| Page Range | 9419-9681 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 9681 - Delegation of Authorities Under Section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 83 FR 9569 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 9561 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 9432 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR | |
| 83 FR 9550 - FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company; Beaver Valley Power Station; Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM | |
| 83 FR 9578 - Advisory Group to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Charter Renewal | |
| 83 FR 9419 - Rotorcraft Pilot Compartment View | |
| 83 FR 9548 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Analysis of Employer Performance Measurement Approaches | |
| 83 FR 9547 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review and Approval; Comment Request; Youth CareerConnect (YCC) Grant Program, Extension of Previously Approved Collection | |
| 83 FR 9499 - Request for Information Regarding Bureau Public Reporting Practices of Consumer Complaint Information | |
| 83 FR 9503 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 9560 - New Postal Products | |
| 83 FR 9543 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 83 FR 9540 - Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee: Notice of Nomination Solicitation | |
| 83 FR 9501 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Earned Value Management System | |
| 83 FR 9571 - National Express Transit Corporation-Acquisition of Control-Aristocrat Limousine and Bus, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 9440 - Lipochitooligosaccharide (LCO) SP104; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance | |
| 83 FR 9571 - Determination Under Section 7070(c)(1) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2017 Regarding the Central Government of Venezuela | |
| 83 FR 9512 - Notice of Receipt of Requests To Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations and Amend Registrations To Terminate Certain Uses | |
| 83 FR 9532 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP): Correction | |
| 83 FR 9442 - Kasugamycin; Pesticide Tolerances | |
| 83 FR 9533 - Notice of HUD Vacant Loan Sales (HVLS 2018-1) | |
| 83 FR 9518 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 9481 - Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops | |
| 83 FR 9510 - Notice of Meeting of the EPA Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 9517 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Active Ingredients | |
| 83 FR 9511 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses | |
| 83 FR 9471 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities | |
| 83 FR 9574 - Pipeline Safety: Meeting of the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 9573 - Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities | |
| 83 FR 9503 - Charter Amendment of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees | |
| 83 FR 9502 - Charter Amendment of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees | |
| 83 FR 9475 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Boundary and Annexation Survey | |
| 83 FR 9535 - Updates to Bureau of Indian Affairs Categorical Exclusions Under the National Environmental Policy Act | |
| 83 FR 9561 - Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Order Granting Petitions for Review and Scheduling Filing of Statements | |
| 83 FR 9501 - Early Engagement Opportunity: Implementation of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 83 FR 9546 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Tax Performance System (TPS) | |
| 83 FR 9526 - Announcing Project Period Extensions With Funding for Health Center Program Award Recipients in Puerto Rico; Health Center Program | |
| 83 FR 9523 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions Received | |
| 83 FR 9571 - U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 9575 - Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
| 83 FR 9454 - Special Local Regulation; Pensacola Bay, Pensacola, FL | |
| 83 FR 9479 - Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 84 Under Alternative Site Framework Houston, Texas | |
| 83 FR 9479 - Certain Lined Paper Products From India and the People's Republic of China; Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order | |
| 83 FR 9542 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Oil-Spill Response Requirements for Facilities Located Seaward of the Coast Line | |
| 83 FR 9541 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) | |
| 83 FR 9431 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, West Palm Beach, FL | |
| 83 FR 9530 - Area Maritime Security Committee; Charleston, SC Committee Vacancies | |
| 83 FR 9473 - Updates to Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands Regulations To Implement Executive Order 13690 and the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard | |
| 83 FR 9474 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License | |
| 83 FR 9506 - Marco DM Holdings, L.L.C.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 83 FR 9505 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 9509 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 9438 - Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Logan Airport Parking Freeze | |
| 83 FR 9456 - Safety Zone for Fireworks Display; Patapsco River, Inner Harbor, Baltimore, MD | |
| 83 FR 9541 - Notice of March 23, 2018, Meeting of the Gateway National Recreation Area Fort Hancock 21st Century Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 9562 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the Proposed Rule Change To Revise The Options Clearing Corporation's Schedule of Fees | |
| 83 FR 9539 - Notice of Intent To Amend the Miles City Field Office 2015 Resource Management Plan and To Prepare an Associated Environmental Assessment, Montana | |
| 83 FR 9525 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request; Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) Program Deeming Application for Health Centers, OMB No. 0906-XXXX-NEW | |
| 83 FR 9522 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; Information Collection Request Title: Faculty Loan Repayment Program; OMB No. 0915-0150-Extension | |
| 83 FR 9426 - Annual Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation-2018 | |
| 83 FR 9520 - Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 9522 - Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 9520 - Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis Meeting (ACET) | |
| 83 FR 9521 - Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) | |
| 83 FR 9521 - Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC) | |
| 83 FR 9538 - Alaska Native Claims Selection | |
| 83 FR 9538 - Meetings of the Dumont Dunes Subgroup of the California Desert District Advisory Council, CA | |
| 83 FR 9497 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Testing and Training Activities Conducted in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range in the Gulf of Mexico | |
| 83 FR 9559 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Notice of Meeting, Revised | |
| 83 FR 9544 - Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence | |
| 83 FR 9561 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 9528 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 9528 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 9527 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 9526 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 9527 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 9528 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 9505 - EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. v. Reform of Affected System Coordination in the Generator Interconnection Process, v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference | |
| 83 FR 9506 - Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 83 FR 9504 - New York Power Authority; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 83 FR 9508 - Targa NGL Pipeline Company LLC; Notice of Request for Temporary Waiver | |
| 83 FR 9508 - Medallion Delaware Express, LLC, Medallion Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 83 FR 9504 - PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Ohio Valley Electric Corporation; Notice Establishing Answer Period to Motion To Defer Effective Date | |
| 83 FR 9507 - Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Westlake Expansion Project | |
| 83 FR 9531 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR); Various Homeland Security Acquisitions Regulations Forms; DHS-2018-0010 | |
| 83 FR 9502 - Department of Defense Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory (STRL) Personnel Management Demonstration (Demo) Project Program | |
| 83 FR 9576 - Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) | |
| 83 FR 9577 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8453-FE, Form 8453-EMP, 8879-F and Form 8879-EMP | |
| 83 FR 9576 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 83 FR 9433 - Production or Disclosure of Material or Information; Technical Corrections | |
| 83 FR 9478 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 9564 - Alcentra Capital Corporation, et al. | |
| 83 FR 9549 - Value Engineering (VE) | |
| 83 FR 9529 - Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies | |
| 83 FR 9544 - Notice Pursuant to The National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-National Spectrum Consortium | |
| 83 FR 9545 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Telemanagement Forum | |
| 83 FR 9483 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Seabird and Shorebird Research and Monitoring in Massachusetts | |
| 83 FR 9424 - Airworthiness Directives; Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., Turboshaft Engines | |
| 83 FR 9498 - Community Bank Advisory Council Meeting | |
| 83 FR 9430 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Youngs Bay and Lewis and Clark River, Astoria, OR | |
| 83 FR 9432 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Snohomish River and Steamboat Slough, Everett and Marysville, WA | |
| 83 FR 9429 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Columbia River, Vancouver, WA | |
| 83 FR 9570 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Statement of Political Contributions, Fees, and Commissions Relating to Sales of Defense Articles and Defense Services | |
| 83 FR 9435 - Air Quality Plans; Pennsylvania; Lebanon County 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standard Determination of Attainment | |
| 83 FR 9451 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mineral Point, WI | |
| 83 FR 9452 - Proposed Establishment of Canadian Area Navigation (RNAV) Route T-705; Northeastern United States | |
| 83 FR 9419 - Rules Regarding Delegation of Authority: Delegation of Authority to the Secretary of the Board | |
| 83 FR 9447 - Hiring Flexibility Under Professional Standards | |
| 83 FR 9459 - Freedom of Information Act; Privacy Act; Federal Tort Claims Act; Debt Collection | |
| 83 FR 9580 - Electric Storage Participation in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators | |
| 83 FR 9636 - Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System-Primary Frequency Response | |
| 83 FR 9553 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information |
Agricultural Research Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Procurement Policy Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).
Final rule.
The Board is amending its rules regarding delegation of authority to delegate to the Secretary of the Board the authority to review and determine an appeal of denial of access to Board records under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the Board's rules regarding such access.
Effective March 6, 2018.
Brian Phillips, Attorney, (202) 452-3321, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW, Washington, DC 20551. For the hearing impaired only, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869.
The Board previously adopted a rule delegating to any member of the Board, as designated by the Chairman, the authority to “review and determine an appeal of denial of access to Board records under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the Board's rules regarding such access.”
These amendments relate solely to the agency's organization, procedure, or practice. Accordingly, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act regarding notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public participation are not applicable.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required to be issued, or has been issued, in connection with this rule, it is not a “rule” for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and that act, therefore, does not apply.
These amendments do not contain any collection of information requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
The rule is not a “substantive rule” for the purposes of the effective-date provision of the Administrative Procedure Act; as such, the act does not require the Board to delay the effective date of the rule.
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Banks, banking.
For the reasons stated in the Supplementary Information, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System amends 12 CFR part 265 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 248(i) and (k).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
The Secretary of the Board (or the Secretary's delegee) is authorized:
(b) * * *
(2)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is revising its rules for pilot compartment view to allow
Effective May 7, 2018.
For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking documents and other information related to this final rule, see “How To Obtain Additional Information” in the
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Clark Davenport, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5151; email
The FAA's authority to issue rules on 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 III, Sections 44701 and 44704. Under section 44701, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum standards required in the interest of safety for the design and performance of aircraft. Under section 44704, the Administrator issues type certificates for aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and specified appliances when the Administrator finds the product is properly designed and manufactured, performs properly, and meets the regulations and minimum standards prescribed under section 44701(a). This regulation is within the scope of these authorities because it promotes safety by updating the existing minimum prescribed standards used during the type certification process to address an equivalent method of showing compliance.
