Team was established on February 21, 2018.
Dr. Howard Harary, Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Mail Stop 8600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600, telephone number (301) 975-5900. Members of the public are encouraged to submit to the Team non-
Dr. Howard Harary, Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Mail Stop 8600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600, telephone number (301) 975-5900.
NIST sent a preliminary reconnaissance team to collect information and data related to the hurricane that made landfall in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico on September 20, 2017. Based on the recommendations of the preliminary reconnaissance team and evaluation of the criteria listed in the regulations implementing the Act, specifically in 15 CFR 270.102, on February 28, 2018, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United States Department of Commerce, established a Team to study building performance and emergency response and evacuation during Hurricane Maria. The Team may include members who are Federal employees and members who are not Federal employees. Team members who are Federal employees are governed by the Federal conflict of interest laws. Team members who are not Federal employees will be Federal government contractors, and conflicts of interest related to their service on the Team will be governed by FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest, which will be incorporated by reference into all such contracts.
Members of the public are encouraged to submit to the Team non-privileged data and artifacts that are relevant to the subject matter of the NIST investigation described in this notice. Such data and artifacts may be submitted to the address contained in the
15 U.S.C. 7301
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS Alaska Groundfish and Halibut Seabird Working Group will meet to discuss use of electronic monitoring (EM) to report seabird bycatch and a discussion on the challenges of quantifying seabird bycatch in the trawl fisheries.
The meeting will be held on March 20, 2018, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and on March 21, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., Alaska Daylight Time.
The meeting will be held at the NMFS Alaska Regional Office located at 709 W 9th St., Room 445C, Juneau, AK. Photo identification is required to enter this facility.
Anne Marie Eich, 907-586-7172.
The Alaska Groundfish and Halibut Seabird Working Group formed as a result of the 2015 biological opinion on effects of the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands groundfish fisheries on short-tailed albatross. The working group is tasked with reviewing information for mitigating effects of the groundfish fisheries on short-tailed albatross and other seabirds. The workgroup will hold an in-person meeting in Juneau, Alaska on March 20 and 21, 2018. Meeting topics include the use of EM to report seabird bycatch and a discussion on the challenges of quantifying seabird bycatch in trawl fisheries. NMFS will keep the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) apprised of the working group's activities and any resulting recommendations for methods to reduce seabird bycatch. Any changes to seabird avoidance regulations are expected to follow the standard Council process.
This workshop will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Anne Marie Eich, 907-586-7172, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.
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).
When creating a Request to Archive oceanographic data or information at the United States (U.S.) National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), well-organized and complete metadata describing those data are needed for long term understanding and use of those data. The Send2NCEI web application provides a web-based form for easily collecting required and optional descriptive metadata to describe oceanographic data in a way that supports Executive Order 12906 and structures those metadata to conform to the internationally used ISO 19115 Geospatial Metadata suite of standards. Descriptive metadata informs the suitability of data for use by future data users and should provide critical context about how data were collected, what techniques and measurements were made, and data quality characterizations. Information about the data provider or other individuals is only used by NCEI to contact the data provider with questions about submitted data, about the status of the data in the archival process, and to provide appropriate scientific recognition and attribution for submitted data. Send2NCEI will be used by earth, ocean, and atmospheric scientists and their data managers.
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 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Pacific Whale Foundation (300 Ma'alaea Rd., Suite 211, Wailuku, HI 96793; Responsible Party: Stephanie Stack) has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on false killer whales (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before March 30, 2018.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Courtney Smith or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant requests a five-year research permit to assess the distribution, abundance, social organization, population structure, population size, foraging, reproduction, movements, habitat use, body condition, and behavior of false killer whales (including the endangered Main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whale distinct population segment) within near- and off-shore waters of the Maui 4-island region (Hawaii). Researchers would closely approach false killer whales by vessel and unmanned aerial surveys for up to 520 annual harassment takes.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 30, 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 Peter Edwards, (240) 533-0784 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
The purpose of this information collection is to obtain information from individuals in the seven United States (U.S.) jurisdictions containing coral reefs. Specifically, NOAA is seeking information on the knowledge, attitudes and reef use patterns, as well as information on knowledge and attitudes related to specific reef protection activities. In addition, this survey will provide for the ongoing collection of social and economic data related to the communities affected by coral reef conservation programs.
The Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP), developed under the authority of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, is responsible for programs intended to enhance the conservation of coral reefs. We intend to use the information collected through this instrument for research purposes as well as measuring and improving the results of our reef protection programs. Because many of our efforts to protect reefs rely on education and changing attitudes toward reef protection, the information collected will allow CRCP staff to ensure programs are designed appropriately at the start, future program evaluation efforts are as successful as possible, and outreach efforts are targeting the intended recipients with useful information.
Information will be collected in the means most efficient and effective in the individual jurisdiction. For the three years covered by this clearance we expect to use face-to-face interviews in American Samoa, and as appropriate, face-to-face, telephone and/or internet-based survey techniques in Hawaii and Florida, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
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.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is requesting to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection, titled, “Consumer and College Credit Card Agreements.”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before April 30, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included.
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
• Agreements between the issuer and a consumer under a credit card account for an open-end consumer credit plan; and
• any college credit card agreements to which the issuer is a party and certain additional information regarding those agreements.
The data collections enable the Bureau to provide consumers with a centralized depository for consumer and college credit card agreements. It also presents information to the public regarding the arrangements between financial institutions and institutions of higher education.
United States Air Force and United States Marine Corps, Department of Defense.
Notice of intent.
The U.S. Air Force (USAF), in consultation with the United States Marine Corps (USMC) is issuing this notice of intent (NOI) to conduct a five year review and update of the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) for the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR), AZ.
Meetings will be held in Ajo on 13 March, 2018 and Yuma on 14 March, 2018.
1. Tuesday, March 13, 2018. 5:30-7:30 p.m. International Sonoran Desert Alliance Learning Center, 401 W Esperanza Avenue, Ajo, AZ 85321.
2. Wednesday, March 14, 2018. 5:30-7:30 p.m. Yuma County Library District, Main Library, 2951 S 21st Drive, Yuma, AZ 85364.
Comments may be submitted to: Ms. Jennie Anderson, Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands, (970) 491-5640, Colorado State University, 1490 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1490,
This NOI (40 CFR 1508.22) is to conduct a five year review and update of the INRMP for the BMGR and prepare a Public Report pursuant to Section 3031(b)(5)(B) of the Military Lands Withdrawal Act [MLWA of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-65, Title XXX)]. The public meetings will familiarize the public with the progress made in the management of natural resources, share information about projects planned to support natural resource management during the next five years, and facilitate public involvement with the existing Public Report and INRMP for the BMGR.
The USAF and USMC are conducting an update of the 2012 BMGR INRMP along with development of new INRMP documents for Luke Air Force Base, including Fort Tuthill and Auxiliary Airfield #1 for the USAF; as well as a new INRMP for Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma. The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a) provides that established INRMPs must be reviewed as to their operation and effect not less than every five years. The existing BMGR INRMP will be updated in accordance with the Sikes Act provision in coordination with the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Director of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Additionally, an updated Public Report summarizing changes in military use of the BMGR since 2012, as well as summarizing management initiatives involving resources found on these lands will be prepared in accordance with the MLWA of 1999.
Office of the Administrative Assistant of the Secretary of the Army, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 30, 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 to the Department of the Army, Institute for Water Resources, Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, P.O. Box 61280, ATTN: Christopher (Dale) Brown, New Orleans, LA 70161-1280, or call Department of the Army Reports Clearance Officer at (703) 428-6440.
Participants will be recruited during a set nine month window in which Service Members have self-identified as transitioning out of the service within the six months. Participation in the study is voluntary and participants will be consented twice, once at baseline (time point 1) while the Service Member is still active duty and then again at time point 2 as civilians. This burden information only accounts for the public being affected.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel will take place.
Open to the public Thursday, April 5, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
The address of the open meeting is the Naval Heritage Center Theater, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
CAPT Edward Norton, U.S. Navy, 703-681-2890 (Voice), None (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
The Panel will review and comment on recommendations made to the Director of the Defense Health Agency, by the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, regarding the Uniform Formulary.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 30, 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 Defense Finance and Accounting Services—Indianapolis, DFAS-ZPR, 8899 E 56th St., Indianapolis, IN 46249, ATTN: Ms. La Zaleus D. Leach,
The referenced United States Code sections on waivers provide for an avenue of relief for individuals who owe debts to the United States which resulted from erroneous payments. Criteria for waiver of a debt includes a determination that there is no indication of fraud, misrepresentation, fault, or lack of good faith on the part of the individual owing the debt or any other person interested in obtaining a waiver. Information obtained through the proposed collection is needed in order to adjudicate the waiver request under law.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 30, 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 Commander, Navy Recruiting Command (ATTN: Privacy Act Coordinator), 5722 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38054-5057 or call (901)-874-7110.
Respondents are persons who wish to be considered for accession into the U.S. Navy. Respondents enter their information into the information system, or they orally provide the information to a Navy Recruiter who inputs the information on their behalf.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Call for written third-party comments; extension of comment period; correction.
On January 24, 2018 we published a notice in the
Applicable February 28, 2018.
Herman Bounds, Director, Accreditation Group, Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 270-01, Washington, DC 20202, telephone: (202) 453-7615, or 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.
This notice corrects certain language related to the comment period in both the January 24, 2018, and February 22, 2018,
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
1. In the
“Pursuant to a recent court order, we are extending the public comment period until March 1, 2018 for the submission of comments on the compliance of Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) with the criteria for recognition set forth in Subpart B of 34 CFR 602, and for the submission of comments about the compliance of the American Bar Association with the criteria for recognition cited in the Senior Department Official's September 22, 2016 letter
2. In the
3. In the
“2. American Bar Association Compliance report includes the following: (1) Findings identified in the September 22, 2016 letter from the senior Department official following the June 23, 2016 NACIQI meeting available at:
4. In the
“Comments about an agency's recognition after review of a compliance report must relate to issues identified in the senior Department official's letter that requested the report, or in the Secretary's appeal decision, if any.”
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 an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 30, 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 Edward West, 202-245-6145.
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 Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
North Augusta Municipal Building, 100 Georgia Avenue, North Augusta, SC 29841.
Susan Clizbe, Office of External Affairs, Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802; Phone: (803) 952-8281.
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, March 15, 2018, 6:00 p.m.
West Kentucky Community and Technical College, Emerging Technology Center, 4810 Alben Barkley Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001.
Jennifer Woodard, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001, (270) 441-6825.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, March 14, 2018, 4:00 p.m.
Frank H. Rogers Science and Technology Building, 755 East Flamingo, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119.
Barbara Ulmer, Board Administrator, 232 Energy Way, M/S 167, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030. Phone: (702) 630-0522; Fax (702) 295-2025 or Email:
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, March 14, 2018, 1:00 p.m.-5:15 p.m.
University of New Mexico, Los Alamos Campus, Building 2, Room 230, 4000 University Drive, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board (NNMCAB), 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email:
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to comment on the “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This collection was developed as part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process for seeking feedback from the public on service delivery. This notice announces DOE's intent to submit this collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval and solicits comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection.
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before March 30, 2018. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments by the deadline, as soon as possible, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission. The OMB Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.
Written comments should be sent to the OMB Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, 735 17th
Requests for additional information should be directed to Christina Rouleau, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Road, Room G-312, Germantown, MD 20874. Desk Phone: (301) 903-6227; Email:
This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-5160; (2) Information Collection Request Title: “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery;” (3) Type of Request: Extension; (4) Purpose: The proposed information collection activity provides a means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. “Qualitative feedback” refers to information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions but not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training, or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between DOE and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,000; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 10,000; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 200,000; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: There are no costs for Reporting and Recordkeeping.
Executive Order 13571,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before March 30, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the File Symbol of interest as show in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final order on petitions to object to state operating permits.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an Order, dated January 30, 2018, denying the petitions submitted by Sierra Club (Petitioner) objecting to a proposed Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permit issued to Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for its Gallatin Fossil Fuel Plant located in Gallatin, Sumner County, Tennessee. The Order responds to two petitions: The first, dated August 8, 2016, requested that the EPA object to the proposed renewal permit no. 561209; the second, dated November 20, 2017, requested that the EPA object to the proposed significant modification to permit no. 561209. Both permitting actions were issued by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). The Order constitutes a final action on the petitions addressed therein.
Copies of the Order, the petitions, and all pertinent information relating thereto are on file at the following location: EPA Region 4; Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division; 61 Forsyth Street SW; Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The Order is also available electronically at the following address:
Art Hofmeister, Air Permits Section, EPA Region 4, at (404) 562-9115 or
The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to review and, as appropriate, the authority to object to operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period. Pursuant to sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA, a petition for judicial review of those parts of the Order that deny issues in the petition may be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days from the date this notice is published in the
Petitioner submitted petitions requesting that the EPA object to the proposed CAA title V operating permit no. 561209 and the subsequent significant modification to this permit., both issued by TDEC to TVA. Petitioner claims that these permitting actions: Fail to include monitoring requirements adequate to ensure compliance with opacity, particulate matter, and fugitive dust requirements; fail to include reporting requirements to ensure compliance with a previous consent decree; include startup/shutdown provisions that are inconsistent with the CAA; impose an unreasonably permissive limit for sulfur dioxide (SO
On January 30, 2018, the Administrator issued an Order denying
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Detergent Gasoline (EPA ICR No. 1655.10, OMB Control No. 2060-0275), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed reinstatement of the ICR, which was approved through November 30, 2017. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments must be submitted on or before March 30, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0595, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
James W. Caldwell, Environmental Engineer, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code 6405A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; Telephone: (202) 343-9303; Fax: (202) 343-2802; Email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is announcing the availability of the following 810 Series final test guidelines: General Considerations for Testing Public Health Antimicrobial Pesticides—Guidance for Efficacy Testing, OCSPP Test Guideline 810.2000; Sterilants, Sporicides, and Decontaminants—Guidance for Efficacy Testing, OCSPP Test Guideline 810.2100; and Disinfectants for Use on Environmental Surfaces—Guidance for Efficacy Testing, OCSPP Test Guideline
Thao Pham, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 703-308-0125; email address:
EPA is announcing the availability of three final test guidelines: General Considerations for Testing Public Health Antimicrobial Pesticides—Guidance for Efficacy Testing, OCSPP Test Guideline 810.2000; Sterilants, Sporicides, and Decontaminants—Guidance for Efficacy Testing, OCSPP Test Guideline 810.2100; and Disinfectants for Use on Environmental Surfaces—Guidance for Efficacy Testing, OCSPP Test Guideline 810.2200.
These final test guidelines are part of a series of test guidelines established by OCSPP for use in testing pesticides and chemical substances to develop data for submission to the Agency under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FFDCA) section 408 (21 U.S.C. 346a), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136
The test guidelines provide guidance for conducting tests, and are also used by EPA, the public, and companies that are subject to data submission requirements under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or FFDCA. As guidance documents, the test guidelines are not binding on either EPA or any outside parties, and EPA may depart from the test guidelines where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. At places in this guidance, the Agency uses the word “should.” In this guidance, use of “should” with regard to an action means that the action is recommended rather than mandatory. The procedures contained in the test guidelines are recommended for generating the data that are the subject of the particular test guideline, but EPA recognizes that departures may be appropriate in specific situations. You may propose alternatives to the recommendations described in the test guidelines, and the Agency will assess them for appropriateness on a case-by-case basis.
This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of pesticides and chemical substances for submission to EPA under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or FFDCA, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
1.
2.
EPA is announcing the availability of final test guidelines under Series 810, entitled “Product Performance Test Guidelines” and identified as OCSPP Test Guidelines 810.2000, 810.2100, and 810.2200. The OCSPP 810 Test Guideline Series addresses antimicrobial pesticide products with public health uses or that bear public health claims for which product performance (efficacy) test data are required to be submitted to the Agency to support registration or amended registration, including, but not limited to the requirements of 40 CFR 158.2220(a)(2). These guidelines provide an update to the 2012 OCSPP Guidelines 810.2000, 810.2100, and 810.2200 and supersede previous efficacy testing guidance for sterilants, sporicides, decontaminants, and disinfectant products.
All studies initiated one year after the final publication date should utilize the revised guidelines for testing.
The updated test guidelines integrate agency policies and revised test methods that have been released after the 2012 publication of the 810 guideline series. The availability of public draft test guidelines for public comment was announced in a June 17, 2015
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator and Region 10 Regional Administrator are announcing the EPA's decision not to withdraw at this time the EPA Region 10 July 2014 Proposed Determination that was issued pursuant to Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act and EPA's implementing regulations. Today's notice suspends the proceeding to withdraw the Proposed Determination and leaves that Determination in place pending further consideration by the Agency of information that is relevant to the protection of the world-class fisheries contained in the Bristol Bay watershed. The Agency intends at a future time to solicit public comment on what further steps, if any, the Agency should take under Section 404(c) to prevent unacceptable adverse effects to the watershed's abundant and valuable fishery resources in light of the permit application that has now been submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Visit
On July 19, 2017, EPA Region 10 published in the
The July 19, 2017 (82 FR 33123), notice opened a public comment period that closed on October 17, 2017. EPA held two public hearings in the Bristol Bay watershed during the week of October 9, 2017. EPA also consulted with federally recognized tribal governments from the Bristol Bay region and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Regional and Village Corporations with lands in the Bristol Bay watershed on the Agency's proposal to withdraw.
EPA agreed to initiate a process to propose to withdraw the 2014 Proposed Determination as part of a May 11, 2017, settlement agreement with the Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP), whose subsidiaries own the mineral claims to the Pebble deposit. The settlement agreement resolved all of PLP's outstanding lawsuits against EPA. Also under the terms of the settlement agreement, Region 10 may not forward a signed Recommended Determination, if such a decision is made, before either May 11, 2021, or until EPA provides public notice of a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on PLP's CWA Section 404 permit application regarding the Pebble deposit, whichever comes first. For a link to a copy of the settlement agreement, see Section I of this notice.
In its July 19, 2017, notice and during the concurrent tribal and ANCSA Corporation consultation periods, EPA defined the scope of the input it was seeking on its proposal to withdraw. Specifically, EPA sought public comment and tribal and ANCSA Corporation input on three reasons underlying its proposed withdrawal. EPA's reasons were that withdrawing the Proposed Determination now would:
1. Provide PLP with additional time to submit a section 404 permit application to the Corps,
2. Remove any uncertainty, real or perceived, about PLP's ability to submit a permit application and have that permit application reviewed, and
3. Allow the factual record regarding any forthcoming permit application to develop.
In addition to seeking comment on whether to withdraw the July 2014 Proposed Determination at this time for the reasons stated above, in the event that the final decision was to withdraw the Proposed Determination, EPA also sought comment on whether the Administrator should review and reconsider the withdrawal decision consistent with 40 CFR 231.5(c).
During the public comment period, EPA received more than one million public comments regarding its proposal to withdraw. An overwhelming majority of these commenters expressed opposition to withdrawal of the Proposed Determination. EPA also held two public hearings in the Bristol Bay watershed on the proposal to withdraw; approximately 200 people participated in the hearings. Of the 119 participants who testified, an overwhelming majority also expressed opposition to withdrawal of the Proposed Determination. Similarly, the vast majority of tribal governments and ANCSA Corporation shareholders who consulted with EPA expressed opposition to the proposed withdrawal. The public comments, transcripts from the public hearings, and summaries of the tribal and ANCSA Corporation consultations can be found in the docket for this effort; see Section I of this notice for information on how to access this docket.
A large number of commenters expressed opposition to the proposal to withdraw. Commenters stated that withdrawal of the Proposed Determination is not necessary to allow for PLP to submit its permit application
Commenters also stated that it is not necessary to withdraw the Proposed Determination in order to allow the factual record associated with a permit application from PLP to develop because nothing in the statute, its implementing regulations, or the Proposed Determination preclude PLP from submitting a permit application and the Corps from reviewing that application. In addition, some commenters stated that the Proposed Determination is supported by a sufficient factual record that does not need further development.
Commenters also noted that there is precedent for EPA leaving a Proposed Determination in place while it awaits additional project-related information and cited EPA's section 404(c) review process relating to the Pamo Dam project where EPA kept its Proposed Determination in place pending completion and review of additional information and analysis by the project proponent.
Commenters also asserted that EPA's July 2017 notice was inappropriately limited to process and policy arguments and did not adequately consider the underlying scientific and technical record in the July 2014 Proposed Determination.
Commenters in support of withdrawal of the Proposed Determination indicated that EPA preemptively issued its Proposed Determination before PLP submitted a permit application or the Corps initiated the NEPA review process. These commenters stated that this was an overreach by EPA and that it denied PLP due process. Commenters felt that the Section 404 permitting process should be allowed to proceed, which would allow future decisions to be made based on the permit application materials, related mitigation strategies, and NEPA review. Commenters stated that this would allow the Agency to examine all possible merits of a project, as well as potential environmental impacts, through an EIS. Commenters noted that the NEPA process considers the views of a much broader group of constituents, including the Secretary of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, State Historic Preservation Office, and the Coast Guard.
Some commenters asserted that EPA does not have the authority to initiate the section 404(c) process or issue a Proposed Determination in the absence of a permit application. In addition, some commenters indicated that, in their view, withdrawing the Proposed Determination was necessary in order for the Corps to accept and review a permit application from PLP and conduct the NEPA review process.
Commenters also expressed a belief that the issuance of the Proposed Determination prevents the development of a full record by stifling the extensive permitting process that would be required to permit a mine of this scale, including local, state, and federal permits. They noted that the permit application will provide comprehensive, site-specific data and alternatives analysis, and that the process will ensure a rigorous review, including development of an EIS, and consideration of mitigation strategies. Several commenters stated that the fate of the project should not be decided without consideration of the full social, economic, and environmental impacts, which would occur during permit review.
Many of the other reasons offered by commenters in support of the withdrawal revolved around their policy view that EPA should not take a section 404(c) action in advance of the filing of a permit application because such an action would have negative repercussions for the business and investing community. Commenters noted that maintaining the integrity of the existing regulatory review process and ensuring due process for all projects is important to Alaska's economy for future investment in natural resource development.
EPA received comments regarding the specific scientific and technical record underlying the Proposed Determination and subsequent public process. Certain commenters expressed support for the analysis conducted as part of EPA's Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment (BBWA) completed in 2014 (for more information regarding the BBWA see:
EPA also received comments regarding the amount of public input relating to this issue as a general matter and the amount of resources that both EPA and stakeholders have expended on Bristol Bay-related issues associated with mining of the Pebble deposit. Comments also focused on the ecological, cultural, and economic value of Bristol Bay's fishery resources, and potential environmental, cultural, and economic harms to these and other resources associated with potential mining activity.
Since the close of the public comment, tribal consultation, and ANCSA Corporation consultation periods on October 17, 2017, there have been a number of other relevant developments. On December 22, 2017, PLP submitted a section 404 permit application to the Corps that proposes to develop a mine at the Pebble deposit. On January 5, 2018, the Corps issued a public notice that provides PLP's permit application to the public and states that an EIS will be required as part of its permit review process consistent with NEPA. The Corps also invited relevant federal and state agencies to be cooperating agencies on the development of this EIS.
Since PLP has now submitted its CWA Section 404 permit application to the Corps regarding the Pebble deposit, Region 10 will not forward a signed Recommended Determination, if such a decision is made, before either May 11, 2021, or public notice of a final EIS on PLP's Section 404 permit application regarding the Pebble deposit, whichever comes first.
In making its decision regarding whether to withdraw the Proposed Determination at this time, EPA considered its relevant statutory authority, applicable regulations, and the input it received as part of the tribal consultation, ANCSA consultation, and public comment periods regarding the Agency's reasons for its proposing withdrawal as well as the recent developments.
1. Additional time to submit Section 404 permit application and initiate permit review. As several commenters noted, PLP has had the ability as a legal matter to submit a permit application while a section 404(c) review is ongoing. In fact, PLP submitted its application on December 22, 2017, notwithstanding the pending section 404(c) review and existing Proposed Determination, and the Corps issued a public notice that provides PLP's permit application to the public and states that an EIS will be required as part of its permit review process consistent with NEPA. As a result, withdrawal of the Proposed Determination at this time is not necessary to provide PLP with additional time to submit a section 404 permit application to the Corps and potentially allow the Corps permitting process to initiate.
2. Remove uncertainty regarding PLP's ability to submit Section 404 permit application and have it reviewed. As many commenters pointed out and as EPA noted in its proposal, the Corps' regulations allow it to accept, review, and process a permit application for a proposed project even if EPA has an ongoing section 404(c) review for that project. In addition, since PLP has now submitted its permit application to the Corps regarding the Pebble deposit and the Corps has initiated its permit review process and begun taking steps to initiate development of an EIS for this project, any potential uncertainty about PLP's ability to submit a permit application and have that permit application reviewed by the Corps has been resolved. The Corps' regulations state that it will continue to complete its administrative processing of a permit application for a proposed project if EPA has an ongoing section 404(c) review for that project. While the Corps cannot issue a final decision on the permit application while a section 404(c) process remains open and unresolved (33 CFR 323.6(b)), in this case, such a decision is likely a number of years away. Therefore, this reason to withdraw the Proposed Determination at this time is no longer applicable.
3. Allow factual record for Section 404 permit application to develop. As previously noted, the Corps has already initiated its permit review process for PLP's application. Even if EPA leaves the Proposed Determination in place at this time, EPA will provide PLP with nearly three and a half years (unless a final EIS for the project is noticed sooner) to advance through the permit review process before Region 10 could forward a signed Recommended Determination to EPA Headquarters, if such a decision is made. Thus, in light of EPA's forbearance from proceeding to the next step of the section 404(c) process until a later time as described above, EPA concludes that the factual record regarding the permit application can develop notwithstanding the Proposed Determination. EPA has discretion to consider that factual record after it has been further developed before Region 10 determines whether to forward a signed Recommended Determination to EPA Headquarters and, if such a decision is made, to determine the contents of such a Recommended Determination. As such, this reason does not support withdrawal of the Proposed Determination at this time.
Further, in light of recent developments and the framework outlined in the settlement agreement, many of the key concerns raised by those who supported withdrawal have already been resolved, even while the Proposed Determination remains in place. For example, concerns regarding EPA potentially finalizing its section 404(c) review in advance of PLP submitting a permit application, concerns that the Corps would not accept or process PLP's permit application with an open section 404(c) action, and concerns that PLP should be provided more time to advance through the Section 404 permit and NEPA review processes before EPA makes any decisions regarding potentially advancing its section 404(c) review are moot.
Given the relevant statutory authority, applicable regulations, recent developments, public comments, tribal input, and ANCSA Corporation input described above, the Agency has decided not to withdraw the 2014 Proposed Determination at this time. Today's notice suspends the proceeding to withdraw the Proposed Determination and leaves that Determination in place pending consideration of any other information that is relevant to the protection of the world-class fisheries contained in the Bristol Bay watershed in light of the permit application that has now been submitted to the Corps. As noted above, EPA also sought comment on whether the Administrator should review and reconsider the withdrawal decision consistent with 40 CFR 231.5(c) in the event that the final decision was to withdraw the Proposed Determination. Since today's decision is not to withdraw the Proposed Determination at this time, comments received on this issue do not need to be addressed.
EPA acknowledges the significant public interest on this issue and remains committed to listening to all stakeholders as the permitting process progresses. Neither this decision nor the previous settlement agreement guarantees or prejudges a particular outcome in the permitting process or any particular EPA decision-making under section 404(c) or otherwise constrain EPA's discretion except as provided in the terms of the settlement agreement.
EPA received several comments stating that EPA cannot withdraw a Proposed Determination without considering the proposed restrictions or the science or technical information underlying the Proposed Determination. In light of EPA's decision not to withdraw the Proposed Determination, those comments are moot.
EPA also received comments that it has to withdraw the Proposed Determination because it does not have the statutory authority to initiate the section 404(c) process before a permit application has been filed with the
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 231.5(a) provide a specific time period for the Regional Administrator to decide whether to withdraw a Proposed Determination or prepare a Recommended Determination. As explained above, the Agency has decided not to withdraw the Proposed Determination at this time and is suspending this withdrawal proceeding and leaving the Proposed Determination in place. As previously noted, however, under the terms of the May 2017 settlement agreement, Region 10 may not forward a signed Recommended Determination, if such a decision is made, before either May 11, 2021, or until public notice of a final EIS on PLP's CWA Section 404 permit application regarding the Pebble deposit, whichever comes first.
The Agency intends at a future time to solicit public comment on what further steps, if any, the Agency should take in the section 404(c) process in order to prevent unacceptable adverse effects to the watershed's world-class fisheries in light of the permit application that has now been submitted to the Corps. EPA will review and consider any other relevant information that becomes available during the interim. EPA has determined that there is good cause under 40 CFR 231.8 to extend the regulatory time frames in 40 CFR 231.5(a) in order to allow for an additional public comment period and to align with the timeframes established in the settlement agreement.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Annual Public Water System Compliance Report (EPA ICR No. 1812.06, OMB Control No. 2020-0020), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 30, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2017-0438 to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Raquel Taveras, Monitoring, Assistance and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, MC-2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-9651; fax number: (202) 564-7083; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
T
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before March 23, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Andrew Wone (202-326-2934), Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for February 21, 2018), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 23, 2018. Write “In the Matter of Telomerase Activation Sciences, Inc., et al.” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of Telomerase Activation Sciences, Inc., et al.” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order as to Telomerase Activation Sciences, Inc. and Noel Thomas Patton (collectively “respondents”).
The proposed consent order (“order”) has been placed on the public record for 30 days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's order.
This matter involves respondents' advertising for TA-65MD, a product that comes in capsule and powder forms, and TA-65 for Skin (“TA-65 Skin”), a topical cream product. The complaint alleges that respondents violated Sections 5(a) and 12 of the FTC Act by making false or unsubstantiated health or performance claims that: TA-65MD and TA-65 Skin reverse aging; TA-65MD prevents and repairs DNA damage; TA-65MD restores aging immune systems; TA-65MD increases bone density; TA-65MD reverses the effects of aging, including improving skin elasticity, increasing energy and endurance, and improving vision; TA-65MD prevents or reduces the risk of cancer; TA-65 Skin reverses the effects of aging, including improving skin elasticity; and TA-65 Skin decreases recovery time of the skin after medical procedures. The complaint also alleges that respondents claimed that some of the above performance claims were clinically or scientifically proven.
The complaint further alleges that respondents misrepresented that a 2012 paid-for segment on
The order includes injunctive relief that prohibits these alleged violations and fences in similar and related violations. The order applies to marketing claims for any covered product, defined as TA-65MD and TA-65 Skin or any other drug, food, dietary supplement, or cosmetic. As additional fencing-in relief, the order requires respondents to provide a notice to all of its licensees authorized to advertise, market, or sell any covered product, monitor certain high-selling licensees, and follow appropriate recordkeeping, compliance reporting, and document preservation requirements.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or order, or to modify the order's terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Request for information.
AHRQ is seeking information submissions from the public. Information is being solicited to inform our work on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Access to information regarding physical function PRO measure use will assist the selection of measures for AHRQ's efforts to develop and implement user-friendly technical tools to collect and integrate PRO data in electronic health records or other health information technology products.
Submission must be received by April 1, 2018.
Electronic responses are preferred and should be addressed to
Janey Hsiao, Health Scientist Administrator, Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement,
AHRQ plans to conduct a Challenge Competition in Fall 2018 to develop user-friendly technical tools to collect and integrate patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in electronic health records or other health information technology products. The technical tools will be intended for use in ambulatory care settings including primary care and specialty care. For this competition, AHRQ will choose a physical function PRO measure as a use case for the tool development. More information about the Challenge Competition is available at
Your contribution will be very beneficial to AHRQ's PRO projects. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.
This RFI is for planning purposes only and should not be construed as a policy, solicitation for applications, or as an obligation on the part of the Government to provide support for any ideas identified in response to it. AHRQ will use the information submitted in response to this RFI at its discretion and will not provide comments to any responder's submission. However, responses to the RFI may be reflected in future solicitation(s) or policies. Respondents are advised that the Government is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information received or provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information submitted. No proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should be included in your response. The Government reserves the right to use any non-proprietary technical information in any resultant solicitation(s). The contents of all submissions will be made available to the public upon request. Materials submitted must be publicly available or able to be made public.
Specific questions of interest to AHRQ include, but are not limited to:
1. What
2. What is the type of care setting (primary care or specialty care) within which these physical function PRO data are collected? Are similar measures used in other settings (
3. How are the PRO data collected? Is the PRO data collection via paper or an electronic mechanism? Please specify the electronic mechanism (
4. How are the PRO data used (
AHRQ is interested in all of the questions listed above, but respondents are welcome to address as many or as few as they choose and to address additional areas of interest not listed. Submission of copies of existing documentation or reports describing the measure and its properties, existing data sources, etc., is highly desirable but not required.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Solicits nominations for new members of the USPSTF.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) invites nominations of individuals qualified to serve as members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).
All nominations submitted in writing or electronically will be considered for appointment to the USPSTF. Nominations must be received by May 15th of a given year to be considered for appointment to begin in January 2019.
Nominations may be submitted in writing or electronically, but should include:
1. The applicant's current curriculum vitae and contact information, including mailing address, email address, and telephone number; and
2. A letter explaining how this individual meets the qualification requirements and how he or she would contribute to the USPSTF. The letter should also attest to the nominee's willingness to serve as a member of the USPSTF.
AHRQ will later ask people under serious consideration for USPSTF membership to provide detailed information that will permit evaluation of possible significant conflicts of interest. Such information could include financial holdings, consultancies, non-financial scientific interests, and research grants or contracts.
To obtain a diversity of perspectives, AHRQ particularly encourages nominations of women, members of minority populations, and persons with disabilities. Interested individuals can nominate themselves. Organizations and individuals may nominate one or more people qualified for membership on the USPSTF at any time. Individuals nominated prior to May 15, 2017, who continue to have interest in serving on the USPSTF should be re-nominated.