The FAA's rules on airworthiness standards for the pilot compartment in rotorcraft and the requirements for each pilot's view from that compartment are located in parts 27 and 29 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Specifically, §§ 27.773(a) and 29.773(a) require that each pilot compartment must be free of glare and reflection that could interfere with the pilot's view. Sections 27.773(b) and 29.773(b) require a flight test to show compliance with paragraph (a) of their respective sections if certification for night operations is requested. While this requirement applies to all applicants for rotorcraft installations that may affect the pilot's ability to see outside the aircraft, the FAA finds that a flight test may not be the only means available to show compliance for some modifications. The purpose of the internal lighting tests is to determine whether the lighting creates glare and reflections within the cockpit that could interfere with the pilot's view outside of the aircraft.
The FAA has conducted rotorcraft ground and flight internal lighting tests over the past 15 years where all external lighting was blocked from entering the cockpit on the ground evaluation and then conducted the follow-on night flight tests. They found that the ground test results were the same as the flight tests. Based on this experience, the FAA concluded that the two tests will provide the same results. The FAA has determined that creating an environment where external light is blocked from entering the cockpit or where the rotorcraft is placed in a darkened hangar or paint booth, provides the same environment as a night flight test would for cockpit lighting evaluations. The FAA has concluded that a ground test provides the same level of safety and that the current requirements in §§ 27.773 and 29.773 for a night flight test are imposing an unnecessary economic burden on applicants for certification for night operations.
On October 17, 2016, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), “Rotorcraft Pilot Compartment View” (81 FR 71412). The FAA proposed to allow a ground test as an alternative to a night flight test in certain cases to show compliance for night operations. The FAA included two Draft Advisory Circulars, (AC) 27-1B, Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft and AC 29-2C, Certification of Transport Category Rotorcraft, setting forth the conditions under which a ground test would be acceptable and an acceptable means of compliance for the ground test.
The original comment period closed on November 16, 2016. However, the FAA did not post the associated draft advisory circulars (AC) for public display until November 9, 2016. As a result, the FAA reopened the comment period (81 FR 83744) until December 13, 2016.
The FAA received comments from three aviation companies (Aviation Specialists Unlimited, Inc., Garmin International, and The Boeing Company) and three individuals. Two of the aviation companies and an individual supported the proposed rule. The remaining commenters supported the rule but suggested changes, which are discussed below.
An individual requested the FAA clearly define when a ground test can and cannot be performed and address factors such as the amount of interior light emissions, exterior light emissions, color of light emissions, and focal point of light intensity.
The FAA notes that Advisory Circular (AC) 27-1B, Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft and AC 29-2C, Certification of Transport Category Rotorcraft address the individual's comments. AC 27-1B and AC 29-2C already provide qualitative general guidance to determine appropriate testing methods.
An individual requested the FAA conduct tests to analyze specific proficiencies and deficiencies of simulated night ground testing. Alternatively, if there is already empirical and observational evidence that proves the safety factors in ground testing, the commenter requested this be identified in the final rule.
The FAA's determination that a ground test provides the same level of safety is based on the FAA's experience with cockpit lighting evaluations for rotorcraft certification projects. The FAA found the two tests had the same results.
Two individuals requested that night testing account for various lighting scenarios. One of these individuals requested the FAA conduct tests to ensure the accuracy of each ground test simulation using both interior and exterior lighting effects on the rotorcraft
The intent of this rule is to allow ground tests, under certain circumstances, to demonstrate compliance for night operations. The FAA notes the request to add additional night testing requirements is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. In light of the comments, the FAA recognizes the material in the AC regarding exterior lighting may create confusion. As a result, we have revised the AC to clarify that exterior lighting is identified as exterior aircraft lighting only.
An aviation company requested that the FAA eliminate the requirement to perform either a ground test or a flight test and require instead that applicants show “compliance.” In support of this request, the commenter stated the FAA and industry are generally in agreement that regulations be performance-based without specifying a means of compliance which, instead, is established through policy, guidance, or industry standards.
The requested change to eliminate testing would compromise the level of safety intended by this rule. Because of the complexity and variables involved in lighting interaction in rotorcraft cockpits, the FAA has determined that either a night flight test or a ground test is required.
The FAA is adopting the rule as proposed.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995).
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed rule: (1) Has regulatory cost savings, (2) is not an economically “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and (6) would not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized below.
This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this rule.
The FAA determined that this action will likely result in regulatory cost savings. The current regulations require night flight testing to demonstrate compliance for night operations. This rule provides a less costly ground test as an alternative to a night flight test for certain interior lighting modifications. Currently, the FAA estimates the total cost for a night flight test to be $37,280. These costs include company costs associated with a ground evaluation ($3,600); company flight test, including flight preparation ($16,240); company preparation of the test report ($800); and FAA flight test, including flight preparation ($16,640). Under this final rule, companies can demonstrate compliance on the ground, thereby avoiding the company and FAA flight test costs and saving an estimated $32,880 per demonstration. Under this rule, the total cost for a ground test is about $4,400, which is substantially less costly than a night flight test of $37,280.
The FAA estimates that 10,506 helicopters in the current fleet will be affected by the final rule. In addition, the FAA receives approximately 120 certification project tests annually. Note that after certification, new helicopters may not need to be upgraded in the next 10 years.
As a result, this rule will relieve industry from performing higher cost night flight tests with lower cost ground tests resulting in cost savings. The FAA estimates industry will gain about $384.9 million in total undiscounted cost savings over a 10-year period of analysis [$32,880 × (10,506 tests + 1,200 certification projects)]. The FAA estimates industry's present value cost savings to be about $277.2 million and annualized costs savings to be about $39.5 million using a 7 percent discount rate. The following table provides cost savings to industry over a 10-year period of analysis.
This rule will also save the FAA about $1,200 per forgone night flight test from the associated preparation and reviewing of test flight plans, reports, and testing time. The FAA will save about $14 million (undiscounted) over a 10-year period of analysis [$1,200 × (10,506 tests + 1,200 certification projects)]. The FAA estimates its 10-year present value cost savings to be about $10 million and the annualized cost savings to be about $1.4 million at a 7 percent discount rate.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
This rule provides a ground test as an alternative to a night flight test in certain cases, such as internal lighting modifications. The requirements for a ground test are less costly and stringent than a night flight test. Thus, this rule will relieve the industry from the costly burden of performing night flight tests under certain conditions. The rule will result in cost savings for small entities affected by this rulemaking action.
If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this rule and determined that it will only have a domestic impact and, therefore, no effect on international trade.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million. This rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these regulations.
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, will not have Federalism implications.
The FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The FAA has determined that this action will not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and will not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action will have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis, above.
An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by using the internet.
1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at
3. Access the Government Publishing Office's web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.
Comments received may be viewed by going to
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
(b) If certification for night operation is requested, compliance with paragraph (a) of this section must be shown by ground or night flight tests.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
(a) * * *
(2) Each pilot compartment must be free of glare and reflection that could interfere with the pilot's view. If certification for night operation is requested, this must be shown by ground or night flight tests.
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., Arrius 2F turboshaft engines. This AD requires inspection and replacement of the magnetic heads installed on oil system electrical magnetic plugs. This AD was prompted by reports from the manufacturer of a batch of non-conforming magnetic heads installed on electrical magnetic plugs. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective March 21, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 21, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by April 20, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: (33) 05 59 74 40 00; fax: (33) 05 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759. It is also available on the internet at
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2018-0012-E, dated January 16, 2018 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to address an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Flaking of the cadmium coating of electrical magnetic plugs head Part Number (P/N) 9 520 01 154 5 was detected. Investigation results indicate that this was the result of manufacturing deficiency. This part is installed on electrical magnetic plugs (front and rear position) of the engine, providing warning signals for early detection of internal part(s) structural degradation, propagating in form of presence of metal particles in the lubrication system. The subsequent investigation identified the batch of affected magnetic plugs heads by serial number (s/n).
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to reduced capability of the particle detection system to identify internal structural failures and consequent in-flight shut-down, resulting in forced landing with possible damage to the helicopter and injury to occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Safran Helicopter Engines issued Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) A319 79 4840 and Alert MSB A319 79 4841 to provide inspection and replacement instructions.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We reviewed Safran Helicopter Engines Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. A319 79 4840, Version A, dated November 27, 2017, and Safran Helicopter Engines Alert MSB No. A319 79 4841, Version A, dated November 20, 2017. The MSBs describe procedures, respectively, for inspecting and replacing the magnetic heads installed on the electrical magnetic plugs. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by France and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. 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 products of the same type design.
This final rule requires inspection and replacement of the magnetic heads installed on oil system electrical magnetic plugs.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the compliance time for the action is less than the time required for public comment. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 105 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 21, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., Arrius 2F turboshaft engines, with an oil system electrical magnetic plug magnetic head, part number (P/N) 9520011545, with serial numbers (S/Ns) DU4621 through DU5053 inclusive, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7900, Engine Oil System (Airframe Furnished).
This AD was prompted by reports from the manufacturer of a batch of non-conforming magnetic heads installed on electrical oil debris magnetic plugs. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the engine oil debris detection system. This unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the inability to detect engine bearing failures, failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 15 flight hours or 30 days, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, and then after each flight, inspect the magnetic head installed on the rear electrical magnetic plug in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2.4.5, of Safran Helicopter Engines Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) A319 79 4840, Version A, dated November 27, 2017.
(2) Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, replace each affected magnetic head, installed on the front or the rear electrical magnetic plug, with a part eligible for installation in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2.4.2, of Safran Helicopter Engines Alert MSB A319 79 4841, Version A, dated November 20, 2017.
(3) After replacement of the magnetic head installed on the rear electrical magnetic plug, as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD are no longer required.
After the effective date of this AD, except as part of the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, do not install a magnetic head, P/N 9520011545, with an S/N DU4621 up to and including DU5053 on any engine.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2018-0012-E, dated January 16, 2018, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Safran Helicopter Engines Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) A319 79 4840, Version A, dated November 27, 2017.
(ii) Safran Helicopter Engines Alert MSB A319 79 4841, Version A, dated November 20, 2017.
(3) For Safran Helicopter Engines service information identified in this AD, contact Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: (33) 05 59 74 40 00; fax: (33) 05 59 74 45 15.
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Final rule.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) is amending Rule 143.8, its rule that governs the maximum amount of civil monetary penalties, to adjust for inflation. This rule sets forth the maximum, inflation-adjusted dollar amount for civil monetary penalties (CMPs) assessable for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and Commission rules, regulations and orders thereunder. The rule, as amended, implements the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended.
This rule is effective on March 6, 2018 and is applicable to penalties assessed after March 6, 2018.
Edward J. Riccobene, Associate Chief Counsel, Division of Enforcement, at (202) 418-5327 or
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (FCPIAA)
The following sections of the CEA provide for CMPs that meet the FCPIAA definition
The FCPIAA annual inflation adjustment, in the context of the CFTC's CMPs, is determined by increasing the maximum penalty by a “cost-of-living adjustment”, rounded to the nearest multiple of one dollar.
Applying the FCPIAA annual inflation adjustment methodology results in the following amended CMPs:
The FCPIAA provides
The FCPIAA specifically exempted from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) the rulemakings required to implement annual inflation adjustments.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Section 15(a) of the CEA
The Commission believes that benefits of this rulemaking greatly outweigh the costs, if any. As the Commission understands, the statutory provisions by which it is making cost-of-living adjustments to the CMPs in regulation 143.8 were enacted to ensure that CMPs do not lose their deterrence value because of inflation. An analysis of the costs and benefits of these adjustments were made before enactment of the statutory provisions under which the Commission is operating, and limit the discretion of the Commission to the extent that there are no regulatory choices the Commission could make that would supersede the pre-enactment analysis with respect to the five factors enumerated in section 15(a), or any other factors.
Civil monetary penalties, Claims.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission amends part 143 of title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
7 U.S.C. 9, 15, 9a, 12a(5), 13a, 13a-1(d), 13(a), 13b; 31 U.S.C. 3701-3720E; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(a)
(b)
(1) For Non-Manipulation or Attempted Manipulation Violations:
(2) For Manipulation or Attempted Manipulation Violations:
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Chairman Giancarlo and Commissioners Quintenz and Behnam voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Bridge across the Columbia River, mile 105.6, at Vancouver, WA. The deviation is necessary to accommodate maintenance and replacement of various bridge components. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during maintenance activities.
This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on March 5, 2018 to 4 p.m. on March 14, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0126 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
BNSF, bridge owner, requested that the BNSF Swing Bridge across the Columbia River, mile 105.6, remain in the closed-to-navigation position to marine vessel traffic for maintenance and component replacement activities. The BNSF Swing Bridge provides 39 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while in the closed-to-navigation position. This deviation allows the BNSF Swing Bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open for maritime traffic as listed in the table below:
The subject bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.5 at all other times.
Waterway usage on this part of the Columbia River includes vessels ranging from large ships to commercial tug and tow vessels to recreational pleasure craft including cabin cruisers and sailing vessels. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies during this closure period if a one hour notice is given except on March 6, 2018 and March 8, 2018, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. We contacted known river users, and requested objections to reschedule BNSF's maintenance period. We have not received any objections to this deviation. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for comments.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs three bridges at Astoria, OR, including the US101 (Youngs Bay) highway bridge, across Youngs Bay, the Oregon State (Old Youngs Bay) highway bridge, across Youngs Bay foot of Fifth Street, and the Oregon State (Lewis and Clark River) highway bridge, across Lewis and Clark River. This deviation will test a change to the drawbridge operation schedule to determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is appropriate. This deviation will allow the bridge to open during weekends and nighttime hours after receiving a 2 hour advance notice.
This deviation is effective from 5 p.m. on March 16, 2018 to 7 a.m. on August 10, 2018.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 23, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0131 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Chief Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
Due to infrequent drawbridge opening requests between Friday evenings through Monday early mornings, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) (bridge owner), has requested to open the three highway bridges within Youngs Bay and Lewis and Clark River with 2 hours advance notice. The Youngs Bay highway bridge, Old Youngs Bay highway bridge and the Lewis and Clark River highway bridge are within one mile of each other, and currently open on signal for the passage of vessels with one half-hour notice by marine radio, telephone, or other suitable means. These three bridges are operated by the Lewis and Clark River highway bridge operator. The subject bridges operate per 33 CFR 117.899.
Vessels operating on Youngs Bay and the Lewis and Clark River range from small recreational vessels, sailboats, tribal fishing boats and small commercial fishing vessels. No navigational impacts are expected due to few vessels operating on these waterways at the stated hours. Also during roadway maintenance in 2016 and 2017, we approved deviations for the three subject bridges allowing these bridges to open on a three hour notice. No complaints or opening issues were identified at all hours of the day. Vessels able to pass through the subject bridges with the draw in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time.
This deviation authorizes ODOT to open the Youngs Bay highway bridge, the Old Youngs Bay highway bridge and the Lewis and Clark River highway bridge, with a two hour advance notice on weekends from 5 p.m. on Friday to 7 a.m. on Monday, including all Federal holidays but Columbus Day, starting 5 p.m. on March 16, 2018 through 7 a.m. on August 10, 2018. The Youngs Bay highway bridge provides a vertical clearance approximately 37 feet above mean high water when in the closed-to-navigation position. The Old Youngs Bay highway bridge provides a vertical clearance approximately 19 feet above mean high water when in the closed-to-navigation position. The Lewis and Clark River highway bridge provides a vertical clearance of 17 feet above mean high water when in the closed-to-navigation position.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the subject bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary test deviation. Youngs Bay and the Lewis and Clark River do not have an immediate alternate route for vessels to pass through the subject bridges. The subject bridges will be not be able to open for emergencies.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for comments, extension.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Flagler Memorial (SR A1A) Bridge, mile 1021.8, the Royal Park (SR 704) Bridge, mile 1022.6, and the Southern Boulevard (SR 700/80) Bridge, mile 1024.7, across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, at West Palm Beach, Florida. This deviation will extend the test to change the drawbridge operation schedules to determine whether permanent changes to the schedules are needed. This deviation allows the Flagler Memorial, Royal Park and Southern Boulevard Bridges to operate on alternative schedules when the President of the United States, members of the First Family, or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service visit Mar-a-Lago. This deviation is necessary to accommodate the increase in vehicular traffic when the presidential motorcade is in transit.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from March 6, 2018 to 11:59 p.m. on May 31, 2018. For purposes of enforcement, this deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on February 27, 2018 to March 6, 2018.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 7, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0273 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this test deviation, call or email LT Ruth Sadowitz, Coast Guard Sector Miami, FL, Waterways Management Division, telephone 305-535-4307, email
On August 17, 2017, the Coast Guard published a notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation with request for comments in the
When the President of the United States, members of the First Family, or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service visit Mar-a-Lago, drawbridge openings have caused traffic backups in the West Palm Beach area. The increase in traffic congestion occurs when the presidential motorcade is in transit, which closes the Southern Boulevard Bridge to vehicle and vessel traffic. This action requires through traffic to use the Flagler Memorial and Royal Park Bridges. The Mayor of Palm Beach has asked the Coast Guard and the bridge owner, Florida Department of Transportation, to test a change to the operating regulations of those bridges.
During this temporary deviation, the Flagler Memorial Bridge is allowed to remain closed to navigation from 2:15 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. with the exception of a once an hour opening at 2:15 p.m., 3:15 p.m., 4:15 p.m. and 5:15 p.m., weekdays only, if vessels are requesting an opening. The Royal Park Bridge is allowed to remain closed to navigation from 2:15 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. with the exception of a once an hour opening at 2:30 p.m., 3:30 p.m., 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., weekdays only, if vessels are requesting an opening. At all other times the bridges will operate per their normal schedules, published in 33 CFR 117.261(u) and (v), respectively.
The operating schedule of the Southern Boulevard Bridge, which is closest to Mar-a-Lago, will be allowed to remain closed to navigation whenever the presidential motorcade is in transit. At all other times the bridge shall operate under the normal operating schedule, published in 33 CFR 117.261(w).
This test deviation will have an impact on marine traffic while alleviating some vehicle traffic backups. Tugs with tows are not exempt from this regulation. Vessels able to pass through the Flagler Memorial and Royal Park Bridges in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies. The Southern Boulevard Bridge will be under the control of the on-scene designated representative.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the SR 529 highway bridges, north and south bound, across the Snohomish River, mile 3.6 near Everett, WA, and the SR 529 highway bridges, north and south bound, across Steamboat Slough, mile 1.1 and 1.2, near Marysville, WA. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the Everett Half Marathon run event. This deviation allows the bridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the marathon to allow safe movement of event participants.
This deviation is effective from 7:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. on April 8, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0129 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
The Washington State Department of Transportation, the bridge owner, has requested that the SR 529 highway bridges, north bound and south bound, across the Snohomish River and Steamboat Slough remain in the closed-to-navigation position. This request is to facilitate safe, uninterrupted roadway passage of participants of the Everett Half Marathon. The SR 529 highway bridges across the Snohomish River, at mile 3.6, provide 37 feet of vertical clearance above mean high water elevation while in the closed-to-navigation position; and these bridges operate in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1059(c). The SR 529 highway bridges across Steamboat Slough, at mile 1.1 and 1.2, provide 10 feet of vertical clearance above mean high water elevation in the closed-to-navigation position; and these bridges operate in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1059(g).
The SR 529 bridges crossing the Snohomish River and Steamboat Slough are authorized to remain in the closed-to navigation position, and need not open for maritime traffic from 7:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. on April 8, 2018. The bridges shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.1059 at all other times. Vessels able to pass under the subject bridges in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time, and these bridges will be required to open, if needed, for vessels engaged in emergency response during the closure period.
Waterway usage on this part of the Snohomish River and Steamboat Slough includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. An alternate route for vessels to pass is available through Ebey Slough and Union Slough near the entrance of Steamboat Slough at high tide. A request for comment with any objections to this deviation was advertised in the Local Notice to Mariners. We did not receive any comments or objections. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the lower deck of the Steel Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 12.1, in Portland, OR. The deviation is necessary to support the Shamrock Stride event. This deviation allows the lower lift span of the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
This deviation is effective from 10:15 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. on March 18, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0127, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) owns and operates the Steel Bridge across the Willamette River, at mile 12.1, in Portland, OR. UPRR requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Steel Bridge lower lift span. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the Shamrock Stride run/walk event. The Steel Bridge is a double-deck lift bridge, and the lower lift span operates independent of the upper lift span. To facilitate this temporary deviation request, the lower lift span is authorized to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open to marine vessels from 10:15 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. on March 18, 2018. When the lower span is in the closed-to-navigation position, the bridge provides 26 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0. The lower lift span of the Steel Bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5.
Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Vessels able to pass through the subject bridge with the lower deck in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The lower lift of the Steel Bridge will be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard requested objections be submitted to this deviation in the Local Notice to Mariners. We have not received any objections to this temporary deviation from the operating schedule. The Coast Guard will also
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service is revising a citation and a requirement in the Change of Address Request Format for Process Servers. An incorrect citation is corrected, and the requirement to provide a copy of the statute or regulation that empowers a requester to serve process is revised to be optional rather than mandatory.
This final rule is effective on March 6, 2018.
Natalie A. Bonanno, Chief Counsel, Federal Compliance,
On November 30, 2016 (81 FR 86270), the Postal Service published its revised Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations to comply with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 (FOIAIA), effective December 27, 2016. In response to public comments, the Postal Service published an additional change to these regulations on January 10, 2017 (82 FR 2896). After further review, the Postal Service published miscellaneous technical corrections to its regulations on March 8, 2017 (82 FR 12921). The Postal Service is now making two technical corrections to the Change of Address or Boxholder Request Format for process servers found at 39 CFR 265.14. The first revision makes the requirement to provide a copy of the statute or regulation that empowers a requester to serve process optional rather than mandatory. The second revision changes the incorrect citation 39 CFR 265.14(d)(4)(ii) to 39 CFR 265.14(d).
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of information, Government employees.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Postal Service amends 39 CFR part 265 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. App. 3; 39 U.S.C. 401, 403, 410, 1001, 2601; Pub. L. 114-185.
(g) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making a final determination that the Lebanon County, Pennsylvania nonattainment area (the Lebanon County Area) has attained the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on April 5, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0479. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Gavin Huang, (215) 814-2042, or by email at
On November 2, 2017 (82 FR 50851), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Lebanon County Area. In the NPR, EPA proposed to determine that the Lebanon County Area attained the 2012 annual PM
Under EPA's longstanding Clean Data Policy,
Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, section 50.18 and appendix N, the annual primary PM
Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, section 50.18 and appendix N, EPA determined the Lebanon County Area has attained the 2012 annual PM
The specific requirements of this determination of attainment and the rationale for EPA's proposed action, including how the annual design value for 2014-2016 was calculated, are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. EPA received comments that are addressed in Section III of this rulemaking action.
EPA received adverse comments from one commenter, the Clean Air Council (hereinafter referred to as the “Commenter”). The Commenter expressed concern about EPA's calculations performed for this determination of attainment. The Commenter states, “EPA should perform its calculations again and provide explanations for its conclusions, which were not substantiated by the background documents in the rulemaking docket.” EPA provided its explanations and support for the determination of attainment in the NPR and explained the certified annual design value for 2014-2016 is 11.2 μg/m
Additionally, 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 3.0(d)(2), states that, “Data for the primary monitors shall be augmented as much as possible with data from collocated monitors.
Pursuant to 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 3.0(d)(2), the data from collocated monitor POC 3 is only considered as part of the combined site data record (to be used in determining design value for the 2012 annual PM
EPA is making a final determination that the Lebanon County Area has attained the 2012 annual PM
This rulemaking action proposes to make a determination of attainment of the 2012 PM
• 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 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the Lebanon County Area does not include any Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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 May 7, 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 determining that the Lebanon County Area attained the 2012 annual PM
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(w)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This SIP revision increases the total number of commercial parking spaces allowed in the Logan Airport Parking Freeze area by 5,000 parking spaces. The intended effect of this action is to reduce carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxide (NO
This rule is effective on April 5, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0590. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617) 918-1697, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On December 5, 2017 (83 FR 57415), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The NPRM proposed approval of revisions to 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 7.30 Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport)/Logan Airport Parking Freeze. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Massachusetts on July 13, 2017.
The revised 310 CMR 7.30 increases the total number of commercial spaces in the Logan Parking Freeze area by 5,000 spaces to a total of 26,088. In the event that the remaining 702 park-and-fly spaces in the East Boston Parking Freeze cap were converted to commercial spaces at Logan Airport in the future, the maximum total number of spaces permitted would be 26,790.
In addition, the revision requires Massport to complete the following studies within 24 months of June 30, 2017: (1) Potential improvements to high occupancy vehicle access to Logan Airport; (2) a cost and pricing assessment for different modes of transportation to and from Logan Airport in order to generate revenue for the promotion of high-occupancy
Finally, the revision allows Massport to satisfy its annual reporting requirements through its submission of annual Environmental Data Reports or similar airport-wide documents under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).
The rationale for EPA's proposed action is explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. EPA received comments from the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) in support of the NPRM after the close of the comment period, and they have been included in the docket for this action. Initially, CLF opposed the addition of 5,000 commercial parking spaces. However, with the development of a binding agreement between CLF and Massport, CLF now supports this SIP revision due to the agreed upon addition of substantial transportation mitigation measures and increased HOV targets. The only comment received during the public comment period was not germane or specific to this rulemaking, and did not state how or why the rule should be changed. Therefore, no additional response to the comment will be provided here.
EPA is approving revised 310 CMR 7.30 Massport/Logan Airport Parking Freeze as a revision to the Massachusetts SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of 310 CMR 7.30 Massport/Logan Airport Parking Freeze described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 7, 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 lipochitooligosaccharide (LCO) SP104 in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices. Monsanto Company submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of LCO SP104 under FFDCA.
This regulation is effective March 6, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 7, 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-2017-0080, is available at
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 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(g), 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-2017-0080 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 May 7, 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-2017-0080, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
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 exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption 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. . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on LCO SP104 and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
Lipochitooligosaccharides (LCOs) are signaling molecules produced by bacteria, which are involved in the initiation of plant-microbe endosymbiosis (the scenario when a microbe colonizes a plant) in an estimated 70-80% of terrestrial plants. As a pesticide, LCO SP104, a synthetically produced LCO, is intended for use as a plant growth regulator (PGR) to increase growth and decrease stress in growing crops. Typical of a PGR, LCO SP104 should be applied at low concentrations because use at high concentrations can result in detrimental effects to the plant. LCO SP104 is structurally similar to naturally occurring LCOs. Humans are exposed to naturally occurring LCOs as they are present in the roots of food crops and in the bacteria and fungi that are associated with the roots of these crops. Molecules identical to LCO breakdown products (such as chitin) are also present in insects, crustaceans, fungi, bacteria, and humans, and are regularly consumed by humans as part of a normal diet.
Based on the data submitted in support of this petition (summarized in Unit II. B., below) and the comprehensive risk assessment conducted by the Agency (included in the Docket for this action), EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposures to LCO SP104, including the consumption of food treated with this active ingredient in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices. EPA has made this determination because available toxicology data indicate that the active ingredient is not acutely toxic and, based upon a weight of the evidence (WOE) approach, it has been determined not to be a developmental toxicant, a mutagen, or toxic via repeat oral exposure (i.e. not subchronically toxic via the oral route). As such the Agency has not identified any endpoints of concern for LC SP104 and has conducted a qualitative assessment of exposure. The Agency has determined that residues of LCO SP104 in drinking water are not expected when products are used according to label instructions. The active ingredient is applied at low concentrations, is very soluble in water, and will dissociate within minutes once applied. Non-occupational exposures are not expected since LCO SP104 is not intended for residential use. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be found within the January 22, 2018, document entitled “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Lipochitooligosaccharide (LCO) SP104.” This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under
Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that LCO SP104 is of low acute toxicity and no toxicological endpoints have been identified for this compound. Therefore, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of LCO SP104. Therefore, EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of LCO SP104.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes due to the lack of concern about safety for LCO SP104 at any exposure level.
This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. 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
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in this action, 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. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA 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, EPA 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 EPA's 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.
Residues of the biochemical pesticide Lipochitooligosaccharide (LCO) SP104 (which has been used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices) are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance in or on all food commodities.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of kasugamycin in or on the cherry subgroup 12-12A and walnut. The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective March 6, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 7, 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-2016-0519, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, Director, 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 EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document
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-2016-0519 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 May 7, 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-2016-0519, 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
In accordance with EPA's significance figures policy, as discussed in Unit IV.C., the established tolerance for cherry subgroup 12-12A is adjusted slightly from the petition request.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish 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. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 kasugamycin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with kasugamycin follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its 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.
Kasugamycin is an aminoglycoside antibiotic pesticide with limited activity against some plant bacterial and fungal pathogens. There are no human or veterinary therapeutic applications due to low efficacy, but at one time was used clinically in Japan to treat
The primary target organs identified for kasugamycin were the testes and kidney. These effects were seen at higher dose levels, generally at the highest dose tested (HDT). In the rat combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study, an increased incidence and severity of testicular tubular atrophy was observed at histopathological evaluations at 6, 12 and 24 months. Testicular degeneration and atrophy were also observed in adult F1 males in the rat reproductive toxicity study at the highest dose. Testicular tubular dilatation and degeneration were observed in the subchronic mouse study at a dose that exceeded the limit dose, but not in the mouse carcinogenicity study, which tested at much lower doses. In the dog chronic toxicity study, testicular inflammation was reported at the high dose, but was not accompanied by atrophic or degenerative changes, and was not considered a treatment-related adverse effect.
Kidney toxicity is often associated with exposure to aminoglycoside antibiotics. In the rat reproductive toxicity study, kidney dilatation and increased incidence of chronic progressive nephropathy were observed in F1 males. In the subchronic rat study, increased incidence of eosinophilic bodies (slight severity) in the renal proximal tubular cells was reported in males at several dose levels. These effects were considered treatment-related but not adverse due to the low severity and lack of associated findings.