To qualify for the USPSTF and support its mission, an applicant or nominee should, at a minimum, demonstrate knowledge, expertise and national leadership in the following areas:
1. The critical evaluation of research published in peer-reviewed literature and in the methods of evidence review;
2. Clinical prevention, health promotion and primary health care; and
3. Implementation of evidence-based recommendations in clinical practice including at the clinician-patient level, practice level, and health-system level.
Additionally, the Task Force benefits from members with expertise in the following areas:
Candidates with experience and skills in any of these areas should highlight them in their nomination materials.
Applicants must have no substantial conflicts of interest, whether financial, professional, or intellectual, that would impair the scientific integrity of the work of the USPSTF and must be willing to complete regular conflict of interest disclosures.
Applicants must have the ability to work collaboratively with a team of diverse professionals who support the mission of the USPSTF. Applicants must have adequate time to contribute substantively to the work products of the USPSTF.
Submit your responses either in writing or electronically to: Lydia Hill, ATTN: USPSTF Nominations, Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for
Nominated individuals will be selected for the USPSTF on the basis of how well they meet the required qualifications and the current expertise needs of the USPSTF. It is anticipated that new members will be invited to serve on the USPSTF beginning in January 2019. All nominated individuals will be considered; however, strongest consideration will be given to individuals with demonstrated training and expertise in the areas of Pediatrics and Behavioral Health. AHRQ will retain and may consider for future vacancies nominations received this year and not selected during this cycle.
Some USPSTF members without primary health care clinical experience may be selected based on their expertise in methodological issues such as meta-analysis, analytic modeling or clinical epidemiology. For individuals with clinical expertise in primary health care, additional qualifications in methodology would enhance their candidacy.
Lydia Hill at (301) 427-1587 or
Under Title IX of the Public Health Service Act, AHRQ is charged with enhancing the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of health care services and access to such services. 42 U.S.C. 299(b). AHRQ accomplishes these goals through scientific research and promotion of improvements in clinical practice, including clinical prevention of diseases and other health conditions. See 42 U.S.C. 299(b).
The USPSTF, an independent body of experts in prevention and evidence- based medicine, works to improve the health of all Americans by making evidence-based recommendations about the effectiveness of clinical preventive services and health promotion. The recommendations made by the USPSTF address clinical preventive services for adults and children, and include screening tests, counseling services, and preventive medications.
The USPSTF was first established in 1984 under the auspices of the U.S. Public Health Service. Currently, the USPSTF is convened by the Director of AHRQ, and AHRQ provides ongoing scientific, administrative, and dissemination support for the USPSTF's operation. USPSTF members serve four-year terms. New members are selected each year to replace those members who are completing their appointments.
The USPSTF is charged with rigorously evaluating the effectiveness, appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of clinical preventive services and formulating or updating recommendations regarding the appropriate provision of preventive services. See 42 U.S.C. 299b-4(a)(1). Current USPSTF recommendations and associated evidence reviews are available on the internet (
USPSTF members currently meet three times a year for two days in the Washington, DC area. A significant portion of the USPSTF's work occurs between meetings during conference calls and via email discussions. Member duties include prioritizing topics, designing research plans, reviewing and commenting on systematic evidence reviews of evidence, discussing and making recommendations on preventive services, reviewing stakeholder comments, drafting final recommendation documents, and participating in workgroups on specific topics and methods. Members can expect to receive frequent emails, can expect to participate in multiple conference calls each month, and can expect to have periodic interaction with stakeholders. AHRQ estimates that members devote approximately 200 hours a year outside of in-person meetings to their USPSTF duties. The members are all volunteers and do not receive any compensation beyond support for travel to in person meetings.
Nominations and applications are kept on file at the Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement, AHRQ, and are available for review during business hours. AHRQ does not reply to individual nominations, but considers all nominations in selecting members. Information regarded as private and personal, such as a nominee's social security number, home and email addresses, home telephone and fax numbers, or names of family members will not be disclosed to the public in accord with the Freedom of Information Act. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6); 45 CFR 5.31(f).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the dates, time, and location of the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) public meetings to be held in calendar year 2018 to discuss our preliminary coding and payment determinations for all new public requests for revisions to the HCPCS. These meetings provide a forum for interested parties to make oral presentations or to submit written comments in response to preliminary coding and payment determinations. The discussion will be focused on responses to our specific preliminary recommendations and will include all items on the public meeting agenda.
1. Monday, May 14, 2018, 1:00 p.m. to 5 p.m., eastern daylight time (e.d.t.) (Drugs/Biologicals/Radiopharmaceuticals/Radiologic Imaging Agents).
2. Tuesday, May 15, 2018, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., e.d.t. (Drugs/Biologicals/Radiopharmaceuticals/Radiologic Imaging Agents).
3. Wednesday, May 16, 2018, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., e.d.t. (Drugs/Biologicals/Radiopharmaceuticals/Radiologic Imaging Agents).
4. Thursday, May 17, 2018, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., e.d.t. (Drugs/Biologicals/Radiopharmaceuticals/Radiologic Imaging Agents).
5. Tuesday, June 1, 2018, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.d.t. (Durable Medical Equipment (DME), and Accessories, Orthotics and Prosthetics (O&P), Supplies and Other).
6. Wednesday, June 2, 2018, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., (e.d.t.) (Durable Medical Equipment (DME), and Accessories, Orthotics and Prosthetics (O&P), Supplies and Other).
• May 1, 2018, for the May 14, 15, 16, and 17, 2018 public meetings.
• May 22, 2018, for the June 5 and 6, 2018 public meetings.
• April 24, 2018, for the May 14, 15, 16, and 17, 2018 public meetings.
• May 10, 2018, for the June 5 and 6, 2018 public meetings.
• May 7, 2018, for the May 14, 15, 16, and 17, 2018 public meetings.
• May 24, 2018, for the June 5 and 6, 2018 public meeting dates.
• May 1, 2018, for the May 14, 15, 16, and 17, 2018 public meetings.
• May 22, 2018, for the June 5 and 6, 2018 public meetings.
Judi Wallace, (410) 786-3197 or
On December 21, 2000, the Congress passed the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) (Pub. L. 106-554). Section 531(b) of BIPA mandated that we establish procedures that permit public consultation for coding and payment determinations for new durable medical equipment (DME) under Medicare Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act). In the November 23, 2001
It is our intent to distribute any materials submitted to us to the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) workgroup members for their consideration. CMS and the HCPCS workgroup members require sufficient preparation time to review all relevant materials. Therefore, we are implementing a 10-page submission limit and firm deadlines for receipt of any presentation materials a meeting speaker wishes us to consider. For this reason, our HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator will only accept and review presentation materials received by the deadline for each public meeting, as specified in the
The public meeting process provides an opportunity for the public to become aware of and provide input regarding coding changes under consideration, as well as an opportunity for us to gather public input.
The following information must be provided when registering on-line to attend:
• Name.
• Company name and address.
• Direct-dial telephone and fax numbers.
• Email address.
• Special needs information.
A CMS staff member will confirm your registration by email.
Individuals must also indicate whether they are the “primary speaker” for an agenda item. Primary speakers must be designated by the entity that submitted the HCPCS coding request. When registering, primary speakers must provide a brief written statement regarding the nature of the information they intend to provide, and advise the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator regarding needs for audio/visual support. To avoid disruption of the meeting and ensure compatibility with our systems, tapes and disk files are tested and arranged in speaker sequence well in advance of the meeting. We will accept tapes and disk files that are received by the deadline for submissions for each public meeting as specified in the
Please note our page limit for primary speaker presentation materials. The sum of all presentation materials and additional supporting documentation may not exceed 10 pages (each side of a page counts as 1 page). An exception will be made to the 10-page limit only for relevant studies newly published between the application deadline and the public meeting date, in which case, we would like a copy of the complete publication as soon as possible. This exception applies only to the page limit and not the submission deadline.
The materials may be emailed or delivered by regular mail to the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator as specified in the
To afford the same opportunity to all attendees, 5-minute speakers are not
The product category reported in the HCPCS code application by the applicant may not be the same as that assigned by us. Prior to registering to attend a public meeting, all participants are advised to review the public meeting agendas at
Additional details regarding the public meeting process for all new public requests for revisions to the HCPCS, along with information on how to register and guidelines for an effective presentation, will be posted at least 4 weeks before the first meeting date on the official HCPCS website at
The HCPCS website also contains a document titled “HCPCS Decision Tree & Definitions” which illustrates, in flow diagram format, HCPCS coding standards as described in our Coding Procedures document.
We can only estimate the amount of meeting time that will be needed since it is difficult to anticipate the total number of speakers that will register for each meeting. Meeting participants must arrive early to allow time to clear security and sign-in. Each meeting is expected to begin promptly as scheduled. Meetings may end earlier than the stated ending time.
All primary speakers must register as provided under the section titled “Meeting Registration.” All materials that will be used in support of an oral presentation must be submitted to the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator, Judi Wallace.
The materials may be emailed or delivered by regular mail to the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator as specified in the
The individual or entity requesting revisions to the HCPCS coding system for a particular agenda item may designate one “primary speaker” to make a presentation for a maximum of 15 minutes. Fifteen minutes is the total time interval for the presentation, and the presentation must incorporate any demonstration, set-up, and distribution of material. In establishing the public meeting agenda, we may group multiple, related requests under the same agenda item. In that case, we will decide whether additional time will be allotted, and may opt to increase the amount of time allotted to the speaker by increments of less than 15 minutes.
Individuals designated to be the primary speaker must register to attend the meeting using the registration procedures described under the “Meeting Registration” section of this notice and contact Judi Wallace, HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator, as specified in the
Meeting attendees can sign up at the meeting, on a first-come, first-served basis, to make presentations for up to 5 minutes on individual agenda items. Based on the number of items on the agenda and the progress of the meeting, a determination will be made at the meeting by the meeting coordinator and the meeting moderator regarding how many “5-minute speakers” can be accommodated and whether the 5-minute time allocation would be reduced, to accommodate the number of speakers.
On the day of the meeting, before the end of the meeting, all primary speakers and 5-minute speakers must provide a brief written summary of their comments and conclusions to the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator.
Every primary speaker and 5-minute speaker must declare at the beginning of their presentation at the meeting, as well as in their written summary, whether they have any financial involvement with the manufacturers or competitors of any items being discussed; this includes any payment, salary, remuneration, or benefit provided to that speaker by the manufacturer or the manufacturer's representatives.
Written comments will be accepted from the general public and meeting registrants anytime up to the date of the public meeting at which a request is discussed. Comments must be sent to the address listed in the
Meeting attendees may also submit their written comments at the meeting. Due to the close timing of the public meetings, subsequent workgroup reconsiderations, and final decisions, we are able to consider only those comments received in writing by the close of business on the date of the public meeting at which the request is discussed.
The meetings are held within the CMS Complex which is not open to the general public. Visitors to the complex are required to show a valid Government issued photo identification preferably a driver's license or passport, at the time of entry. As of October 10, 2015, visitors seeking access to federal agency facilities using their state-issued driver's license or identification cards must present proper identification issued by a state that is compliant with the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13, 119 Statute 302, enacted on May 11, 2005) or a state that has received an extension. What constitutes proper identification and whether a driver's license is acceptable identification for accessing a federal facility may vary,
Participants will also be subject to a vehicle security inspection before access to the complex is granted. Participants not in possession of a valid identification or who are in possession of prohibited items will be denied access to the complex. Prohibited items on federal property include but are not limited to, alcoholic beverages, illegal narcotics, explosives, firearms or other dangerous weapons (including pocket knives), dogs or other animals except service animals. Once cleared for entry to the complex participants will be directed to visitor parking by a security officer.
To ensure expedited entry into the building it is recommended that participants have their ID and a copy of their written meeting registration confirmation readily available and that they do not bring large/bulky items into the building. Participants are reminded that photography on the CMS complex is prohibited. We have also been declared a tobacco free campus and violators are subject to legal action. In planning arrival time, we recommend allowing additional time to clear security. Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting. The invited guests may not enter the building earlier than 45 minutes before the convening of the meeting each day.
Guest access to the complex is limited to the meeting area, the main entrance lobby, and the cafeteria. If a visitor is found outside of those areas without proper escort they may be escorted off of the premises. Also be mindful that there will be an opportunity for everyone to speak and we request that everyone waits for the appropriate time to present their product or opinions. Disruptive behavior will not be tolerated and may result in removal from the meetings and escort from the complex. No visitor is allowed to attach USB cables, thumb drives or any other equipment to any CMS information technology (IT) system or hardware for any purpose at any time. Additionally, our staff is prohibited from taking such actions on behalf of a visitor or utilizing any removable media provided by a visitor.
We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for demonstration or to support a presentation. Special arrangements and approvals are required at least 2 weeks prior to each public meeting to bring pieces of equipment or medical devices. These arrangements need to be made with the public meeting coordinator. It is possible that certain requests made in advance of the public meeting could be denied because of unique safety, security or handling issues related to the equipment. A minimum of 2 weeks is required for approvals and security procedures. Any request not submitted at least 2 weeks in advance of the public meeting will be denied.
Foreign National Visitors are defined as Non-US Citizens, and non-lawful permanent residents, non-resident aliens or non-green-card holders.
Attendees that are foreign nationals must identify themselves as such, and provide the following information for security clearance to the public meeting coordinator by the date specified in the
• Building to Visit/Destination.
• Visit start date, start time, end date, end time.
• Visitor full name.
• Gender.
• Visitor Title.
• Visitor Organization/Employer.
• Citizenship.
• Birth Place (City, Country).
• Date of Birth.
• ID Type (Passport or State Department ID).
• Passport issued by Country.
• ID (passport) Number.
• ID (passport) issue date.
• ID (passport) expiration date.
• Visa Type.
• Visa Number.
• Purpose of Visit.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by April 30, 2018.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
2.
3.
4.
For CY2019 Reporting Requirements, the following 6 reporting sections will be reported and collected at the
The current Notice is specific to data collection efforts needed to address the MUSE aims. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected from program staff and parent program participants at each program site. Program sites will also submit local administrative data to the evaluation team. After obtaining informed consent from all respondents, data collection will include: (1) A survey of parent program participants at enrollment (baseline), (2) a follow-up survey of parent program participants at 6 and 12 months, (3) the MUSE Family Resources Check-in administered to parent program participants at baseline and 12 months (4) a Rapid Reflect self-completed questionnaire completed by parent program participants after selected home visits; (5) a Rapid Reflect self-completed questionnaire completed by home visitors after selected home visits; (6) a one-time survey of home visitors; (7) a one-time survey of program coordinators/managers; (8) a one-time survey of program directors; (9) a one-time survey of local program evaluators; (10) qualitative interviews of home visitors at each site; (11) qualitative interviews of program coordinators/managers and program directors at each site; (12) qualitative interviews of local program evaluators at each site; (13) qualitative interviews of program participants; (14) a log of implementation activities completed by program coordinators/managers on staffing, training, family group activities, and supervision; and (15) electronic compilation and submission of administrative program data.
All data collection will be used to generate information about how tribal home visiting program services are planned and delivered, and about what individual, organizational, community, and external factors support successful program implementation.
We will request approval for three years, which will accommodate an approximate two-year data collection period and any potential delays in the data collection timeline.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments 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 of the proposed collection of information; (c) 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the following advisory committee meeting.
On January 9, 2018, the DSMO submitted a letter to NCVHS recommending the adoption of two National Council of Prescription Drug Program (NCPDP) updates to the adopted retail pharmacy standards. These updates include: (1) An update to the retail pharmacy standard, the NCPDP Telecommunication and Batch standard version D.0., which was adopted in 2009. The update would be NCPDP Telecommunication and Batch standard version F2, which would enable eligibility verification, claims, services, information reporting, prior authorization (for pharmacy), and pre-determination of benefits; and (2) an update to the Medicaid subrogation standard, also adopted in 2009, to expand subrogation to all payers, including Medicare Parts C and D. The updated subrogation standard is the Batch Standard version 10, and replaces version 3.0. It will enable all payers to conduct a uniform process to support compliance with requirements for recovery of federal, state and other plan overpayments, mitigating manual processes currently in place.
The purpose of this NCVHS Standards Subcommittee hearing is to obtain input from stakeholders for the costs and benefits of implementing the updated versions of the two pharmacy standards: NCPDP F2 and pharmacy subrogation, and to understand how they would reduce existing barriers to the use of standards, or mitigate burdens.
The times and topics are subject to change. Please refer to the posted agenda for any updates.
Should you require reasonable accommodation, please contact the CDC Office of Equal Employment Opportunity on (770) 488-3210 as soon as possible.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, February 14, 2018, 09:00 a.m. to February 14, 2018, 06:00 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 which was published in the
This meeting notice is amended to change the meeting date from February 14, 2018 to March 12, 2018. The meeting start time has changed from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, March 20, 2018, 12:00 p.m. to March 20, 2018, 04:00 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 which was
This meeting notice is amended to change the meeting name from “Targeted Radiotherapy & Radiation-Induced Toxicity” to “TEP-4: Targeted Radiotherapy & Radiation-Induced Toxicity”. The meeting time has changed from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, February 22, 2018, 12:00 p.m. to February 22, 2018, 03:00 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 which was published in the
This meeting notice is amended to change the meeting date from February 22, 2018 to March 21, 2018. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, March 09, 2018, 10:00 a.m. to March 09, 2018, 12:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on March 6, 2018, 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, February 21, 2018, 10:00 a.m. to February 21, 2018, 05:00 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 which was published in the
This meeting notice is amended to change the meeting date from February 21, 2018 to March 20, 2018. The meeting is closed to the public.
Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of new Privacy Act system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-042 Personnel Networking and Collaboration System of Records.” This system of records allows DHS to collect and maintain records containing biographic information of employees and contractors of DHS for the purpose of professional networking and employee collaboration. This newly established system will be included in the DHS inventory of record systems.
Submit comments on or before March 30, 2018. This new system will be effective upon publication. Routine uses will be effective March 30, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0075 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general and privacy questions, please contact: Philip S. Kaplan,
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, DHS proposes to establish a new DHS system of records, “DHS/ALL-042 Personnel Networking and Collaboration System of Records.”
DHS is issuing this system of records notice (SORN) to allow for the collection and sharing of biographical and professional information from Department personnel to facilitate and streamline collaborative work efforts, interactions, communications, and networking among Department employees, contractors, and grantees. Individuals may provide their general background or profile information, professional status and achievements, as well as educational accomplishments, for the purpose of fostering internal employee collaboration and communication across the homeland security enterprise. For instance, individuals may provide this information as part of DHS's use of social networking software-like tools within their closed, secure networks (
Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/ALL-042 Personnel Networking and Collaboration SORN may be shared with other DHS Components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS may share information with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this SORN.
This newly established system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, and similarly, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides covered persons with a statutory right to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the JRA, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the JRA prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.
Below is the description of the DHS/ALL-042 Personnel Networking and Collaboration System of Records. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/ALL-042 Personnel Networking and Collaboration System of Records.
Unclassified.
Records are maintained at the DHS Headquarters in Washington, DC, and field offices.
For DHS Headquarters, the System Manager is the Deputy Chief Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528. For components of DHS, the System Manager can be found at
Authority for maintaining this system is in 5 U.S.C. 301, 44 U.S.C. 3101; 44 U.S.C. 3534; Homeland Security Act of 2002, and as amended; Executive Order 13576 (June 13, 2011).
The purpose of this system is to permit DHS's collection of biographical and professional information of current DHS employees, contractors, and grantees to facilitate connections and collaboration among individuals supporting the Department's mission; aid in the identification of individuals within an organization; and to ensure efficient collaboration within the Department.
Current DHS personnel, including employees, contractors, and grantees working in furtherance of the Department's mission. Former DHS personnel information may be included until the information is disposed of in accordance with National Archives and Records Administration retention schedules. This system covers all individuals who are authorized to access DHS information technology resources, which may include any lawfully designated representative of private enterprises and federal, state, territorial, tribal, local, international, or foreign government agencies or entities, in furtherance of the DHS mission.
Categories of records in this system include:
• Individual's name;
• Individual's photograph;
• Position/Title;
• Organization/Component affiliation;
• Business phone numbers;
• Business email addresses;
• Work/Office addresses;
• Educational background/history and accomplishments;
• Professional background/work history and accomplishments;
• Individual's military experience, if applicable; and
• Other relevant biographical information that the individual may voluntarily provide.
Records are voluntarily obtained from the individual employee, contractor, or grantee.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including the U.S. Attorneys Offices, or other federal agency conducting litigation or proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity, only when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. DHS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary and otherwise compatible with the purpose of collection to assist another federal 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; or
2. DHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of this system of records; and (a) DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach, there is a risk of harm to individuals, DHS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (b) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.
G. To an appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
DHS stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media.
Records may be retrieved by an individual's name, component or affiliation, position or title, email address, or an Electronic Data Interchange Personal Identifier. The Electronic Data Interchange Personal Identifier is a unique number assigned to the Personal Identity Verification (PIV) card that uniquely identifies each user. Records are not retrievable by
Records connected to social media that are not hosted on a DHS server are managed in accordance with General Records of the Department of Homeland Security Records Schedule Number DAA-0563-2013-0003. Information used to establish a profile on non-DHS information sharing and social media websites will be cut off at the end of the calendar year, and destroyed 5 years after the information has been superseded, or is obsolete. All other records covered by this SORN are managed in accordance with General Records Schedule (GRS) 5.1, item 010. Records accumulated by individual offices that relate to routine day-to-day administration and management of the office rather than the mission-specific activities for which the office exists should be destroyed when the business use ceases.
DHS safeguards records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. DHS has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
When an individual is seeking records about himself or herself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, the individual's request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. The individual must first verify his/her identity, meaning that the individual must provide his/her full name, current address, and date and place of birth. The individual must sign the request, and the individual's signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, an individual may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer,
• Explain why he/she believes the Department would have information on him/her;
• Identify which component(s) of the Department the individual believes may have the information about him/her;
• Specify when the individual believes the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records;
If an individual's request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, the first individual must include a statement from the second individual certifying his/her agreement for the first individual to access his/her records.
Without the above information, the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and the individual's request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
For records covered by the Privacy Act, see “Record Access Procedures” above.
See “Record Access Procedures” above.
None.
None.
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection, 1600-0004.
The DHS Office of the Chief Procurement Officer will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information being collected will be obtained from contractors as part of their submissions whenever they file a bid protest with DHS. The information will be used by DHS officials in deciding how the protest should be resolved. Failure to collect this information would result in delayed resolution of protests.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 30, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2018-0011, at:
•
Nancy Harvey, (202) 447-0956,
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and 48 CFR Chapter 1 provide general procedures on handling protests submitted by contractors to Federal agencies. FAR Part 33.103, Protests to the agency, prescribes policies and procedures for filing protests and for processing contract disputes and appeals. While the FAR prescribes the procedures to be followed for protests to the agency, it allows agencies to determine the method of receipt. DHS will utilize electronic mediums (email or facsimile) for collection of information and will not prescribe a format or require more information than what is already required in the FAR. If DHS determines there is a need to collect additional information outside of what is required in the FAR, DHS will submit a request to OMB for approval.
The information being collected will be obtained from contractors as part of their submissions whenever they file a bid protest with DHS. The information will be used by DHS officials in deciding how the protest should be resolved. Failure to collect this information would result in delayed resolution of protests.
Agency protest information is contained in each individual
DHS/ALL/PIA-006 General Contact Lists covers the basic contact information that must be collected for DHS to address these protests. The other information collected will typically pertain to the contract itself, and not individuals. However, all information for this information collection is submitted voluntarily. Technically, because this information is not retrieved by personal identifier, no SORN is required. However, DHS/ALL-021 DHS Contractors and Consultants provides coverage for the collection of records on DHS contractors and consultants, to include resume and qualifying employment information. There is no assurance of confidentiality provided to the respondents.
The burden estimates are based upon reports of protest activities submitted to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or the Court of Federal Claims in Fiscal Year 2016. No program changes occurred, however, the burden was adjusted to reflect an agency adjustment increase of 4 respondents within DHS for Fiscal Year 2016, as well as an increase in the average hourly wage rate.
This is an Extension of a Currently Approved Collection, 1600-0004. OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
30-Day notice and request for comments; revised collection, 1670-0017.
The DHS NPPD Office of Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C), will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. NPPD previously published this ICR in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 30, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to OMB Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security and sent via electronic mail to
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Richard Tenney at 703-705-6281 or at
The DHS NPPD CS&C Office of Emergency Communications (OEC), formed under Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 571
OEC will use the information from the SCIP Template and Annual SCIP Snapshot to track the progress States are making in implementing milestones and demonstrating goals of the NECP, as required through the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 572. The SCIP Template and Annual SCIP Snapshot will provide OEC with broader capability data across the lanes of the Interoperability Continuum, which are key indicators of consistent success in response-level communications.
In addition, the SCIP Template and the SCIP Snapshot will assist States in their strategic planning for interoperable and emergency communications while
Statewide Interoperability Coordinators (SWICs) will be responsible for collecting this information from their respective stakeholders and governance bodies, and will complete and submit the SCIP Snapshots directly to OEC through unclassified electronic submission.
The SCIP Template and Annual SCIP Snapshot may be submitted through unclassified electronic submission to OEC by each State's SWIC in addition to being able to submit their respective SCIP Template and Annual SCIP Snapshot via email to
OEC streamlined its annual SCIP reporting process to obtain standard data to understand progress and challenges in emergency communications planning. OEC replaced the lengthier Annual Progress Report with the SCIP Snapshot as a reporting mechanism for States and territories for submitting SCIP progress, achievements and challenges. The data collected is based on calendar year reporting. The SCIP Snapshot also includes sections for States and territories to report on the status of governance structures, progress towards SCIP goals and initiatives, and overall successes and challenges in advancing interoperable emergency communications.
This is a revised information collection. OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.
Rescindment of a System of Records Notice.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security is giving notice that it proposes to rescind the following Department Privacy Act systems of records notices: Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services-014 Electronic Immigration System-1 Temporary Accounts and Draft Benefit Requests System of Records; Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services-015 Electronic Immigration System-2 Account and Case Management System of Records; and Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services-016 Electronic Immigration System-3 Automated Background Functions System of Records. The records covered by these systems of records notices will now be covered by existing DHS systems of records notices.
DHS will continue to collect and maintain records regarding individuals who apply for immigration benefits using the online electronic filing system. Rescinding these three DHS systems of records notices mentioned above will have no adverse impacts on individuals, but will promote the overall streamlining and management of Department of Homeland Security Privacy Act record systems.
These changes will take effect upon publication.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0070, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact: Donald K. Hawkins,
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and as part of its ongoing integration and management efforts, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is rescinding the following systems of records notices: DHS/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)-014 Electronic Immigration System-1 Temporary Accounts and Draft Benefit Requests System of Records, 78 FR 20680 (April 5, 2013); DHS/USCIS-015 Electronic Immigration System-2 Account and Case Management System of Records, 78 FR 20673 (April 5, 2013), and DHS/USCIS-016 Electronic Immigration System-3 Automated Background Functions System of Records, 76 FR 70735 (November 15, 2011).
USCIS created the online electronic immigration system (USCIS ELIS) to allow individuals submitting U.S. immigration and naturalization requests to create online accounts and submit certain petitions, applications, and requests for processing and adjudication. The collection, use, maintenance, and dissemination of PII was divided into three distinct processes in the online electronic
DHS/USCIS-014 covered the collection, use, maintenance, and dissemination of information derived from an individual who created a temporary account so that he or she may submit an application, petition, or request through USCIS ELIS for the first time. Information collected under DHS/USCIS-014 is now covered by Department of Homeland Security/ALL-037 E-Authentication Records System of Records (DHS/ALL-037), 79 FR 46857 (August 11, 2014). DHS/ALL-037 covers the collection of information used to authenticate an individual's identity for the purpose of creating a required system credential to electronically access a DHS program or application.
DHS/USCIS-015 covered the processing and tracking of all actions related to a submitted and pending immigration request, including scheduling of biometrics appointments and interviews, requesting evidence or additional information, and issuing notices, including the final decision, as well as a proof of an approved benefit, if any. The case management, case processing, record receipt and maintenance from DHS/USCIS-015 is now covered by the Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection-001 Alien File, Index, and National File Tracking System of Records (DHS/USCIS/ICE/CBP-001), 82 FR 43556 (September 18, 2017). DHS/USCIS/ICE/CBP-001 covers information relating to the adjudication of benefits, investigation of immigration violations, and enforcement actions in Alien Files (A-Files). DHS creates a file for each individual containing that individual's immigration records. The A-file may be in paper or electronic format, or a combination of both. USCIS ELIS serves as an electronic repository to store and manage electronic records.
The case management functions of DHS/USCIS-015 are also covered by Department of Homeland Security/United States Citizenship and Immigration Services-007 Benefits Information System (USCIS-007), 81 FR 72069 (October 19, 2016), which covers the collection, use, maintenance, dissemination, and storage of immigration request information, including case processing and decisional data not included in the A-File SORN. These records assist in the processing of immigration requests from the time USCIS collects the information from the requestor until a final decision is recorded in the relevant case management system.
The initial purpose of DHS/USCIS-016 was to assist USCIS personnel in detecting duplicate and related accounts; identifying potential national security concerns, criminality, and fraud; as well as ensuring that serious or complex cases received additional scrutiny. USCIS never collected information that would be covered by DHS/USCIS-016. Instead, all information collected, maintained, used, and disseminated in support of USCIS' efforts to strengthen the integrity of the nation's legal immigration system and to ensure that immigration benefits are not granted to individuals who may pose a threat to national security and/or public safety are covered under the DHS/USCIS-006 Fraud Detection and National Security Records (FDNS), 77 FR 47411, (August 8, 2012).
As such, DHS will continue to collect and maintain records regarding immigration requests, and will rely upon the existing DHS and USCIS systems of records notices for coverage pursuant to the Privacy Act: DHS/ALL-037, 79 FR 46857 (August 11, 2014); DHS/USCIS/ICE/CBP-001, 82 FR 43556 (September 18, 2017), DHS/USCIS-006 FDNS, 77 FR 47411 (August 8, 2012), and DHS/USCIS-007, 81 FR 72069 (October 19, 2016).
Rescinding DHS/USCIS-014, DHS/USCIS-015, and DHS/USCIS-016 will have no adverse impacts on individuals, but will promote the overall streamlining and management of DHS Privacy Act record systems.
DHS/USCIS-014 Electronic Immigration System-1 Temporary Accounts and Draft Benefit Requests System of Records; DHS/USCIS-015 Electronic Immigration System-2 Account and Case Management System of Records; and DHS/USCIS-016 Electronic Immigration System-3 Automated Background Functions System of Records.
DHS/USCIS-014 Electronic Immigration System-1 Temporary Accounts and Draft Benefit Requests System of Records, 78 FR 20680 (April 5, 2013); DHS/USCIS Electronic-015 Electronic Immigration System-2 Account and Case Management System of Records, 78 FR 20673 (April 5, 2013); and DHS/USCIS-016 Electronic Immigration System-3 Automated Background Functions System of Records, 76 FR 70735 (November 15, 2011).
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, (Room 3180), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.
This notice informs the public that HUD is
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5534 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
Eligible HUD-assisted properties applied for the demonstration were randomly assigned to one of three groups: A “treatment group” that received grant funding to hire a RWD and WN and implement the SSD model (40 properties); an “active control” group that did not receive grant funding but received a stipend to participate in the evaluation (37 properties); and a “passive control” group that received neither grant funding nor a stipend (47 properties). The random assignment permits an evaluation that quantifies the
Under contract with HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research, Abt Associates Inc. will conduct a two-part evaluation—a process study to describe the implementation of the demonstration and an impact study to measure the impact of the SSD model on residents' use of healthcare services and housing stability. The evaluation features analysis of administrative data and the following types of primary data collection: (1) Questionnaires for one to two housing and wellness staff at each of the 40 treatment properties and the 37 active control properties (RWD, service coordinator, and/or property manager); (2) interviews with up to four housing and wellness staff (RWDs, WNs, and property managers) at the 40 treatment sites, with one to two staff (service coordinator and/or property manager) at the 37 active control properties, and with a sample of 10 to 15 owners across the 40 treatment properties; (3) focus groups with residents of 20 of the treatment properties; and, (4) focus groups with community service provider partners at 20 of the treatment properties. The purpose of these activities is to collect data from multiple perspectives about implementation experience with the demonstration, the strengths and weakness of the model, and how resident wellness activities compare across treatment and control properties. The evaluation will also incorporate data collected by The Lewin Group as part of the implementation of the demonstration. Information on the SSD information collection was published in the
The estimated average burden for the interviews is 1.5 hours. The interviews will average one hour, with an additional 30 minutes for scheduling and preparation. There will be between one and four interview respondents per property for a total estimated number of respondents of 182 and a total estimated burden of 273 hours.
The estimated average burden for the resident focus group is 1.5 hours. The focus group discussion will average 60 minutes, with an additional 15 minutes at the start for participants to orient themselves to the group and 15 minutes at the end for participants to ask any questions they might have about the study and or how the information will be used. There will be up to 10 participants per resident focus group across 20 properties, for a total of 200 respondents and 300 burden hours.
The estimated average burden for the community partner focus group is 1.75 hours. The focus group discussion will average 75 minutes, with an additional 15 minutes at the start and end for the resident focus group. There will be up to 15 participants per community partner focus group across 20 properties, for a total of 300 respondents and 525 burden hours.
The total estimated annual cost for this information collection is $44,151.09. To estimate the cost per hour for each type of respondent, we used the most recent (May 2016) Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics median hourly wage for selected occupations classified by Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes and added 31.7 percent to account for benefits costs. (According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employer Costs for Employee Compensation data from September 2017, benefit costs averaged 31.7 percent of employer costs for employee compensation across all job categories). To estimate hourly wage rates for Resident Wellness Directors and Service Coordinators, we used the occupation code Healthcare Social Workers (21-1022) with a median hourly wage of $25.85 and an estimated cost with benefits of $34.04. For property owners and managers of properties, we used the occupation code Property, Real Estate, and Community Association Managers (11-940) with a median hourly wage of $27.42 and an estimated cost with benefits of $36.11. For WNs, we used Registered Nurses (29-1141) with a median hourly wage of $32.91 and an estimated cost with benefits of $43.34. We created weighted averages of these rates, depending on the respondent pool, to estimate the costs of the questionnaires and interviews. For the community partner focus groups, we used Social and Community Service Managers (11-9151) with a median hourly wage of $31.10 and an estimated cost with benefits of $40.96.