Kasugamycin caused decreased body weight and/or weight gain in subchronic studies in the rat, mouse and dog. The chronic studies, which tested at lower doses, did not show body weight effects. Decreased body weight was also observed in developmental and reproductive studies in the rat and the range-finding study for the rabbit developmental study. Body weight effects in the mouse immunotoxicity study were observed only at a dose exceeding the limit dose.
Kasugamycin appears to be irritating to the oral and gastrointestinal tract mucosa. Anal lesions and perianal/perigenital staining were observed in the subchronic mouse study. Red and swollen skin around the anal opening, and inflammation and ulceration of the rectum, were noted in male and female rats of both generations in the 2-generation reproduction study. In the rat developmental toxicity study, distention of the large intestine with stool in the cecum, and an increased incidence of loose stool, were reported. Similar findings were seen in the rabbit developmental range-finding study among females that died or were sacrificed
The available studies, including rat acute and subchronic neurobehavioral screening studies, did not show evidence of neurotoxicity. A 28-day mouse immunotoxicity study did not show evidence of immune system effects.
There was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility in rat or rabbit developmental toxicity studies, or in the rat reproductive study. No developmental effects were seen in the rat developmental study up to doses causing maternal toxicity (decreased body weight gain, food consumption, and feed efficiency). No maternal or developmental toxicity was observed in the main rabbit developmental toxicity study, in the dose range-finding study, but maternal weight loss, reduced food consumption during dosing and abortions (GD 18 or later) were observed at higher doses. Fetal weight was decreased at the maternally toxic dose, but could not be evaluated at higher doses due to maternal death and abortions. In the rat reproductive toxicity study, parental toxicity included decreased body weight/weight gain. No offspring toxicity was observed. Reproductive toxicity at the highest dose tested (above the parental LOAEL) included testicular atrophy, decreased fertility and fecundity in the F1 parents for both litters, and an increased pre-coital interval during the F2b litter mating period.
Kasugamycin is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies. There was no evidence of genotoxicity.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by kasugamycin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
1.
i.
No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for kasugamycin; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model 5/Variable Volume Water Model (VVWM) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of kasugamycin for chronic exposures are estimated to be 1.63 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 41.71 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 41.71 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Kasugamycin is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.
4.
EPA has not found kasugamycin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and kasugamycin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that kasugamycin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for kasugamycin is complete.
ii. There is no indication that kasugamycin is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that kasugamycin results in increased susceptibility in
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to kasugamycin in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by kasugamycin.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
An approved tolerance enforcement method for crops is available for kasugamycin using a reverse-phase, ion pairing HPLC/UV method (Morse Laboratories Method #Meth-146, Revision #4) for collecting data and enforcing tolerances for kasugamycin in plant commodities. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for kasugamycin.
In establishing the tolerance for cherry subgroup 12-12A, EPA added a significant figure (0.60 ppm rather than the proposed 0.6 ppm). This is in order to avoid the situation where rounding of an observed residue to the level of precision of the tolerance expression would be considered non-violative (such as 0.64 ppm being rounded to 0.6 ppm).
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of kasugamycin, (3-
This action establishes tolerances 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); Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). 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 tolerances 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.
(a) * * *
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would add four flexibilities to the hiring standards for new school nutrition program directors in small local educational agencies (LEAs) and new school nutrition program State directors under the professional standards regulations for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. First, to address the hiring challenge faced by small LEAs, those with 2,499 or fewer students, this rule would require relevant food service experience rather than school nutrition program experience for new directors. Second, it would provide State agencies with discretion to consider volunteer or unpaid work as relevant food service experience for new school nutrition program directors in small LEAs. Third, to further assist LEAs with less than 500 students, this proposed rule would expand the existing regulatory flexibility which gives State agencies discretion to accept less than the required years of food service experience when an applicant for a new director position has the minimum required education. Fourth, this rule would also add flexibility to the hiring standards for State directors of school nutrition programs by considering applicants with either a bachelor's or a master's degree in specific, relevant fields. These proposed changes are expected to expand the pool of candidates qualified to serve as leaders in the school nutrition programs while continuing to ensure that school nutrition professionals are able to perform their duties effectively and efficiently.
Written comments must be received on or before May 7, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
The Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, invites interested persons to submit written comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted in writing by one of the following methods:
•
•
All written comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be subject to public disclosure. FNS will make the written comments publicly available on the internet via
Tina Namian, Chief, School Programs Branch, Policy and Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, 12th Floor, Alexandria, Virginia 22302; 703-305-2590.
On July 1, 2015, FNS implemented professional standards for school nutrition personnel who manage and operate the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP), as required by the final rule
• Hiring standards for new school nutrition program directors of school food authorities (SFAs). These hiring standards, established at 7 CFR 210.30(b)(1)(i), (ii) and (iii), are based on student enrollment for three local educational agency (LEA) sizes: 2,499 students or less; 2,500-9,999 students; and 10,000 or more students.
• Hiring standards for new State directors of school nutrition programs and new State directors of distributing agencies. These hiring standards are established at 7 CFR 235.11(g)(1) and (2), respectively.
• Annual training hours for all State directors of school nutrition programs and all State directors of distributing agencies (established at 7 CFR 235.11(g)(3) and (4)); and annual training hours for all local school nutrition program personnel—directors (at 7 CFR 210.30(b)(3)), managers (at 7 CFR 210.30(c)), and staff (at 7 CFR 210.30(d)).
The professional standards are intended to ensure that school nutrition professionals who manage and operate the NSLP and SBP have adequate knowledge and training to meet program requirements. Requiring proper qualifications to serve in the NSLP and SBP is expected to improve the quality of school meals, reduce errors, and enhance program integrity.
As explained earlier, at the local level, the hiring standards are based on the LEA size. To facilitate recruitment and hiring of new SFA directors in small LEAs with less than 500 students, current regulations at 7 CFR 210.30(b)(1)(i)(D) give State agencies discretion to allow the hiring of a new school nutrition program director who holds a high school diploma but less than the required three years of school nutrition program experience.
Since implementation of the professional standards in 2015, FNS has received multiple inquiries from State agencies on behalf of SFAs that are facing challenges with the hiring standards applicable to LEAs with 500 to 2,499 students. The majority of the inquiries and/or waiver requests received by FNS originated in the Mountain Plains Region, which includes States with small LEAs such as those in rural and/or in Tribal communities. These small LEAs often have difficulty recruiting new school nutrition program directors with previous school nutrition program experience, as currently required by the professional standards regulations.
The current regulations at 7 CFR 210.30(b)(1)(i) require from one to three
Informal input received by FNS at State agency meetings and through other State agency contacts reveals that SFAs operating in small LEAs, particularly those in rural or less populated areas, often struggle to find applicants with school nutrition program experience. In the school meal programs, there are approximately 6,500 LEAs with an enrollment between 500-2,499 students, which represents about 36 percent of the LEA population nationwide. These small LEAs are found in States across the nation, including California, Colorado, Iowa, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. For example, within the last two years, six SFAs in one State agency were diligent in advertising director vacancies but were not able to hire new directors with the required school nutrition program experience due to the limited pool of applicants in the local labor market. Most applicants in these small LEAs have acquired relevant food service experience by working as managers or chefs at local restaurants and healthcare facilities. If a SFA hires a new director without the required education or school nutrition program experience, in violation of program requirements, the SFA is not permitted to use funds from the non-profit school food service account, which includes NSLP and SBP reimbursements, to pay the salary of the director at issue. This fiscal impact could jeopardize a SFA's financial viability and ability to participate in the NSLP and SBP.
To assist these SFAs with this challenge and provide more local control over hiring decisions that reflect their unique labor markets, FNS proposes the following changes to the hiring standards at 7 CFR 210.30(b)(1)(i) for LEAs with 2,499 students or less:
• Remove the school nutrition program experience requirement for new directors, and instead require relevant food service experience for this LEA size only;
• Provide State agencies the discretion to consider applicants' volunteer or unpaid food service experience on a case-by-case basis. This optional flexibility is expected to be particularly useful for small LEAs, such as charter and Tribal schools; and
• In small LEAs with less than 500 students, provide the State agency discretion to approve the hire of a director who has less than the required years of food service experience, provided that the applicant has the minimum education specified in the hiring standards for LEAs with 2,499 students or less.
These proposed flexibilities are intended to provide LEAs with 2,499 students or less increased access to a larger pool of applicants with relevant food service experience gained inside or outside the NSLP/SBP and applicable to the director's position. This food service experience could be either in a paid food service position (
To provide additional assistance to small LEAs with less than 500 students, this proposed rule would modify the current optional flexibility at 7 CFR 210.30(b)(1)(i)(D), which provides State agencies discretion to allow an SFA to hire a new school nutrition program director with a high school diploma and less than the required years of experience. This proposed rule would allow the State agency to apply this optional flexibility to address hiring issues in LEAs with less than 500 students if an applicant has either a high school diploma, an associate's degree, or a bachelor's degree but less than the required years of food service experience. Ideally, a new program director in this situation would have some paid or unpaid food service experience. By expanding the existing optional flexibility at § 210.30(b)(1)(i)(D) to include other educational levels, FNS affirms its commitment to provide small LEAs with less than 500 students more local control to address their unique hiring challenges.
Based on the inquiries, waiver requests, and anecdotal input from State agencies, FNS understands that these proposed flexibilities would be helpful for LEAs with 2,499 students or less, such as rural and Tribal schools, residential child care institutions, and charter schools. It is important to stress that these proposed flexibilities only address the specialized experience requirement at 7 CFR 210.30(b)(1)(i) and would not affect the number of years of experience required, which ranges from one to three years based on the level of education of the new director, except in specific situations where the State agency may use its discretion to assist an LEA with less than 500 students (as explained earlier).