Most of the properties in the SSD are funded through HUD's Supportive Housing for the Elderly (Section 202) program. According to HUD's Picture of Subsidized Households for 2016 (
This notice solicits comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Liz Zepeda, Environmental Specialist, Office of Environment and Energy, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Liz Zepeda at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Zepeda.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
Number of responses per annum was based on a combination of data and estimates. Most, but not all, HUD programs complete their part 50 environmental reviews using the HUD Environmental Review Online System (HEROS). There were 1,565 part 50 environmental reviews completed in HEROS in calendar year 2017. HUD estimates that, with the additional part 50 environmental reviews completed outside of HEROS, roughly 1,800 part 50
This information collection may be completed by a number of different types of respondents, but most applicants hire a consultant to assist with this collection. Hourly cost per response based was on hourly mean wage of environmental engineers working in technical consulting services (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Comments Due Date: April 30, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Kevin Stevens, Director, Home Mortgage Insurance Division, HMID, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Kevin Stevens at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Christian Christoffers, Relocation Specialist, Relocation and Real Estate Division, CGHR, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, Southwest, Rm 7168, Washington DC 20410; email
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Harry Messner, Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Harry Messner at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-4500; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Thann Young, SHOP Program Manager, Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 7240, Washington, DC 20410-4500; telephone 202-402-4464 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The estimates of the average hours needed to prepare the information collection are based on information provided by previous applicants. Actual hours will vary depending on the proposed scope of the applicant's program, the applicant's geographic service area and the number of affiliate organizations. The information burden is generally greater for national organizations with numerous affiliates.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Comments Due Date: April 30, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development.
Notice; request for nominations.
The Board directs the Administration of the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development, including soliciting, accepting, and disposing of gifts, bequests, and other properties for the benefit of the Institute. The Institute provides scholarly study of and instruction in Indian art and culture, and establishes programs which culminate in the awarding of degrees in the various fields of Indian art and culture.
The Board consists of thirteen members appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the consent of the U.S. Senate, who are American Indians or persons knowledgeable in the field of Indian art and culture. This notice requests nominations to fill four expiring terms on the Board of Trustees.
Institute of American Indian Arts, 83 Avan Nu Po Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508.
Lawrence T. Mirabal, Chief Financial Officer, 505-424-2316.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are proposing to revise an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 30, 2018.
Send your comments on the information collection request (ICR) by mail to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Service; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Service enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Service minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your
The Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) (68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003) encourages the development of conservation agreements or plans and provides certainty about the standard that an individual conservation effort must meet in order for us to consider whether it is likely to make a difference in a species' status. PECE applies to “formalized conservation efforts” that have not been implemented or have been implemented but have not yet demonstrated if they are effective at the time of a listing decision.
Under PECE, formalized conservation efforts are defined as conservation efforts (specific actions, activities, or programs designed to eliminate or reduce threats or otherwise improve the status of a species) identified in a conservation agreement, conservation plan, management plan, or similar document. To assist us in evaluating a formalized conservation effort under PECE, we collect information such as conservation plans, monitoring results, and progress reports. The development of any agreement or plan is voluntary. There is no requirement that the individual conservation efforts included in such documents be designed to meet the standard in PECE. The PECE policy is posted on our Candidate Conservation website at
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 30, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Mr. Terrence Parks, telephone (202) 513-7625. You may also view the ICR at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BIA; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BIA enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BIA minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before February 10, 2018, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by March 15, 2018.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before February 10, 2018. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource:
Nomination submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and supports listing the property in the National Register of Historic Places.
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
National Park Service, Interior.
Public notice.
The National Park Service hereby gives public notice that it proposes to extend the expiring concession contracts listed in the tables below for the period specified, or until the effective date of a new contract, whichever occurs sooner. The National Park Service hereby gives public notice that it intends to award two temporary concession contracts as described below.
The extension commences on January 1, 2018.
Brian Borda, Program Chief, Commercial Services Program, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 2410, Washington, DC 20240, Telephone: 202-513-7156.
All of the concession contracts listed in the first two tables below will expire by their terms on or before December 31, 2018. The National Park Service has determined the proposed extensions and temporary contracts are necessary to avoid interruption of visitor services and has taken all reasonable and appropriate steps to consider alternatives to avoid such interruption. The publication of this notice merely reflects the intent of the National Park Service and does not bind the National Park Service to extend or award any of the contracts listed below.
The information in the first table shows concession contracts extended until December 31, 2018, or until the effective date of a new concession contract, whichever occurs first. The information in the second table shows concession contracts extended until the specific date shown in that table, or until the effective date of a new concession contract, whichever occurs first. Under the provisions of current concession contracts, the National Park Service authorizes extension of visitor services for the contracts below under the terms and conditions of the current contract (as amended if applicable). The extension of operations does not affect any rights with respect to selection for award of a new concession contract.
The information in the third table shows two concession contracts for
National Park Service, Interior.
Public notice.
Pursuant to the terms of existing concession contracts, public notice is hereby given that the National Park Service has requested a continuation of visitor services for the periods specified below.
The continuation commences on January 1, 2018.
Brian Borda, Chief, Commercial Services Program, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 2225, Washington, DC 20240, Telephone: 202-513-7156.
The contracts listed below have been extended to the maximum allowable under 36 CFR 51.23. Under the provisions of the respective concession contracts and pending the completion of the public solicitation of a prospectus for a new concession contract, the National Park Service authorizes continuation of visitor services for a period not-to-exceed 1 year commencing January 1, 2018, under the terms and conditions of the current contract as amended. The continuation of operations does not affect any rights with respect to selection for award of a new concession contract. The publication of this notice merely reflects the intent of the National Park Service but does not bind the National Park Service to continue any of the contracts listed below.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 30, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Anna Atkinson by email, or by telephone at 703-787-1025. You may also view the ICR at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
BOEM Response: Yes, they may be submitted separately from the application, but must be received before the permit will be issued. BOEM is open to discussions with IAGC on this topic.
However, for G&G permits in the Atlantic, the applicant must apply and receive an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) from NMFS before the permit will be issued. Because NMFS is an independent agency, with its own regulatory timelines, BOEM has no control over their processes and timelines.
BOEM Response: BOEM recognizes the commenter's concern regarding the burden hours associated with processing a permit application but the commenters did not provide specific estimates or information to justify modification of the burden hour estimates. BOEM is interested in specific estimates and recommendations to consider modification of the burden hours. Comments can be submitted to OMB within 30 days of the notice's publication.
Additionally, in accordance with the Trump Administration's executive and secretarial orders, most specifically Executive Order 13783 and Secretary's Order 3350, BOEM has been working with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to streamline processes and improve efficiencies.
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of BOEM? (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner? (3) is the estimate of burden accurate? (4) how might BOEM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? and (5) how might BOEM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology?
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Applicants for permits are required to submit Form BOEM-0327 to provide the information necessary to evaluate their qualifications, and upon approval, respondents are issued a permit.
The Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104-133, 110 Stat. 1321, April 26, 1996), and OMB Circular A-25 authorize Federal agencies to recover the full cost of services that confer special benefits. All G&G permits are subject to cost recovery, and BOEM regulations specify service fees for these requests.
Regulations to carry out these responsibilities are contained in 30 CFR part 551 and are the subject of this information collection renewal. BOEM uses the information to:
• Identify oil, gas, sulfur, and mineral resources in the OCS;
• Ensure the receipt of fair value for mineral resources;
• Ensure that the exploration activities do not cause harm to the environment or persons, or create unsafe operations and conditions, damage historical or archaeological sites, or interfere with other uses;
• Analyze and evaluate preliminary or planned drilling activities;
• Monitor progress and activities in the OCS;
• Acquire G&G data and information collected under a Federal permit offshore; and
• Determine eligibility for reimbursement from the government for certain costs.
In this renewal, BOEM is renewing Form BOEM-0327—Requirements for Geological or Geophysical Explorations or Scientific Research on the Outer Continental Shelf. This form consists of the requirements for G&G activities requiring Permits and Notices, along with the application that the respondent submits to BOEM for approval, as well as a nonexclusive use agreement for scientific research, if applicable. The requirements portion of the form lets the respondents know the authority and requirements, along with other relevant information for the permit. BOEM is making modifications to this form by adding OCS boundary/3-mile limit to plat information requirements.
To Attachment 1, Section A, BOEM modified item 6 to allow for the identification of vessel type in the event that the vessel name is unknown. To Attachment 1, Section C, item 2, BOEM added “e. Submit relevant shapefiles needed to recreate the map as part of the required digital copy.” On page 11, Section D, Proprietary Information Attachment Required for an Application for Geophysical Permit, item 3, BOEM added “ping duration/cycle”' and “ping rate” to the table and narrative.
Upon BOEM approval of the application, respondents are issued a permit using Form BOEM-0328, Permit to Conduct Geophysical Exploration for Mineral Resources or Scientific Research on the Outer Continental Shelf, for conducting geophysical exploration for mineral resources or scientific research, or Form BOEM-0329, Permit to Conduct Geological Exploration for Mineral Resources or Scientific Research on the Outer Continental Shelf, for conducting geological exploration for mineral resources or scientific research. These permits are filled in by BOEM and do not incur a respondent hour burden.
The currently approved OMB paperwork burden is 40,954 annual burden hours. Due to a reduction of G&G permit applications annually in the Gulf of Mexico, BOEM is decreasing the
We protect proprietary information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 522) and the Department of the Interior's implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulation at 30 CFR part 551.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), Interior.
Reopening and extension of the public comment period.
OSMRE and the co-lead agency on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), are allowing additional time for the public to submit comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the Western Energy Company's Rosebud Mine Area F (Project). We are reopening the comment period and will accept comments received from February 20, 2018 to March 5, 2018.
To ensure consideration in developing the EIS, we must receive your electronic or written comments on or before March 5, 2018.
The Draft EIS is available for review at:
Rosebud County Library, 201 North 9th Avenue, Forsyth, MT 59327, Between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday; 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Friday; 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Saturday (Closed Sunday).
Montana DEQ Headquarters (Lee Metcalf Building), 1520 East 6th Avenue, Helena, MT 59620, Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday (Closed Saturday and Sunday).
BLM Miles City Field Office, 111 Garryowen Road, Miles City, MT 59301, Between the hours of 7:45 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (Closed Saturday and Sunday).
BLM State Office, Billings, MT, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, MT 59101, Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday (Closed Saturday and Sunday).
Logan Sholar, OSMRE Project Coordinator; Telephone: 303-293-5036; Address: 1999 Broadway Street, Suite 3320, Denver, Colorado 80202-3050; email:
On January 3, 2018 (83 FR 393), we published a notice of availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS for the Western Energy Company's Rosebud Mine Area F (Project), and on January 5, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its NOA (83 FR 678). The NOA requested public comments on the content of the Draft EIS. In OSMRE's NOA, we established that the comment period would close 45 days after the date of publication of the EPA's NOA. The closing date of the public comment period for the NOA, which was published on January 5, 2018, was February 20, 2018. In response to requests for an extension of the comment period, we are reopening the comment period until March 5, 2018. Comments received between February 20, 2018, and March 5, 2018, will be accepted and reviewed.
The January 3, 2018, NOA identified the locations of repositories where the Draft EIS could be reviewed and provided instructions for submitting comments. To summarize, the Draft EIS analyzed the impacts of continued operations at the Rosebud Mine from permitting and developing a new surface mine permit area, known as permit Area F. Western Energy submitted a permit application to DEQ for the proposed 6,746-acre permit Area F (also referred to as the project area) at the Rosebud Mine, which is an existing 25,455-acre surface coal mine annually producing 8.0 to 10.25 million tons of low-sulfur subbituminous coal. If DEQ approves the permit and a Federal mining plan for the Project is approved as proposed, at the current rate of production, the operational life of the Rosebud Mine would be extended by 8 years. Mining operations in the project area, which would commence after all permits and approvals have been secured and a reclamation and performance bond has been posted, would last 19 years. Western Energy estimates that 70.8 million tons of recoverable coal reserves exist in the project area and would be removed during the 19-year operations period. As with other permit areas of the Rosebud Mine, all coal would be combusted locally at the Colstrip and Rosebud Power Plants.
You are invited to mail your comments on the Draft EIS to: ATTN: Western Energy Area F EIS C/O: Nicole Bauman, ERO Resources Corporation, 1842 Clarkson Street, Denver, CO 80218. You may also submit your comments electronically to
All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public review to the extent consistent with applicable law.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments may not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision.
If you would like to be placed on the mailing list to receive future information, please contact the person listed under
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.1.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to affirm under modified reasoning the ALJ's finding on the economic prong of the domestic industry. The Commission has also determined to issue a general exclusion order directed against infringing mobile device holders and components thereof, and has issued sixteen cease and desist orders against various defaulting respondents. The investigation is hereby terminated.
Amanda Pitcher Fisherow, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on November 14, 2016, based on a complaint and supplements, filed on behalf of Nite Ize, Inc. of Boulder, Colorado (“Nite Ize”). 81 FR 79519-20 (Nov. 14, 2016). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain mobile device holders and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,602,376 (“the '376 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,870,146 (“the '146 patent”), U.S. Patent No. D734,746 (“the '746 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. D719,959 (“the '959 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The Commission's notice of investigation named the following respondents: REXS, LLC (“REXS LLC”) of Lewes, Delaware; Spinido, Inc. of Brighton, Colorado; Guangzhou Kuaguoyi E-commerce Co., Ltd. d/b/a Kagu Culture (“Kagu Culture”) of Baiyum, China; Sunpauto Co., Ltd. (“Sunpauto”) of Kowloon, Hong Kong; Shenzhen Topworld Technology Co. d/b/a IdeaPro (“IdeaPro”) of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Ninghuaxian Wangfulong Chaojishichang Youxian Gongsi, Ltd., d/b/a EasybuyUS of Shanghai, China; Chang Lee d/b/a Frentaly of Duluth, Georgia; Trendbox USA LLC d/b/a Trendbox (“Trendbox”) of Scottsdale, Arizona; Tenswall d/b/a Shenzhen Tenswall International Trading Co. (“Tenswall”) of La Puente, California; Luo Jieqiong d/b/a Wekin (“Wekin”) of Chang Sha, China; Pecham d/b/a Baichen Technology Ltd. (“Pecham”) of Wan Chai, Hong Kong; Cyrift d/b/a Guangzhou Sunway E-Commerce LLC of Guangzhou, China; Rymemo d/b/a Global Box, LLC of Dunbar, Pennsylvania; Yuan I d/b/a Bestrix of Hubei, China; Zhongshan Feiyu Hardware Technology Co., Ltd d/b/a YouFo (“YouFo”) of ZhongShan City, China; and Shenzhen Youtai Trade Company Limited, d/b/a NoChoice; Luo, Qiben, d/b/a Lita International Shop of Nanshan; Shenzhen New Dream Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a Newdreams (“Newdreams”); Shenznen Gold South Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a Baidatong; Wang Zhi Gang d/b/a IceFox (“Icefox”); Dang Yuya d/b/a Sminiker; Lin Zhen Mei d/b/a Anson (“Anson”); Wu Xuying d/b/a Novoland (“Novoland”); Shenzhen New Dream Sailing Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a MegaDream; Tontek d/b/a Shenzhen Hetongtai Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Tontek”); Scotabc d/b/a ShenChuang Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.(“Scotabc”); Zhiping Zhou d/b/a Runshion (“Runshion”); Huijukon d/b/a Shenzhen Hui Ju Kang Technology Co. Ltd.; Barsone d/b/a Shenzhen Senweite Electronic Commerce Ltd.; Oumeiou d/b/a Shenzhen Oumeiou Technology Co., Ltd. (“Oumeiou”); Grando d/b/a Shenzhen Dashentai Network Technology Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Yingxue Technology Co., Ltd. (“Shenzhen Yingxue”); Shenzhen Longwang Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a LWANG (“LWANG”); Hu Peng d/b/a AtomBud; and Wang Guoxiang d/b/a Minse (“Minse”) all of Shenzhen, China. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was named as a party to the investigation.
Rymemo d/b/a Global Box, LLC and Chang Lee d/b/a Frentaly were terminated on the basis of a consent order. Commission Notice (March 21, 2017); Commission Notice (May 15, 2017). Barsone d/b/a Shenzhen Senweite Electronic Commerce Ltd., Shenzhen Youtai Trade Company Limited, d/b/a NoChoice, Ninghuaxian Wangfulong Chaojishichang Youxian Gongsi, Ltd., d/b/a EasybuyUS, Shenzhen Gold South Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a Baidatong, Cyrift d/b/a Guangzhou Sunway E-Commerce LLC, Hu Peng d/b/a AtomBud, Grando d/b/a Shenzhen Dashentai Network Technology Co., Ltd., Huijukon d/b/a Shenzhen Hui Ju Kang Technology Co. Ltd., Luo, Qiben, d/b/a Lita International Shop, Shenzhen New Dream Sailing Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a MegaDream, Spinido Inc., Dang Yuya d/b/a Sminiker, and Yuan I d/b/a Bestrix were terminated because service could not be effected. Commission Notice (June 13, 2017). The remaining respondents were previously found in default (collectively, “the Defaulting Respondents”). Commission Notice (May 26, 2017). In addition, the '746 and '959 patents were previously terminated from the investigation. Commission Notice (July 28, 2017).
On May 18, 2017, Nite Ize filed a Motion for Summary Determination of Violation by the Defaulting Respondents and for a Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding, Including Issuance of a General Exclusion Order, Limited Exclusion Orders (in the alternative), and Cease and Desist Orders. On June 16, 2017, the ALJ issued an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 14) granting in-part Nite Ize's motion for summary determination. The Commission determined not to review that ID. Commission Notice (July 14, 2017).
On September 12, 2017, the ALJ issued his final initial determination (“FID”) finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337. On the same day, the ALJ issued his Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding. No petitions for review of the FID were filed.
On November 13, 2017, the Commission determined to review the FID's findings on the economic prong of domestic industry and requested briefing on remedy, bonding, and the
Having examined the record of this investigation, the Commission has determined to affirm, under modified reasoning, the ALJ's finding with respect to the economic prong of the domestic industry.
The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief in this investigation is (a) a general exclusion order directed against products that infringe one or more of claims 1, 11, and 12 of the '376 patent and claims 1, 11, and 12 of the '146 patent; and (b) cease and desist orders prohibiting Trendbox, Tenswall, REXS LLC, Minse, IdeaPro, LWANG, Novoland, Oumeiou, Pecham, Runshion, Scotabc, Tontek, Wekin, Anson, Newdreams, and IceFox from importing, selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation), or soliciting U.S. agents or distributors of imported mobile device holders that infringe one or more of claims 1, 11, and 12 of the '376 patent and claims 1, 11, and 12 of the '146 patent. The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(d)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)) and in section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(l)) do not preclude the issuance of the general exclusion order and cease and desist orders, respectively. Finally, the Commission has determined that the bond for importation during the period of Presidential review shall be in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the imported subject articles of the respondents. The investigation is terminated.
The Commission's orders and opinion were delivered to the President and the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
By order of the Commission.
On February 15, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed a Complaint for civil penalties and injunctive relief alleging violations of Sections 301 and 311(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) arising out of the discharge of approximately 705 barrels of jet fuel from a pipeline near Palos Park, Cook County, Illinois. The United States' Complaint names as defendants Buckeye Pipe Line Company, L.C., the operator of the pipeline, and West Shore Pipe Line Company, the owner of the pipeline. Both defendants signed the proposed Consent Decree to resolve these claims, agreeing to pay a total of $400,000 in civil penalties and to maintain improvements made to prevent future discharges. Specifically, defendants have improved Control Center diagrams and operating procedures and have agreed to train all relevant personnel on these improvements. Defendants have also agreed to annually report on further improvements, corrective actions taken on the relevant pipeline, individuals trained and all releases reported to the National Response Center.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
We will provide a paper copy of the proposed Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ-ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
Please enclose a check or money order for $4.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, the 190th open meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans (also known as the ERISA Advisory Council) will be held on March 27, 2018.
The meeting will take place in C5515 Rm. 2, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210 from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 3:00 p.m. The purpose of the open meeting is to set and discuss the topics to be addressed by the Council in 2018.
Organizations or members of the public wishing to submit a written statement may do so by submitting 30 copies on or before March 20, 2018 to Larry Good, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Labor, Suite N-5623, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Statements also may be submitted as email attachments in text or pdf format transmitted to
Individuals or representatives of organizations wishing to address the Advisory Council should forward their requests to the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 693-8668. Oral presentations will be limited to ten
Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation for the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice, request for comments on this collection of information.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This pre-clearance consultation program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. By this notice, IMLS is soliciting comments concerning a plan to continue the IMLS Grants to States Program “State Program Reporting System (SPR)” electronic data collection which supports both the financial and performance reporting for all grantees.
A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before April 27, 2018.
IMLS is particularly interested in comments that help the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology,
Send comments to: Dr. Sandra Webb, Director, Office of Grant Policy and Management, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North, SW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024-2135. Dr. Webb can be reached by Telephone: 202-653-4718 Fax: 202-653-4608, or by email at
The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the nation's approximately 120,000 libraries and 35,000 museums and related organizations. Our mission is to inspire libraries and museums to advance innovation, lifelong learning, and cultural and civic engagement. Our grant making, policy development, and research help libraries and museums deliver valuable services that make it possible for communities and individuals to thrive. To learn more, visit
This action is to renew the forms and instructions for the IMLS Grants to States Program “State Program Reporting System” for the next three years. These forms include:
• SPR Reporting System User Documentation
• Grants to States Program Report
• Financial Status Report
• SPR Phase 3 Reporting
• State Legal Officer's Certification of the Authorized Certifying Official
• Internet Safety Certification for Applicant Public Libraries, Public Elementary and Secondary School Libraries, and Consortia with Public and/or Public School Libraries
The Grants to States program is the largest source of Federal funding support for library services in the U.S. Using a population based formula, more than $150 million is distributed among the State Library Administrative Agencies (SLAAs) every year. SLAAs are official agencies charged by law with the extension and development of library services, and they are located in:
• Each of the 50 States of the United States, and the District of Columbia;
• The Territories (the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands); and
• The Freely Associated States (the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau).
Each year, over 1,500 Grants to States projects support the purposes and priorities outlined in the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA). (See 20 U.S.C. 9121
Each SLAA must file interim and final financial reports, as well as final performance reports for each of these two year grants. Since 2002, the final performance reporting has been accomplished through IMLS' State Program Reporting (SPR) system. To improve how IMLS measures the impact of the Federal investment in the Grants to States program, IMLS and SLAAs have been partnering on a comprehensive planning and evaluation initiative called “Measuring Success.” This multi-year effort has fundamentally shifted the way in which Grants to States final report information is gathered and shared, and it is improving program accountability, reporting, evaluation, and assessment. The SPR has been developed in phases, in concert with a small group of SLAAs acting as pilots for each phase. Roughly, these phases corresponded to: Framework and question development;
The SPR development was guided by a data reporting and collection framework that balances the need for descriptive information to monitor compliance with award conditions with the need for data on performance measures to assess the impact of the public funds. By gathering project data more consistently, IMLS is better able to compare projects within and across states and demonstrate the impact of public funds on library services. States are also able to share information about their projects both within the library community and with the public at large.
Dr. Sandra Webb, Director, Grant Policy and Management, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North, SW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024-2135. Dr. Webb can be reached by Telephone: 202-653-4718 Fax: 202-653-4608, or by email at
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St. NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Mr. Ranesh Ramanathan, Esq., General Counsel, Bain Capital Credit, LP, 200 Clarendon Street, 37th Floor, Boston, MA, 02116; Mr. Howard S. Hirsch, Esq., Vice President and Secretary, Griffin Capital Credit Advisor, LLC, Griffin Capital Plaza, 1520 E. Grand Avenue, El Segundo, CA 90245.
Elizabeth G. Miller, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-8707 or Holly Hunter-Ceci, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment Management).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. BCSF is a Delaware corporation organized as a closed-end management investment company that has elected to be regulated as a BDC under Section 54(a) of the Act.
2. GIACF is a Delaware statutory trust organized as a closed-end investment management company that has elected to operate as an interval fund pursuant to Rule 23c-3 under the Act. GIACF's Objectives and Strategies are to generate a return comprised of both current income and capital appreciation with an emphasis on current income with low volatility and low correlation to the broader markets. GIACF pursues its investment objective by investing primarily in secured debt (including senior secured, unitranche and second lien debt) and unsecured debt (including senior unsecured and subordinated debt) issued by private or public U.S. companies. GIACF's portfolio will consist of a core of syndicated high yield bonds and bank loans.
3. The board of directors of each of BCSF and GIACF (the “Board”)
4. BCSFA is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). BCSFA serves as investment adviser to BCSF and sub-adviser to GIACF. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bain.
5. Griffin is registered an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. Griffin serves as investment adviser to GIACF. Griffin is an indirect majority-owned subsidiary of Griffin Capital Company, LLC.
6. Bain is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. Bain serves as investment adviser to certain Existing Affiliated Funds and either it or another Bain Adviser will serve as the investment adviser to any Future Affiliated Funds (defined below).
7. Bain Capital Credit (Australia), Pty. Ltd., an Australian proprietary company formed in 2012, is authorized and regulated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bain.
8. Bain Capital Investments (Europe), Limited, a United Kingdom private limited company formed in 2014, and Bain Capital Credit, Ltd., a United Kingdom private limited company formed in 2005, are authorized and regulated by the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority. Bain Capital Investments (Europe) Limited is a subsidiary of Bain Capital, LP. Bain Capital Credit, Ltd. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bain.
9. Bain Capital Credit Asia, LLC is a limited liability company organized in the State of Delaware in 2014 that has been registered in Hong Kong under the Hong Kong Companies Ordinance. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bain.
10. Bain Capital Credit CLO Advisors, LP is a limited partnership organized in the State of Delaware and is registered with the Commission under the Advisers Act. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bain.
11. Applicants state that the Bain Advisers and the Griffin Advisers are not affiliated persons, or affiliated persons of affiliated persons (as defined in the Act), except for the affiliation that arises as a result of serving as the advisers of any Regulated Fund that is advised by a Griffin Adviser and sub-advised by a Bain Adviser.
12. As Bain Capital, LP controls Bain, and will control any other Bain Adviser, it may be deemed to control the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Funds. Applicants state that Bain Capital, LP is a holding company and does not currently offer investment advisory services to any person and is not expected to do so in the future. Applicants state that as a result, Bain Capital, LP has not been included as an Applicant.
13. Applicants seek an order (“Order”) to permit a Regulated Fund
The term “Adviser” means any Bain Adviser or Griffin Adviser. The term “Bain Adviser” means any Existing Bain Adviser and any future investment adviser that (i) controls, is controlled by or is under common control with Bain Capital, LP, and (ii) is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act and (iii) is not a Regulated Fund or a subsidiary of a Regulated Fund.
14. Applicants state that a Regulated Fund may, from time to time, form one or more Wholly-Owned Investment Subs.
15. Applicants note that Griffin is responsible for the overall management of GIACF's activities, and BCSFA is responsible for the day-to-day management of GIACF's investment portfolio, in each case consistent with their fiduciary duties. A Griffin Adviser will serve as the investment adviser to any Regulated Fund with a Bain Adviser as its sub-adviser. In the case of a Regulated Fund with a Bain Adviser as sub-adviser, the Bain Adviser will identify and recommend the Potential Co-Investment Transactions for the Regulated Fund, and the applicable sub-advisory agreement will require the Bain Adviser to present such Potential Co-Investment Transaction to the applicable Griffin Adviser, which will have the authority to approve or reject it for the Regulated Fund.
16. When considering Potential Co-Investment Transactions for any Regulated Fund, the applicable Adviser will consider only the Objectives and Strategies, investment policies, investment positions, capital available for investment, and other pertinent factors applicable to that Regulated Fund. The Regulated Fund Advisers expect that any portfolio company that is an appropriate investment for a Regulated Fund should also be an appropriate investment for one or more other Regulated Funds and/or one or more Affiliated Funds, with certain exceptions based on available capital or diversification.
17. Other than pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments as provided in conditions 7 and 8, and after making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the Advisers will present each Potential Co-Investment Transaction and the proposed allocation to the directors of the Board eligible to vote under section 57(o) of the Act (“Eligible Directors”), and the “required majority,” as defined in section 57(o) of the Act (“Required Majority”)
18. Applicants state that a Bain Adviser has an investment committee through which it will carry out its obligation under condition 1 to make a determination as to the appropriateness of the Potential Co-Investment Transaction for any Regulated Fund. Applicants represent that in the case of a Potential Co-Investment Transaction, the Bain Adviser would apply its allocation policies and procedures in determining the proposed allocation for the Regulated Fund consistent with the requirements of condition 2(a). Applicants further note that each Griffin Adviser and Bain Adviser has adopted its own allocation policies and procedures that take into account the allocation policies and procedures for the Regulated Funds. Applicants believe that while each Bain Adviser client may not participate in each investment opportunity, over time each Bain Adviser client would participate in investment opportunities fairly and equitably.
19. With respect to the pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments provided in conditions 7 and 8, a Regulated Fund may participate in a pro rata disposition or Follow-On Investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if, among other things: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund in such disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition or Follow-On Investment, as the case may be; and (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved that Regulated Fund's participation in pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund. If the Board does not so approve, any such disposition or Follow-On Investment will be submitted to the Regulated Fund's Eligible Directors. The
20. No Non-Interested Director of a Regulated Fund will have a financial interest in any Co-Investment Transaction, other than through share ownership in one of the Regulated Funds.
1. Section 57(a)(4) of the Act prohibits certain affiliated persons of a BDC from participating in joint transactions with the BDC or a company controlled by a BDC in contravention of rules as prescribed by the Commission. Under section 57(b)(2) of the Act, any person who is directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with a BDC is subject to section 57(a)(4). Applicants submit that each of the Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds be deemed to be a person related to each Regulated Fund in a manner described by section 57(b) by virtue of being under common control. In addition, section 57(b) applies to any investment adviser to a Regulated Fund that is a BDC and to any section 2(a)(3)(C) affiliates of the investment adviser, including GIACF and the Affiliated Funds. Section 57(i) of the Act provides that, until the Commission prescribes rules under section 57(a)(4), the Commission's rules under section 17(d) of the Act applicable to registered closed-end investment companies will be deemed to apply to transactions subject to section 57(a)(4). Because the Commission has not adopted any rules under section 57(a)(4), rule 17d-1 also applies to joint transactions with Regulated Funds that are BDCs. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act are applicable to Regulated Funds that are registered closed-end investment companies.
2. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit affiliated persons of a registered investment company from participating in joint transactions with the company unless the Commission has granted an order permitting such transactions. In passing upon applications under rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the company's participation in the joint transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
3. Applicants state that in the absence of the requested relief, the Regulated Funds would be, in some circumstances, limited in their ability to participate in attractive and appropriate investment opportunities. Applicants believe that the proposed terms and conditions will ensure that the Co-Investment Transactions are consistent with the protection of each Regulated Fund's shareholders and with the purposes intended by the policies and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that the Regulated Funds' participation in the Co-Investment Transactions will be consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and on a basis that is not different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
4. Applicants also represent that if the Advisers, certain employees and principals of Bain and its affiliated advisers (collectively, the “Principals”), any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Advisers or the Principals, and the Affiliated Funds (collectively, the “Holders”) own in the aggregate more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting securities of a Regulated Fund (“Shares”), then the Holders will vote such Shares as required under Condition 14. Applicants believe that this condition will ensure that the Non-Interested Directors will act independently in evaluating the Co-Investment Program, because the ability of the Advisers or the Principals to influence the Non-Interested Directors by a suggestion, explicit or implied, that the Non-Interested Directors can be removed will be limited significantly. Applicants represent that the Non-Interested Directors will evaluate and approve any such independent party, taking into account its qualifications, reputation for independence, cost to the shareholders, and other factors that they deem relevant.
Applicants agree that the Order will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Each time a Bain Adviser considers a Potential Co-Investment Transaction for an Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Fund that falls within a Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies, each Adviser to a Regulated Fund will make an independent determination of the appropriateness of the investment for such Regulated Fund in light of the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances.
2. (a) If each Adviser to a Regulated Fund deems the Regulated Fund's participation in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for the Regulated Fund, the Adviser (or Advisers if there are more than one) will then determine an appropriate level of investment for the Regulated Fund.
(b) If the aggregate amount recommended by the Adviser (or Advisers if there are more than one) to a Regulated Fund to be invested by the Regulated Fund in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the other participating Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds, collectively, in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, the amount of the investment opportunity will be allocated among the Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds pro rata based on each participant's capital available for investment in the asset class being allocated, up to the amount proposed to be invested by each. The Adviser (or Advisers if there are more than one) to a Regulated Fund will provide the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated Fund with information concerning each participating party's available capital to assist the Eligible Directors with their review of the Regulated Fund's investments for compliance with these allocation procedures.