Also, although this proposed rule would remove the specialized experience requirement for new SFA directors in LEAs with 2,499 students or less, hiring a new school nutrition program director with school nutrition program experience is a best practice. Minimizing the learning curve helps contribute to a smooth transition during a personnel change, especially at this level of program administration. Otherwise, significant State agency support and guidance would be essential during the first year to ensure that the new director is able to manage the SFA's meal service as required by program regulations. Additionally, the
This proposed rule would not amend the school nutrition program experience requirement for new directors in larger LEAs, those with 2,500 students or more. Operational experience since implementation of the professional standards in 2015 has not revealed issues with the experience requirement for larger LEAs, which are often located in large towns or cities in urban areas. FNS understands that such LEAs, which have a more complex school food service operation, generally have access
At the State agency level, the professional standards consist of hiring standards for new State directors of school nutrition programs, hiring standards for new directors of distributing agencies, and annual training standards for new and current State directors. These requirements are established at 7 CFR 235.11(g).
FNS is proposing to allow flexibility in the hiring standards for new State directors of school nutrition programs to attract a larger number of professionals qualified to lead and manage the school nutrition programs statewide. For a new State director of school nutrition programs, the current regulations at 7 CFR 235.11(g)(1)(i) require a bachelor's degree with an academic major in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field. A master's degree in one of the specified fields is strongly preferred.
To accommodate applicants who have a master's degree in one of the specified fields but a bachelor's degree in a non-related field, FNS proposes to add a master's degree in a relevant field to the basic qualifications listed in 7 CFR 235.11(g)(1)(i). This is intended to help ensure that highly educated individuals are not unintentionally prevented from serving as State director of school nutrition programs. Adding a master's degree in a relevant field to the basic qualifications acknowledges that many professionals change careers and gain relevant experience through advanced education in areas relevant to school nutrition. For example, a State agency supervisor who has a bachelor's degree in political science and a master's degree in nutrition education or public administration could be considered to serve as a State director of school nutrition programs.
Accordingly, this proposed rule would add more flexibility to the hiring standards in 7 CFR 210.30(b)(1)(i) for new LEA-level school nutrition program directors, and in 7 CFR 235.11(g)(1)(i) for new statewide school nutrition program directors to expand the pool of candidates qualified to serve in the school nutrition programs. FNS invites public comments on the specific flexibilities addressed in this proposed rule. Public comments will be extremely helpful in the development of the final rule.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule promotes flexibility in the hiring standards for State and local school nutrition personnel but has no measurable costs or benefits. This rule has been determined to be not significant and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been designated as not significant by the Office of Management and Budget; therefore, no Regulatory Impact Analysis is required.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires Agencies to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider alternatives that would minimize any significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to that review, it has been certified that this rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would not have an adverse impact on small entities in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program rather it would ease program operations by adding flexibility in the hiring standards for new directors in small local educational agencies and new directors of State agencies.
This proposed rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action that seeks to ease the professional standards regulations for State directors of school nutrition programs and for school nutrition program directors in small LEAs with 2,499 students or less, which are often found in rural communities facing labor market challenges. This rule addresses hiring challenges identified by the State agencies that administer the Child Nutrition Programs. It would add flexibility to hiring standards by expanding the range of allowable education for new State directors, and the range of allowable food service experience for new local directors in small LEAs.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This proposed rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and Tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
The National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 10.555 and Number 10.553, respectively, and are subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.) Since the Child Nutrition Programs are State-administered, USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) Regional Offices have formal and informal discussions with State and local officials, including representatives of Indian Tribal Organizations, on an
Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13121.
The Department has considered the impact of this rule on State and local governments and has determined that this rule does not have federalism implications. Therefore, under section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism summary is not required.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full and timely implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted.
FNS has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with USDA Regulation 4300-4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis,” to identify any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on Program participants on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, sex or disability. After a careful review of the rule's intent and provisions, FNS has determined that this rule is not expected to affect the participation of protected individuals in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program, or limit the ability of protected classes of individuals to serve as new directors in LEAs and State agencies. The provisions of this proposed rule would add flexibility to the existing hiring standards for new directors in order to address difficulties faced by program operators in finding qualified applicants.
Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. FNS will notify Tribal leaders about this proposed rule to encourage public comments, and intends to brief Tribal leaders at one of the quarterly consultations or conference calls scheduled by the Office of Tribal Relations.
FNS has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have negative Tribal implications that require Tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation on this rule, FNS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress. We are unaware of any current Tribal laws that could be in conflict with the proposed provisions of this rule and anticipate that the proposed hiring flexibilities will benefit Tribal schools.
When implemented, the flexibilities provided by this rule are expected to increase the pool of candidates qualified to serve as new directors of school nutrition programs in small LEAs. This is expected to benefit Tribal communities, which often experience difficulty attracting qualified school nutrition personnel.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR 1320) requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve all collections of information by a Federal agency before they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. The provisions of this proposed rule do not contain information collection requirements subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Department is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Children, Commodity school program, Food assistance programs, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—education, School breakfast and lunch programs, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Food assistance programs, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—education, School breakfast and lunch programs, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 210 and 235 are proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1751-1760, 1779.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(A) A bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with an academic major or concentration in food and nutrition, food service management,
(B) A bachelor's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with any academic major or area of concentration, and either a State-recognized certificate for school nutrition directors or at least one year of relevant food service experience. At the discretion of the State agency, and on a case-by-case basis, the relevant food service experience may be unpaid;
(C) An associate's degree, or equivalent educational experience, with an academic major or area of concentration in food and nutrition, food service management, dietetics, family and consumer sciences, nutrition education, culinary arts, business, or a related field and at least one year of relevant food service experience. At the discretion of the State agency, and on a case-by-case basis, the relevant food service experience may be unpaid; or
(D) A high school diploma or equivalency (such as the general educational development diploma), and at least three years of relevant food service experience. At the discretion of the State agency, and on a case-by-case basis, the relevant food service experience may be unpaid. Directors hired under this criterion are strongly encouraged to work toward attaining an associate's degree in an academic major in the fields listed in paragraph (b)(1)(i).
(E) For a local educational agency with less than 500 students, the State agency has discretion to approve the hire of a director who meets one of the educational criteria in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A)-(D) but has less than the required years of relevant food service experience.
Secs. 7 and 10 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, 80 Stat. 888, 889, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1776, 1779).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point, WI, by removing the part-time language from the airspace description. The FAA is proposing this action to change the status from part-time to full-time at the request of Chicago Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). This action would also make an editorial change to the airspace description by removing the city from the airport name.
Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0087; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-3, 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 designated as a surface area at Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point, WI, to support instrument flight rule operations.
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-2018-0087; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-3.” The postcard
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 amending the Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point, WI, by removing the part-time language from the airspace description. This proposal is made at the request of Chicago ARTCC to change the airspace from part-time to full-time.
This action also would make an editorial change by removing the name of the city associated with the airport in the airspace designation to comply with a recent change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, dated October 12, 2017.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 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 regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Within a 4.1-mile radius of Iowa County Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA is proposing to establish Canadian area navigation (RNAV) route T-705 in the Northeastern United States (U.S.). This proposal would extend the Canadian Route into U.S. airspace. The FAA is proposing this action at the request of NAVCANADA and the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) to expand the availability of RNAV routing and fill a gap in routing in northeastern New York that resulted from the decommissioning of the Plattsburgh, NY, VHF Omnidirectional Range Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC).
Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527 or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0050 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-3 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.
Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would support the route structure in the northeastern United States to expand the availability of RNAV routing.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0050 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-3) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0050 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, 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 to establish Canadian RNAV route T-705 by extending the Canadian route into U.S. airspace. T-705 currently extends between the IKNAR, Canada, waypoint (WP) located approximately 90 nautical miles (NM) north of Montreal, Canada, and the DUNUP, Canada, WP located approximately 25 NM southeast of Montreal. This proposal would extend T-705 from the DUNUP, Canada, WP through the EBDOT, Canada WP, then into U.S. airspace via the LATTS, NY, and PBERG, NY, WPs. From the PBERG WP, the route would proceed to the RIGID, NY, fix, and from that point, it would overlie VOR Federal airway V-196 to the Utica, NY, VORTAC. The amended T-705 would provide continuous RNAV routing between Utica, NY, and Montreal, Canada, and points north of Montreal to the IKNAR, Canada, WP.
Canadian area navigation routes that extend into United States airspace are published in paragraph 6013 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 area navigation route listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration 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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary special local regulation on Pensacola Bay in Pensacola, FL. The proposed rulemaking is needed to protect the persons participating in the Pensacola Triathlon marine event. This proposed rulemaking restricts transit into, through and within the regulated area unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 5, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0103 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Kyle D. Berry, Sector Mobile, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 251-441-5940, email
On January 16, 2018, the marine event sponsor for the annual Pensacola Triathlon marine event submitted an application for a marine event permit. The Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) has determined a special local regulation is needed to protect the persons participating in and viewing the Pensacola Triathlon marine event.
The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to restrict transit into, through and within the regulated area on Pensacola Bay extending in a 300 yard radius from position 30°24′16.4″ N, 87°12′55.2″ W in Pensacola, FL during the Pensacola Triathlon. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary special local regulation on Pensacola Bay extending in a 300 yard radius from position 30°24′16.4″ N, 87°12′55.2″ W in Pensacola, FL. The proposed rulemaking is needed to needed to protect the persons participating in the Pensacola Triathlon marine event. This proposed rulemaking restricts transit into, through and within the regulated area unless specifically authorized by the COTP. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM would be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”. All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The
Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the Patrol Commander and when so directed by that officer would be operated at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner which will not endanger participants in the regulated area or any other vessels. No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through an official patrol vessel. Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the duration of the event.
The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property. The COTP or a designated representative would terminate enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the event.
The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on size, location, and duration of the proposed rulemaking. The proposed special local regulation on Pensacola Bay extending in a 300 yard radius from position 30°24′16.4″ N, 87°12′55.2″ W in Pensacola, FL from 4 a.m. to 10 a.m. on April 29, 2018. Additionally, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulation so that waterway users may plan accordingly for transits during this restriction. The rule also allows vessels to seek permission from the COTP or a designated representative to enter the regulated area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the
We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 100.801, entry into, transit within or through, or exit from this area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) or a designated representative. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”.
(2) All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Mobile to patrol the regulated area.
(3) Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the Patrol Commander and when so directed by that officer will be operated at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner which will not endanger participants in the regulated area or any other vessels.
(4) No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through an official patrol vessel.
(5) Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the duration of the event.