(c) After making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a)above, the Adviser to the Regulated Fund (or Advisers if there are more than one) will distribute written information concerning the Potential Co-Investment Transaction (including the amount proposed to be invested by each participating Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund) to the Eligible Directors for their consideration. A Regulated Fund will co-invest with one or more other Regulated Funds and/or one or more Affiliated Funds only if, prior to the Regulated Funds' and Affiliated Funds' participation in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, a Required Majority concludes that:
(i) The terms of the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Fund and its shareholders and do not involve overreaching in respect of the Regulated Fund or its shareholders on the part of any person concerned;
(ii) the Potential Co-Investment Transaction is consistent with:
(A) The interests of the Regulated Fund's shareholders; and
(B) the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies;
(iii) the investment by any other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds would not disadvantage the Regulated
(A) The Eligible Directors will have the right to ratify the selection of such director or board observer, if any;
(B) the Adviser to the Regulated Fund (or Advisers if there are more than one) agrees to, and does, provide periodic reports to the Regulated Fund's Board with respect to the actions of such director or the information received by such board observer or obtained through the exercise of any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company; and
(C) any fees or other compensation that any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund or any affiliated person of any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund receives in connection with the right of an Affiliated Fund or a Regulated Fund to nominate a director or appoint a board observer or otherwise to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will be shared proportionately among the participating Affiliated Funds (who each may, in turn, share its portion with its affiliated persons) and the participating Regulated Funds in accordance with the amount of each party's investment; and
(iv) the proposed investment by the Regulated Fund will not benefit the Adviser to the Regulated Fund (or Advisers if there are more than one), the Affiliated Funds or the other Regulated Funds or any affiliated person of any of them (other than the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction), except (A) to the extent permitted by condition 13, (B) to the extent permitted by sections 17(e) or 57(k) of the Act, as applicable, (C) indirectly, as a result of an interest in the securities issued by one of the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction, or (D) in the case of fees or other compensation described in condition 2(c)(iii)(C).
3. Each Regulated Fund has the right to decline to participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction or to invest less than the amount proposed.
4. The Adviser to the Regulated Fund (or Advisers if there are more than one) will present to the Board of each Regulated Fund, on a quarterly basis, a record of all investments in Potential Co-Investment Transactions made by any of the other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds during the preceding quarter that fell within the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies that were not made available to the Regulated Fund, and an explanation of why the investment opportunities were not offered to the Regulated Fund. All information presented to the Board pursuant to this condition will be kept for the life of the Regulated Fund and at least two years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
5. Except for Follow-On Investments made in accordance with condition 8,
6. A Regulated Fund will not participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction unless the terms, conditions, price, class of securities to be purchased, settlement date, and registration rights will be the same for each participating Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund. The grant to an Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Fund, but not the Regulated Fund, of the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have an observer on the board of directors or similar rights to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will not be interpreted so as to violate this condition 6, if conditions 2(c)(iii)(A), (B) and (C) are met.
7. (a) If any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund elects to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of an interest in a security that was acquired by one or more Regulated Funds and/or Affiliated Funds in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Adviser(s) will:
(i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed disposition at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to participation by the Regulated Fund in the disposition.
(b) Each Regulated Fund will have the right to participate in such disposition on a proportionate basis, at the same price and on the same terms and conditions as those applicable to the participating Affiliated Funds and any other Regulated Fund.
(c) A Regulated Fund may participate in such disposition without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund in such disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition; (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in such dispositions on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application); and (iii) the Board of the Regulated Fund is provided on a quarterly basis with a list of all dispositions made in accordance with this condition. In all other cases, the Adviser to the Regulated Fund (or Advisers if there are more than one) will provide their written recommendation as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Eligible Directors, and the Regulated Fund will participate in such disposition solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
(d) Each Affiliated Fund and each Regulated Fund will bear its own expenses in connection with any such disposition.
8. (a) If any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund desires to make a Follow-On Investment in a portfolio company whose securities were acquired by the Regulated Fund and the Affiliated Fund in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Adviser(s) will:
(i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed transaction at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed Follow-On Investment, by each Regulated Fund.
(b) A Regulated Fund may participate in such Follow-On Investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in Follow-On Investments on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application). In all other cases, the
(c) If, with respect to any Follow-On Investment:
(i) The amount of the opportunity is not based on the Regulated Funds' and the Affiliated Funds' outstanding investments immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the Adviser (or Advisers if there are more than one) to a Regulated Fund to be invested by the Regulated Fund in the Follow-On Investment, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the other participating Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Funds in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the opportunity; then the amount invested by each such party will be allocated among them pro rata based on each participant's capital available for investment in the asset class being allocated, up to the amount proposed to be invested by each.
(d) The acquisition of Follow-On Investments as permitted by this condition will be considered a Co-Investment Transaction for all purposes and subject to the other conditions set forth in the application.
9. The Non-Interested Directors of each Regulated Fund will be provided quarterly for review all information concerning Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions, including investments made by other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds that a Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, so that the Non-Interested Directors may determine whether all investments made during the preceding quarter, including those investments that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, comply with the conditions of the Order. In addition, the Non-Interested Directors will consider at least annually the continued appropriateness for such Regulated Fund of participating in new and existing Co-Investment Transactions.
10. Each Regulated Fund will maintain the records required by section 57(f)(3) of the Act as if each of the Regulated Funds were a BDC and each of the investments permitted under these conditions were approved by the Required Majority under section 57(f) of the Act.
11. No Non-Interested Director of a Regulated Fund will also be a director, general partner, managing member or principal, or otherwise an “affiliated person” (as defined in the Act), of any Affiliated Fund.
12. The expenses, if any, associated with acquiring, holding or disposing of any securities acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction (including, without limitation, the expenses of the distribution of any such securities registered for sale under the Securities Act) will, to the extent not payable by the applicable Adviser(s) under their respective investment advisory agreements with the Affiliated Funds and the Regulated Funds, be shared by the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Funds in proportion to the relative amounts of the securities held or to be acquired or disposed of, as the case may be.
13. Any transaction fee
14. If the Holders own in the aggregate more than 25 percent of the Shares of a Regulated Fund, then the Holders will vote such Shares as directed by an independent third party when voting on (1) the election of directors; (2) the removal of one or more directors; or (3) any other matter under either the Act or applicable State law affecting the Board's composition, size or manner of election.
15. Each Regulated Fund's chief compliance officer, as defined in rule 38a-1(a)(4), will prepare an annual report for its Board each year that evaluates (and documents the basis of that evaluation) the Regulated Fund's compliance with the terms and conditions of the application and the procedures established to achieve such compliance.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On December 21, 2017, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. 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 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 the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of February 2018. A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Bradley Gude, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-5590 or Chief Counsel's Office at (202) 551-6821; SEC, Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8010.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 5, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) 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
Accordingly, the Commission, 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 Exchange proposes to list and trade, under Nasdaq Rule 5705, the shares (“Index Fund Shares” or “Shares”) of the Horizons Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF (the “Fund”), a series of the Horizons ETF Trust I (the “Trust”).
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 list and trade the Shares of the Fund under Rule 5705, which rule governs the listing and trading of Index Fund Shares
Horizons ETF Management (US), LLC will serve as the investment adviser (the “Adviser”) to the Fund. Foreside Fund Services, LLC will serve as the principal underwriter and distributor of the Fund's Shares (the “Distributor”). U.S. Bank National Association will act as the custodian for the Fund (the “Custodian”). U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC will serve as the administrator, transfer agent and fund accounting agent for the Fund (the “Administrator”).
The Benchmark Index was developed by and is maintained by FTSE International Limited and Frank Russell Company (the “Index Provider”).
Nasdaq Rule 5705(b)(5)(A)(i) provides that, if an index is maintained by a broker-dealer or fund adviser, the broker-dealer or fund adviser shall erect a “fire wall” around the personnel who have to access to information concerning changes and adjustments to the index. In addition, Nasdaq Rule 5705(b)(5)(A)(iii) further requires that any advisory committee, supervisory board, or similar entity that advises a Reporting Authority or that makes decisions on index composition, methodology and related matters, must implement and maintain, or be subject to, procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the applicable index.
The Adviser is not a broker-dealer; however, it is affiliated with two broker-dealers. The Adviser represents that a fire wall exists around the respective personnel at the Adviser and affiliated broker-dealers who have access to information concerning changes and adjustments to the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio. In addition, and in accordance with Nasdaq Rule 5705(b)(5)(a)(iii), such personnel will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the Fund's portfolio.
The Index Provider is not a broker-dealer and it is not affiliated with a broker-dealer. The Index Provider has represented that a fire wall exists around its personnel who have access to information concerning changes and adjustments to the Benchmark Index. In addition, and in accordance with Nasdaq Rule 5705(b)(5)(A)(iii), such personnel will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the Benchmark Index. The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”) is the index calculation agent for the Benchmark Index. CBOE has represented that a fire wall exists around its personnel who have access to information concerning changes and adjustments to the Benchmark Index. In addition, such personnel will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the Benchmark Index.
The Exchange represents that in the event (a) the Adviser, any sub-adviser, or the Index Provider becomes registered as a broker-dealer or is newly affiliated with a broker dealer, or (b) any new adviser, sub-adviser, or Index Provider is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with a broker dealer, then the Adviser, sub-adviser or Index Provider will implement a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel or such broker dealer affiliate, as applicable, regarding access to information concerning the composition or changes to the portfolio or concerning changes and adjustments to the Benchmark Index and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, nonpublic information regarding the Fund's portfolio. The Fund does not currently intend to use a sub-adviser.
The Fund's investment objective is to seek to track the investment results that correspond (before fees and expenses) generally to the performance of the Benchmark Index provided by the Index Provider. The Fund will pursue its objective by investing at least 80% of its total assets in all of the equity securities in the Russell 2000 Index and a single written one-month out-of-the-money covered call option on the Russell 2000 Index. The market value of the option strategy may be up to 20% of the Fund's overall net asset value. The market value of the call options included in the Benchmark Index will not represent more than 10% of the total weight of the Benchmark Index. The component securities of the Benchmark Index meet all requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5705(b)(3)(A)(i) except that the Benchmark Index includes call options, which are not NMS Stocks as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS. In pursuing its investment objective, under normal market conditions,
The Benchmark Index is a benchmark index that measures the performance of
Because a covered call strategy generates income in the form of premiums on the written call options, the Benchmark Index is generally expected to provide higher total returns with lower volatility than the Russell 2000 Index in most market environments, with the exception of when the equity market is rallying rapidly. Each single call option in the Benchmark Index will be traded on national securities exchanges, such as the CBOE. As of October 31, 2017, the Russell 2000 Index included common stocks of 1984 companies, with an average market capitalization of approximately $2.3 billion.
The Fund will generally use a replication methodology, meaning it will invest in all of the securities and the call option comprising the Benchmark Index in proportion to the weightings in Benchmark Index. However, the Fund may, from time-to-time, utilize a sampling methodology under various circumstances where it may not be possible or practicable to purchase all of the equity securities comprising the Benchmark Index.
The equity securities in which the Fund will invest and the option that the Fund will write will be limited to U.S. exchange-traded securities and call options, respectively. They will trade in markets that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), which includes all U.S. national securities exchanges and certain foreign exchanges, or they will be parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange. A list of ISG members is available at
The equity securities held by the Fund will be rebalanced quarterly. The call option portion of the portfolio will consist of a single U.S. exchange-traded one-month covered call on the Russell 2000 Index that is written by the Fund slightly out-of-the-money. A call option will give the holder the right to buy the securities underlying the call options written at a predetermined strike price from the Fund. The notional value of the covered call options written (including financial instruments described in Other Investments below) will be generally be 100% of the overall Fund.
The Fund will utilize options in accordance with Rule 4.5 of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). The Trust, on behalf of the Fund, has filed a notice of eligibility for exclusion from the definition of the term “commodity pool operator” in accordance with Rule 4.5 so that the Fund is not subject to registration or regulation as a commodity pool operator under the CEA.
The Fund may invest no more than 20% of its net assets in the instruments described below.
The Fund may invest in ETFs, which shall be registered as investment companies under the 1940 Act and trade on a U.S. national securities exchange. The Fund may also buy and sell individual large capitalization equity securities that do not comprise the Russell 2000 Index and are traded on a U.S. national securities exchange.
The Fund may invest in U.S. exchange-listed futures contracts based on (1) the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index and (2) ETFs designed to track the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index. In addition, the Fund may invest in forward contracts based on (1) the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index and (2) ETFs designed to track the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index. The Fund may also buy and sell OTC options on (1) the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index and (2) ETFs designed to track the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index. Moreover, the Fund may enter into dividend and total return swap transactions (including equity swap transactions) based on (1) the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index and (2) ETFs designed to track the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index.
The Fund's short positions and its investments in swaps, futures contracts, forward contracts and options based on the Benchmark Index and Russell 2000 Index and ETFs designed to track the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index will be backed by investments in cash, high-quality short-term debt securities and money-market instruments in an amount equal to the Fund's maximum liability under the applicable position or contract, or will otherwise be offset in accordance with Section 18 of the 1940 Act.
The Fund will attempt to limit counterparty risk in non-cleared swaps, forwards, and OTC option contracts by entering into such contracts only with counterparties the Adviser believes are creditworthy and by limiting the Fund's exposure to each counterparty. The Adviser will monitor the creditworthiness of each counterparty and the Fund's exposure to each counterparty on an ongoing basis.
The Fund may invest in short-term debt securities, money market instruments and shares of money market funds to the extent permitted under the 1940 Act. Short-term debt securities and money market instruments include shares of fixed income or money market mutual funds, commercial paper, certificates of deposit, bankers' acceptances, U.S. government securities (including securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government or its authorities, agencies, or instrumentalities) and, repurchase agreements.
The Fund's investments that it describes above in this section will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and with the requirements of the 1940 Act.
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities (calculated at the time of investment). The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid securities. Illiquid securities include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets, as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.
The Fund will not invest in assets that are not described in this proposed rule change.
The Fund seeks to track the Benchmark Index, which itself may have concentration in certain regions, economies, markets, industries or sectors. The Fund may concentrate its investments in a particular industry or group of industries to the extent that the Russell 2000 Index concentrates in an industry or group of industries.
The Fund will issue and redeem Shares only in Creation Units at the net asset value (“NAV”)
The consideration for purchase of a Creation Unit generally will consist of either (i) the in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of securities (the “Deposit Securities”) per each Creation Unit and the Cash Component (defined below), computed as described below or (ii) the cash value of all or a portion of the Deposit Securities (“Deposit Cash”) and the “Cash Component,” computed as described below. The Fund may, under certain circumstances, effect a portion of creations and redemptions for cash, rather than in-kind securities, particularly for the put and call options in which the Fund invests.
When accepting purchases of Creation Units for cash, the Fund may incur additional costs associated with the acquisition of Deposit Securities that would otherwise be provided by an in-kind purchaser. Together, the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable, and the Cash Component will constitute the “Fund Deposit,” which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit of the Fund. The “Cash Component” will be an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares (per Creation Unit) and the market value of the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable. If the Cash Component is a positive number (
To be eligible to place orders with respect to creations and redemptions of Creation Units, an entity must be (i) a “Participating Party,”
The Administrator, through the NSCC, will make available on each business day, immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange's Regular Market Session (currently 9:30 a.m. Eastern time), the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security and/or the required amount of Deposit Cash, as applicable, to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous business day). Such Fund Deposit, subject to any relevant adjustments, will be applicable in order to effect purchases of Creation Units of the Fund until such time as the next announced composition of the Deposit Securities and/or the required amount of Deposit Cash, as applicable, is made available.
Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by the Fund through the Administrator and only on a business day.
With respect to the Fund, the Administrator, through the NSCC, will make available immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (9:30 a.m. Eastern time) on each business day, the list of the names and share quantities of the Fund's portfolio securities (“Fund Securities”) and/or, if relevant, the required cash value thereof that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form on that day. Fund Securities received on redemption may not be identical to Deposit Securities.
Redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit will be paid either in-kind or in cash or a combination thereof, as determined by the Trust. With respect to in-kind redemptions of the Fund, redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit will consist of Fund Securities as announced by the Administrator on the business day of the request for redemption received in proper form plus cash in an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after a receipt of a request in proper form, and the value of the Fund Securities (the “Cash Redemption Amount”), less a fixed redemption transaction fee and any applicable additional variable charge as set forth in the Registration Statement. In the event that the Fund Securities have a value greater than the NAV of the Shares, a compensating cash payment equal to the differential will be required to be made by or through an Authorized Participant by the redeeming shareholder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at the Trust's discretion, an Authorized Participant may receive the corresponding cash value of the securities in lieu of one or more Fund Securities.
The creation/redemption order cut off time for the Fund is expected to be 4:00 p.m. Eastern time for purchases of Shares. On days when the Exchange closes earlier than normal and in the case of custom orders, the Fund may require orders for Creation Units to be placed earlier in the day.
The Fund's website (
On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Regular Market Session
On a daily basis, the Fund will disclose on the Fund's website the following information regarding each portfolio holding, as applicable to the type of holding: Ticker symbol; CUSIP number or other identifier, if any; a description of the holding (including the type of holding); with respect to holdings in derivatives, the identity of the security, index, or other asset upon which the derivative is based; for options, the option strike price, quantity held (as measured by, for example, par value, notional value or number of shares, contracts or units), and expiration of call option; maturity date, if any; coupon rate; if any; effective date, if any; market value of the holding; percentage weighting of the holding in the Fund's portfolio; and cash equivalents and the amount of cash held. The website information will be publicly available at no charge. In addition, the Disclosed Portfolio will be publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of Nasdaq, via NSCC. The basket will represent one Creation Unit of the Fund.