(6) The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(7) The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.
(8) The COTP or a designated representative will terminate enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the event.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the Patapsco River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters of the Inner Harbor at Baltimore, MD, during a fireworks display on April 21, 2018. If necessary, due to inclement weather, the event will be rescheduled to April 22, 2018. This action will prohibit persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 5, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0029 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 410-576-2674, email
On December 15, 2017, the Baltimore Office of Promotion and The Arts notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 11:59 p.m. on April 21, 2018, to 12:06 a.m. on April 22, 2018, or if necessary, due to inclement weather, from 11:59 p.m. on April 22, 2018 to 12:06 a.m. on April 23, 2018. Final details of the event were received by the Coast Guard on January 30, 2018. The public fireworks display will be conducted by Fireworks by Grucci, Inc., and launched from five floating platforms located within the waters of Inner Harbor Baltimore, between Inner Harbor Pier 3 and Inner Harbor Pier 5 in Baltimore, MD. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within 75 yards of each of the five fireworks discharge sites.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of persons and vessels on the navigable waters of the Inner Harbor before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 11 p.m. on April 21, 2018, until 1 a.m. on April 22, 2018, or if necessary, due to inclement weather, from 11 p.m. on April 22, 2018, until 1 a.m. on April 23, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Patapsco River, Inner Harbor, from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded on the east by longitude 076°36′12″ W, and bounded on the west by the Inner Harbor west bulkhead, located at Baltimore, MD. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of persons and vessels on the specified navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 11:59 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Although this safety zone would restrict the entire width of the waterway, it would impact a small designated area of the Inner Harbor for two hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine band channel 16 to provide information about the safety zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting two hours that would prohibit vessel movement within the Inner Harbor at Baltimore, MD. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones found in 33 CFR 165.23.
(2) Entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region. All vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone.
(3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone shall obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or designated representative. To request permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Maryland-National
(4)
(d)
Presidio Trust.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
The Presidio Trust (Trust) proposes revisions to its regulations addressing requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), requests under the Privacy Act, administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), and Debt Collection. The Trust is revising these regulations to update and streamline the language of several procedural provisions, and to reflect amendments pursuant to the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 and the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014.
Written comments must be received by the Trust on or before April 24, 2018. Comments received by mail will be considered timely if they are postmarked on or before that date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Steve Carp, Legal Analyst, 415.561.5300,
Section 104(j) of the Presidio Trust Act (16 U.S.C. 460bb appendix) authorizes the Trust to prescribe regulations governing the manner in which it conducts its business and exercises its powers. This rulemaking revises the Trust's administrative regulations at 36 CFR part 1007 (FOIA), part 1008 (Privacy Act), part 1009 (FTCA), and part 1011 (Debt Collection), as described below. In addition, the Trust has made minor ministerial changes and corrected typographical errors to these parts of its regulations.
The Trust adopted FOIA regulations effective January 29, 1999. The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 (Act) amended the FOIA on June 30, 2016. Those FOIA amendments require federal agencies to review and update their FOIA regulations in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Trust proposes revisions to conform its regulations to the Act, as well as to the Department of Justice's revised FOIA regulations. Specifically, this rulemaking proposes revisions to § 1007.1 (Purpose and scope) by adding references to the text of FOIA and the Trust's Privacy Act regulations; § 1007.2 (Records available) by adopting a policy of presumption of openness and the “foreseeable harm” standard; § 1007.3 (Requests for records) by providing a requester an opportunity to consult with the Trust's FOIA Officer to perfect a request and adding procedures to verify the requester's identity; § 1007.4 (Preliminary processing of requests) by specifying the date used for searching, adding consultation and referral procedures for requests of records of other departments and agencies, and adding procedures to notify submitters and requesters of actions taken with respect to requests containing commercial or financial information; § 1007.5 (Action on initial requests) by specifying decisions that constitute adverse determinations of requests, adding procedures for notifying requesters of dispute resolution services, and adding types of requests that would qualify for expedited processing; § 1007.7 (Appeals) by changing the time period for requesters to file an administrative appeal from 20 working days to 90 calendar days and requiring an appeal of an adverse determination before seeking a court order; § 1007.8 (Action on appeals) by adding procedures for notifying requesters of dispute resolution services; and § 1007.9 (Fees) by adding definitions for the terms “direct costs” and “review.”
The Trust also proposes revisions to § 1007.9 to update the fees charged by the Trust for processing FOIA requests. The Trust previously published its fees on December 2, 1998 in its Interim Compendium. Under the proposed revisions to § 1007.9, the Trust's Executive Director will set fees for processing these requests and will publish the fees on the Trust's website instead of the Interim Compendium. With these changes, the fees previously listed in § 1007.9 of the Interim Compendium will no longer be effective.
The Trust adopted Privacy Act regulations effective January 29, 1999. There has been little statutory change to the Privacy Act of 1974 since the Trust adopted its Privacy Act regulations. However, the Trust proposes revisions to conform its regulations to guidance issued by the Department of Justice and the Office of Management and Budget. Specifically, this rulemaking proposes revisions to § 1008.2 (Definitions) by changing the definition of “individual”; § 1008.9 (Disclosure of records) by adding procedures for notice of court-ordered and emergency disclosures; and §§ 1008.11 (Request for notification of existence of records: Submission), 1008.14 (Requests for access to records: Submission), and 1008.19 (Petitions for amendment: Submission and form) by adding procedures to verify the requester's identity.
The Trust also proposes revisions to § 1008.15 (Requests for access to records: Initial decision) to update the fees charged by the Trust for processing
The Trust adopted FTCA regulations effective January 29, 1999. This rulemaking proposes revisions to § 1009.4 (Payment of claims) by adding procedures the Trust uses to pay FTCA claims from its proceeds or revenues.
The Trust adopted debt collection regulations effective January 12, 2006. The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 amended federal debt collection law to require federal agencies to refer eligible delinquent debts to the Department of the Treasury for administrative offset after 120 days, rather than 180 days. This rulemaking proposes minor revisions to §§ 1011.4 (What notice will the Presidio Trust send to a debtor when collecting a debt?), 1011.9 (When will the Presidio Trust transfer a debt to the Financial Management Service for collection?), and 1011.10 (How will the Presidio Trust use administrative offset (offset of non-tax federal payments) to collect a debt?) to reflect this requirement.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant. This rule:
(1) Will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
(2) Will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The rule only affects management and operations of the Presidio Trust.
(3) Does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients.
(4) Does raise novel legal or policy issues.
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. The Trust has developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Executive Order 13771 requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation. In furtherance of this requirement, section 2(c) of the Executive Order requires that the new incremental costs associated with new regulations must, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations. The OMB's interim guidance issued on February 2, 2017 explains that the above requirements only apply to each new “significant regulatory action that imposes costs.” The OMB has determined that this proposed rule is only related to the Trust's organization and management and is not a “significant regulatory action that imposes costs.” Thus, this rule does not trigger the above requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This proposed rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposed rule is not a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 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; or (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 relates to internal administrative procedures and management of government function. It does not regulate external entities, impose any costs on them, or eliminate any procedures or functions that would result in a loss of employment or income on the part of the private sector.
This proposed rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. This 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 is not required. This rule produces no costs outside of the Federal government and does not create an additional burden on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.
This proposed rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.
This proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications, as defined by section 1 of Executive Order 13132, to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule only affects use of Trust administered lands. It has no outside effects on other areas. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This proposed rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule: (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate
This proposed rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
This proposed rule has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes. Consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required.
This proposed rule does not contain new collections of information that require approval by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The rule does not impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State, tribal, or local governments; individuals; businesses; or organizations.
This proposed rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Trust's NEPA regulations at 36 CFR 1010.16. It is a modification of existing Trust regulations in order to make them clearer, more complete, and consistent with current Federal statutory law. Moreover, a detailed statement under the NEPA is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. The Trust has determined that the proposed rule is categorically excluded under 36 CFR 1010.7(a)(10)(i) as it is a revision of Trust regulations that does not increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature and character of the Presidio Area B or of causing significant physical damage to it. Further, the rule will not result in the introduction of non-compatible uses, which might compromise the nature and characteristics of the Presidio Area B or cause significant physical damage to it. Finally, the rule will not conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses or cause a significant nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants. The Trust has also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 36 CFR 1010.7(b) that would require further analysis under the NEPA.
The Trust is 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 the Trust publishes 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 the Trust has not met these requirements, send the Trust your comments by one of the methods listed in the
It is the policy of the Trust, 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 following the instructions in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment to withhold your personal identifiable information from public view, the Trust cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
Administrative practice and procedure, Archives and records, Freedom of information, National parks, Natural resources, Public lands, Records, Recreation and recreation areas.
Administrative practice and procedure, National parks, Natural resources, Personally identifiable information, Privacy, Public lands, Recreation and recreation areas.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, National parks, Natural resources, Public lands, Recreation and recreation areas, Tort claims.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Credit, Debt collection, Government employees, National parks, Natural resources, Public lands, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Presidio Trust proposes to amend Chapter X of title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Pub. L. 104-333, 110 Stat. 4097 (16 U.S.C. 460bb note); 5 U.S.C. 552; E.O. 12,600, 52 FR 23781, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp., p. 235.
(a) This part contains the procedures for submission to and consideration by the Presidio Trust of requests for records under the FOIA. As used in this part, the term “FOIA” means the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. The regulations in this part should be read in conjunction with the text of the FOIA. Requests made by individuals for records about themselves under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, are processed in accordance with the Presidio Trust's Privacy Act regulations as well as under this subpart.
(b) Before invoking the formal procedures set out below, persons seeking records from the Presidio Trust may find it useful to consult with the Presidio Trust's FOIA Officer, who can be reached at The Presidio Trust, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052, Telephone: 415.561.5300. As used in this part, the term “FOIA Officer” means the employee designated by the Executive Director to process FOIA requests and otherwise supervise the Presidio Trust's compliance with the FOIA, or the alternate employee so designated to perform these duties in the absence of the FOIA Officer.