The quotation and last-sale information for the Shares will be available via Nasdaq proprietary quote and trade services, as well as in accordance with the Unlisted Trading Privileges and the Consolidated Tape Association plans for the Shares held by the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day. The value of the Benchmark Index will be published by one or more major market data vendors every 15 seconds during the Regular Market Session. Information about the Benchmark Index constituents, the weighting of the constituents, the Benchmark Index's methodology, and the Benchmark Index's rules will be available at no charge on the Index Provider's website at
In addition, for the Fund, an estimated value, defined in Rule 5705(b)(3)(C) as the “Intraday Indicative Value,” that reflects an estimated intraday value of the Fund's portfolio, will be disseminated. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value, available on the NASDAQ Information LLC proprietary index data service,
The dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value, together with the Disclosed Portfolio, will allow investors to determine the value of the underlying portfolio of the Fund on a daily basis and will provide a close estimate of that value throughout the trading day.
Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. The Fund's website will include a form of the prospectus for the Fund that may be downloaded and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information.
Investors will also be able to obtain the Fund's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), the Fund's annual and semi-annual reports (together, “Shareholder Reports”), and its Form N-CSR and Form N-SAR, filed twice a year. The Fund's SAI and Shareholder Reports will be available free upon request from the Fund, and those documents and the Form N-CSR and Form N-SAR may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's website at
With respect to the securities and other assets held by the Fund, the Intra-day, executable price quotations on such securities will be available from major broker-dealer firms or on the exchange on which they are traded, as applicable. Intra-day price information will also be available through subscription services, such as Bloomberg, Markit and Thomson Reuters, which can be accessed by Authorized Participants and other investors. Specifically, the intra-day, closing and settlement prices of the portfolio securities and other Fund investments, including exchange-listed equity securities (which include common stocks and ETFs), exchange-listed futures, and exchange-listed options, will be readily available from the national securities exchanges trading such securities, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, and, with respect to OTC options, swaps, and forwards, from third party pricing sources, or on-line information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. Price information regarding ETFs will be available from on-line information services and from the website for the applicable investment company security. The intra-day, closing and settlement prices of short-term debt securities and money market instruments will be readily available from published and other public sources or on-line information services.
Money market funds are typically priced once each business day and their prices will be available through the applicable fund's website or from major market data vendors.
In addition, a basket composition file, which includes the asset names, amounts and share quantities, as applicable, required to be delivered in exchange for the Fund's Shares, together with estimates and actual cash components, will be publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of Nasdaq, via NSCC. The basket will represent one Creation Unit of the Fund.
Additional information regarding the Fund and the Shares, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, Fund holdings disclosure policies, distributions and taxes is included in the Registration Statement. All terms relating to the Fund that are referred to, but not defined in, this proposed rule change are defined in the Registration Statement.
The Shares will be subject to Rule 5705, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Index Fund Shares. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund. Nasdaq will halt or pause trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121, including the trading pauses under Nasdaq Rules 4120(a)(11) and (12). Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities and/or the financial instruments constituting the Disclosed Portfolio of the Fund; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares also will be subject to Nasdaq Rules 5705(b)(1)(B)(iv), which set forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted.
If the Intraday Indicative Value, the Benchmark Index value or the value of the Disclosed Portfolio is not being disseminated as required, the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the disruption occurs; if the interruption persists past the day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the Fund that the NAV for the Fund will be calculated daily and will be made available to all market participants at the same time.
Nasdaq deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to Nasdaq's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Nasdaq will allow trading in the Shares from 4:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. Eastern time. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions As provided in Nasdaq Rule 4613(a)(2)(ii), the minimum price variation for quoting and entry of orders in Index Fund Shares traded on the Exchange is $0.01.
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and also the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, in the equity securities in which the Fund will invest, and in the U.S. exchange-traded options and futures which the Fund will buy and write with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) Nasdaq Rule 2111A, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (3) how information regarding the Benchmark Index value and Intraday Indicative Value is disseminated; (4) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Market and Post-Market Sessions when an updated Benchmark Index value and Intraday Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (5) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
In addition, the Information Circular will advise members, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Fund. Members purchasing Shares from the Fund for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
Additionally, the Information Circular will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Circular will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares of the Fund and the applicable NAV Calculation Time for the Shares. The Information Circular will disclose that information about the Shares of the Fund will be publicly available on the Distributor's website.
All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, (c) dissemination and availability of the reference asset or intraday indicative values, or (d) the applicability of Exchange listing rules shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. In addition, the issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under the Nasdaq 5800 Series.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Nasdaq Rule 5705. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on Nasdaq during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws.
The Adviser maintains a fire wall around the respective personnel at the Adviser and affiliated broker-dealers who have access to information concerning changes and adjustments to the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio. In addition, and in accordance with Nasdaq Rule 5705(b)(5)(A)(iii), such personnel will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the Fund's portfolio.
The Index Provider maintains a fire wall around its personnel who have access to information concerning changes and adjustments to the Benchmark Index. In addition, and in accordance with Nasdaq Rule 5705(b)(5)(A)(ii), such personnel will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the Benchmark Index.
The CBOE is the index calculation agent for the Benchmark Index. CBOE has represented that a fire wall exists around its personnel who have access to information concerning changes and adjustments to the Benchmark Index. In
The equity securities in which the Fund may invest and the options which the Fund may write will be limited to U.S. exchange-traded securities and options, respectively, that trade in markets that are members of the ISG, which includes all U.S. national securities exchanges and certain foreign exchanges, or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange. The Exchange may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The market value of the call options included in the Benchmark Index will not represent more than 10% of the total weight of the Benchmark Index. Each call option included in the Benchmark Index must meet the criteria of the Benchmark Index methodology, which methodology is publicly available. The Fund seeks a correlation over time of 0.90 or better between the Fund's performance and the performance of its Benchmark Index. A figure of 1.00 would represent perfect correlation.
The Fund will pursue its objective by investing in all the equity securities in the Russell 2000 Index and each month writing a single one-month out-of-the-money covered call option on the Russell 2000 Index. Under normal circumstances, the Fund will invest primarily in U.S. exchange-traded equity securities. The Fund will also utilize an option strategy consisting of writing a single U.S. exchange-traded covered call option on the Russell 2000 Index. The market value of the option strategy may be up to 20% of the Fund's overall net asset value. In addition to such option strategy, the Fund may invest no more than 20% of the market value of its net assets in, as described above, futures contracts, options, interest rate swaps, equity swaps, total return swaps, dividend swaps, forward contracts, ETFs, individual large capitalization equity securities that do not comprise the Russell 2000 Index, short-term debt securities, money market fund shares, money market instruments and repurchase agreements.
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities (calculated at the time of investment). The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid securities. Illiquid securities include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.
The Fund's investments will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage.
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information will be publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. The Intraday Indicative Value, available on the NASDAQ Information LLC proprietary index data service, will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors and broadly displayed at least every 15 seconds during the Regular Market Session. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Regular Market Session on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its website the Disclosed Portfolio that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares will also be available via Nasdaq proprietary quote and trade services, as well as in accordance with the Unlisted Trading Privileges and the Consolidated Tape Association plans for the Shares and any underlying exchange-traded products. Intra-day, executable price quotations of the securities and other assets held by the Fund will be available from major broker-dealer firms or on the exchange on which they are traded, if applicable. Intra-day price information will also be available through subscription services, such as Bloomberg, Markit and Thomson Reuters, which can be accessed by Authorized Participants and other investors.
The Fund's website will include a form of the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted or paused under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121, including the trading pauses under Nasdaq Rules 4120(a)(11) and (12). Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 5705(b)(1)(B)(iv), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of passively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
For the above reasons, Nasdaq believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of passively-managed ETF that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of Meeting of Securities and Exchange Commission Dodd-Frank Investor Advisory Committee; correction.
The Securities and Exchange Commission published a document in the
Marc Oorloff Sharma, Chief Counsel, Office of the Investor Advocate, at (202) 551-3302, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
In the
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as ISIS-Egypt, also known as Islamic State in Egypt, also known as Islamic State Egypt, also known as IS Egypt, also known as IS-Egypt, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as the Maute Group, also known as IS-Ranao, also known as Islamic State of Lanao, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as ISIS-Philippines, also known as ISIS in the Philippines, also known as ISIL Philippines, also known as ISIL in the Philippines, also known as IS Philippines, also known as ISP, also known as Islamic State in the Philippines, also known as Islamic State in Iraq and Syria in South-east Asia, also known as Dawlatul Islamiyah Waliyatul Masrik, DIWM, also known as Dawlatul Islamiyyah Waliyatul Mashriq, also known as IS East Asia Division, also known as ISIS branch in the Philippines, also known as ISIS' “Philippines province” committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
The Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy (ACIEP) will meet from 2:00 until 5:00 p.m., on Wednesday, March 28 in Washington DC at the State Department, 320 21st St NW. The meeting will be hosted by the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs, Manisha Singh, and Committee Chair Paul R. Charron. The ACIEP serves the U.S. government in a solely advisory capacity, and provides advice concerning topics in international economic policy. It is expected that during this meeting the Stakeholder Advisory Board subcommittee will provide updates on its recent work.
This meeting is open to the public, though seating is limited. Entry to the building is controlled. To obtain pre-clearance for entry, members of the public planning to attend must,
This information is being collected pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2651a and 22 U.S.C. 4802 for the purpose of screening and pre-clearing participants to enter the host venue at the U.S. Department of State, in line with standard security procedures for events of this size. The Department of State will use this information consistent with the routine uses set forth in the System of Records Notices for Protocol Records (STATE-33) and Security Records (State-36). Provision of this information is voluntary, but failure to provide accurate information may impede your ability to register for the event.
For additional information, contact Alan Krill, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, at (202) 647-2231, or
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Abu Musab al-Barnawi aka Habib Yusuf committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that
This notice shall be published in the
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on February 22, 2018.
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Mahad Moalim committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
This document was received by the Office of the Federal Register on February 22, 2018.
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as ISIS-West Africa (ISIS-WA), also known as ISIS West Africa, also known as ISIS West Africa Province, also known as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria West Africa Province, also known as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant-West Africa (ISIL-WA), also known as Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
This document was received by the Office of the Federal Register on February 22, 2018.
Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this matter, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that there is a sufficient factual basis to find that the relevant circumstances described in section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (hereinafter “INA”) (8 U.S.C. 1189), exist with respect to ISIS-Bangladesh, also known as Caliphate in Bangladesh, also known as Caliphate's Soldiers in Bangladesh, also known as Soldiers of the Caliphate in Bangladesh, also known as Khalifah's Soldiers in Bengal, also known as Islamic State Bangladesh, also known as Islamic State in Bangladesh, also known as ISB, also known as ISISB, also known as Abu Jandal al-Bangali, also known as Neo-JMB, also known as Neo-Jamaat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh, also known as New-JMB.
Therefore, I hereby designate the aforementioned organization and its aliases as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the INA.
This determination shall be published in the
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23,
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on February 22, 2018.
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as ISIS-Bangladesh, also known as Caliphate in Bangladesh, also known as Caliphate's Soldiers in Bangladesh, also known as Soldiers of the Caliphate in Bangladesh, also known as Khalifah's Soldiers in Bengal, also known as Islamic State Bangladesh, also known as Islamic State in Bangladesh, also known as ISB, also known as ISISB, also known as Abu Jandal al-Bangali, also known as Neo-JMB, also known as Neo-Jamaat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh, also known as New-JMB, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this matter, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that there is a sufficient factual basis to find that the relevant circumstances described in section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (hereinafter “INA”) (8 U.S.C. 1189), exist with respect to ISIS-West Africa (ISIS-WA), also known as ISIS West Africa, also known as ISIS West Africa Province, also known as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria West Africa Province, also known as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant-West Africa (ISIL-WA), also known as Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP).
Therefore, I hereby designate the aforementioned organization and its aliases as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the INA.
This determination shall be published in the
This document was received by the Office of the Federal Register on February 22, 2018.
Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this matter, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that there is a sufficient factual basis to find that the relevant circumstances described in section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (hereinafter “INA”) (8 U.S.C. 1189), exist with respect to ISIS-Philippines, also known as ISIS in the Philippines, also known as ISIL Philippines, also known as ISIL in the Philippines, also known as IS Philippines, also known as ISP, also known as Islamic State in the Philippines, also known as Islamic State in Iraq and Syria in South-east Asia, also known as Dawlatul Islamiyah Waliyatul Masrik, DIWM, also known as Dawlatul Islamiyyah Waliyatul Mashriq, also known as IS East Asia Division, also known as ISIS branch in the Philippines, also known as ISIS' “Philippine province.”
Therefore, I hereby designate the aforementioned organization and its aliases as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the INA.
This determination shall be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The FAA announces the relocation of the FAA Northwest Mountain Regional Office, which issues airworthiness directives (ADs) for transport category airplanes.
This address change takes effect February 28, 2018.
David A. Lee, Program Manager, Airworthiness & Technical Communications Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3197; email
The FAA Northwest Mountain Regional Office is relocating from 1601 Lind Ave. SW, Renton, WA 98057, to 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198. Service information related to ADs that cannot be placed in the docket is available for review in the office of the Transport Standards Branch, which is relocating with the Northwest Mountain Regional Office effective March 12, 2018.
Effective March 12, 2018, the address for mailing correspondence or reviewing service information related to ADs issued on transport category airplanes is FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before March 12, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number {FAA-2018-0151} using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
{Alphonso Pendergrass} (202) 267-4713, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for a new information collection, which is summarized below under
Please submit comments by April 30, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number FHWA 2018-0013, by any of the following methods:
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Julie Johnston, Office of Program Administration, 202-591-5858,
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
This document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.
Send comments on or before April 30, 2018.
You may send comments, identified by [Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0019] by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (NEF-230), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, West Building—4th Floor—Room W45-205, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Sachs' telephone number is (202) 366-3151. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collection of information:
The regulations in part 565 specify the format, contents, and physical requirements for a vehicle identification number (VIN) system and its installation to simplify vehicle identification information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns. The regulations require each vehicle manufactured in one stage to have a VIN that is assigned by the vehicle's manufacturer. Each vehicle manufactured in more than one stage is to have a VIN assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Each VIN must consist of 17 characters, including a check digit, in the ninth position, whose purpose is to verify the accuracy of any VIN transcription. The VIN must also incorporate the world manufacturer identifier or WMI assigned to the manufacturer by the competent authority in the country where the manufacturer is located. The WMI occupies the first three characters of the VIN for manufacturers that produce 1,000 or more vehicles of a specified type within a model year, and positions 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, and 14 of VINs assigned by manufacturers that produce less than 1,000 vehicles of a specified type per model year. The remaining characters of the VIN describe various vehicle attributes, such as make, model, and type, which vary depending on the vehicle's type classification (
The regulations in part 567 specify the content and location of, and other requirements for, the certification label to be affixed to a motor vehicle, as required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (the Vehicle Safety Act)(49 U.S.C. 30115) and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as amended (the Cost Savings Act)(49 U.S.C. 30254 and 33109), to address certification-related duties and liabilities, and to provide the consumer with information to assist him or her in determining which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (as found in 49 CFR part 571), bumper standards (as found in 49 CFR part 581, and Federal theft prevention standards (as found in 49 CFR part 541) are applicable to the vehicle. The regulations pertain to manufacturers of motor vehicles to which one or more standards are applicable, including persons who alter such vehicles prior to their first retail sale, and to Registered Importers of vehicles not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are determined eligible for importation by NHTSA, based on the vehicles' capability of being modified to conform to those standards. The regulations require each manufacturer to affix to each vehicle, in a prescribed location, a label that, among other things, identifies the vehicle's manufacturer (defined as the person who actually assembles the vehicle), the vehicle's date of manufacture, and the statement that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and, where applicable, bumper and theft prevention standards in effect on the date of manufacture. The label must also include the vehicle's gross vehicle and gross axle weight ratings (GVWR and GAWRs), vehicle identification number, and vehicle type classification (
Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number and Proposed Frequency of Responses to the Collection of Information): The agency estimates that it will receive new submissions of VIN-deciphering information under part 565 from approximately 733 manufacturers of motor vehicles per year. The manufacturers need only submit the required information on a one-time basis, with the proviso that they notify the agency of any changes in the information on file within 30 days from the date that any change in that information occurs. In addition, the agency estimates that approximately 7,600 manufacturers of motor vehicles of all types, including manufacturers of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, motorcycles and low-speed vehicles, as well as incomplete vehicle manufacturers, intermediate and final-stage manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages, and vehicle alterers, will need to comply with the certification labeling requirements of part 567.
Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 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 information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP).
Written comments should be received on or before April 30, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Please send separate comments for each specific information collection listed below. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
Requests for additional information or copies of the collection tools should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, at (202) 317-5753 or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
Currently, the IRS is seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 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 information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Credit for Oil and Gas Production From Marginal Wells.
Written comments should be received on or before April 30, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, at (202) 317-5753 or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
United States Mint.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on currently approved information collection 1525-0013, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. The United States Mint, a bureau of the Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments on the United States Mint Application for Intellectual Property Use form.
Written comments should be received on or before April 30, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Mary Ann Scharbrough, Office of the Director, Executive Secretariat, United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220; (202) 384-5805 (this is not a toll-free number);
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection package should be directed to Mary Ann Scharbrough, Office of the Director, Executive Secretariat, United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220; (202) 384-5805 (this is not a toll-free number);
| 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 |