(c) The procedures in this part do not apply to:
(1) Records published in the
(2) Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes and covered by the disclosure exemption described in § 1007.2(c)(7) if:
(i) The investigation or proceeding involves a possible violation of criminal law; and
(ii) There is reason to believe that:
(A) The subject of the investigation or proceeding is not aware of its pendency; and
(B) Disclosure of the existence of the records could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.
(3) Informant records maintained by the United States Park Police under an informant's name or personal identifier, if requested by a third party according to the informant's name or personal identifier, unless the informant's status as an informant has been officially confirmed.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)(i) Specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy; and
(ii) Are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.
(2) Related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;
(3) Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than the Privacy Act), provided that such statute:
(i) Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or
(ii) Establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld.
(4) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(5) Inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;
(6) Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(7) Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information:
(i) Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;
(ii) Would deprive a person of a right to a fair or an impartial adjudication;
(iii) Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(iv) Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source;
(v) Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law; or
(vi) Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
(8) Contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or
(9) Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
(d)
(1) Disclosure is prohibited by statute or Executive order; or
(2) Sound grounds exist for invocation of the exemption.
(e)
(a)
(b)
(2) A request must reasonably describe the records requested. A request reasonably describes the records requested if it will enable an employee of the Presidio Trust familiar with the subject area of the request to locate the record with a reasonable amount of effort. If such information is available, the request should identify the subject matter of the record, the date when it was made, the place where it was made, the person or office that made it, the present custodian of the record, and any other information that will assist in locating the requested record. If the request involves a matter known by the requester to be in litigation, the request should also state the case name and court hearing the case. If after receiving a request the FOIA Officer determines that the request does not reasonably describe the records sought, the FOIA Officer will inform the requester what additional information is needed or why the request is otherwise insufficient. Requesters who are attempting to reformulate or modify such a request may discuss their request with the FOIA Officer. If a request does not reasonably describe the records sought, the Presidio Trust's response to the request may be delayed or an adverse determination under § 1007.5(e).
(3)(i) A perfected request shall:
(A) Specify the fee category (commercial use, educational institution, noncommercial scientific institution, news media, or other, as defined in § 1007.9) in which the requester claims the request falls and the basis of this claim;
(B) State the maximum amount of fees that the requester is willing to pay or include a request for a fee waiver; and
(C) Provide contact information for the requester, such as phone number, email address and/or mailing address, to assist the Presidio Trust in communicating with them and providing released records.
(ii) Requesters who make requests for records about themselves must verify their identity.
(iii) Where a request for records pertains to another individual, a requester may receive greater access by submitting either a notarized authorization signed by that individual or a declaration made in compliance with the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1746 by that individual authorizing disclosure of the records to the requester, or by submitting proof that the individual is deceased (
(iv) Requesters are advised that, under § 1007.9 (f), (g) and (h), the time for responding to requests may be delayed:
(A) If a requester has not sufficiently identified the fee category applicable to the request;
(B) If a requester has not stated a willingness to pay fees as high as anticipated by the Presidio Trust; or
(C) If a fee waiver request is denied and the requester has not included an alternative statement of willingness to pay fees as high as anticipated by the Presidio Trust.
(4) A request seeking a fee waiver shall, to the extent possible, address why the requester believes that the criteria for fee waivers set out in § 1007.10 are met.
(5) To expedite processing, both the envelope containing a request and the face of the request should bear the legend “FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST.”
(c)
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(B) If the Presidio Trust refers any part of the responsibility for responding to a request to another department or agency, the Presidio Trust will document the referral, maintain a copy of the record that it refers, and notify the requester of the referral, informing the requester of the name(s) of the department or agency to which the record was referred, including that entity's FOIA contact information.
(2) Timing of responses to consultations and referrals. All consultations and referrals received by the Presidio Trust will be handled according to the date that the Presidio Trust received the perfected FOIA request.
(3) A request for documents that were classified by another agency shall be referred to that agency.
(c) Consultation with submitters of commercial and financial information. (1) If a request seeks a record containing trade secrets or commercial or financial information submitted by a person outside of the Federal government, the Presidio Trust shall provide the submitter with notice of the request whenever:
(i) The submitter has made a good faith designation of the information as commercially or financially sensitive; or
(ii) The Presidio Trust has reason to believe that disclosure of the information may result in commercial or financial injury to the submitter.
(2) Where notification of a voluminous number of submitters is required, such notification may be accomplished by posting or publishing the notice in a place reasonably calculated to accomplish notification.
(3) The notice to the submitter shall afford the submitter a reasonable period within which to provide a detailed statement of any objection to disclosure. The submitter's statement shall explain the basis on which the information is claimed to be exempt under the FOIA, including a specification of any claim of competitive or other business harm that would result from disclosure. The statement shall also include a certification that the information is confidential, has not been disclosed to the public by the submitter, and is not routinely available to the public from other sources.
(4) A submitter who fails to respond within the time period specified in the notice will be deemed to have no objection to disclosure of the information. The Presidio Trust shall not be required to consider any information received from the submitter after the date of any disclosure decision. Any information provided by a submitter under this subpart may itself be subject to disclosure under the FOIA.
(5) The Presidio Trust will notify the requester whenever it provides the submitter with notice and an opportunity to object to disclosure; whenever it notifies the submitter of its intent to disclose the requested information; and whenever a submitter files a lawsuit to prevent the disclosure of the information.
(6) If a submitter's statement cannot be obtained within the time limit for processing the request under § 1007.6,
(7) Notification to a submitter is not required if:
(i) The Presidio Trust determines, prior to giving notice, that the request for the record should be denied;
(ii) The information has previously been lawfully published or officially made available to the public;
(iii) Disclosure is required by a statute (other than the FOIA) or regulation (other than this part);
(iv) Disclosure is clearly prohibited by a statute, as described in § 1007.2(c)(3);
(v) The information was not designated by the submitter as confidential when it was submitted, or a reasonable time thereafter, if the submitter was specifically afforded an opportunity to make such a designation; however, a submitter will be notified of a request for information that was not designated as confidential at the time of submission, or a reasonable time thereafter, if there is substantial reason to believe that disclosure of the information would result in competitive harm;
(vi) The designation of confidentiality made by the submitter is obviously frivolous; or
(vii) The information was submitted to the Presidio Trust more than ten years prior to the date of the request, unless the Presidio Trust has reason to believe that it continues to be confidential.
(8) If a requester brings suit to compel disclosure of information, the submitter of the information will be promptly notified.
(a)
(2) A decision to withhold a requested record, to release a record that is exempt from disclosure, or to deny a fee waiver shall be made only after consultation with the General Counsel.
(b)
(2) Requesters must include the individualized tracking number in all communications with the Presidio Trust regarding the request.
(c)
(d)
(2) The FOIA Officer shall honor a requester's specified preference of form or format of disclosure (
(3) If a requested record (or portion thereof) is being made available over the objections of a submitter made in accordance with § 1007.4(c), both the requester and the submitter shall be notified of the decision. The notice to the submitter (a copy of which shall be made available to the requester) shall be forwarded a reasonable number of days prior to the date on which disclosure is to be made and shall include:
(i) A statement of the reasons why the submitter's objections were not sustained;
(ii) A specification of the portions of the record to be disclosed, if the submitter's objections were sustained in part; and
(iii) A specified disclosure date.
(4) If a claim of confidentiality has been found frivolous in accordance with § 1007.4(c)(7)(vi) and a determination is made to release the information without consultation with the submitter, the submitter of the information shall be notified of the decision and the reasons therefor a reasonable number of days prior to the date on which disclosure is to be made.
(e)
(1) The requester has not submitted a perfected request;
(2) The requested record is exempt, in whole or in part;
(3) The request does not reasonably describe the records sought;
(4) The information is not a record subject to the FOIA;
(5) The requested record does not exist, cannot be located, or has been destroyed; or
(6) The requested record is not readily reproducible in the form or format sought by the requester. Adverse determinations also include denials involving fees or fee waivers or denials of requests for expedited processing.
(f)
(i) A listing of the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial;
(ii) A reference to the specific exemption or exemptions authorizing the withholding;
(iii) If neither a statute nor an Executive order requires withholding, the sound ground for withholding;
(iv) An estimate of the volume of records or information withheld, in number of pages or in some other reasonable form of estimation. This estimate does not need to be provided if the volume is otherwise indicated through deletions on records disclosed in part, or if providing an estimate would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption;
(v) A statement that the denial may be appealed and a reference to the procedures in § 1007.7 for appeal; and
(vi) A statement notifying the requester of the dispute resolution services offered by the Office of Government Information Services.
(2) A decision denying a request for failure to reasonably describe requested records or for other procedural deficiency or because requested records cannot be located shall be in writing and shall include:
(i) A description of the basis of the decision;
(ii) A list of the names and titles or positions of each person responsible;
(iii) A statement that the matter may be appealed and a reference to the procedures in § 1007.7 for appeal; and
(iv) A statement notifying the requester of the dispute resolution services offered by the Office of Government Information Services.
(g)
(i) Circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual;
(ii) An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information;
(iii) The loss of substantial due process rights; or
(iv) A matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government's integrity that affect public confidence.
(2) A request for expedited processing may be made at the time of the initial request for records or at any later time.
(3) A requester who seeks expedited processing must submit a statement, certified to be true and correct to the best of that person's knowledge and belief, explaining in detail the basis for requesting expedited processing.
(4) Within ten calendar days of receiving of a request for expedited processing, the FOIA Officer shall decide whether to grant the request for expedited processing and shall notify the requester of the decision. If a request for expedited processing is granted, the underlying FOIA request shall be given priority and shall be processed as soon as practicable. If a request for expedited processing is denied, any appeal of that decision shall be acted on expeditiously.
(a)
(b)
(2) The running of the basic time limit may be delayed or tolled as explained in § 1007.9 (f), (g) and (h) if a requester:
(i) Has not stated a willingness to pay fees as high as are anticipated and has not sought and been granted a full fee waiver; or
(ii) Has not made a required advance payment.
(c)
(1) The need to search for and collect the requested records from facilities or other establishments that are separate from the main office of the Presidio Trust;
(2) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records demanded in a single request; or
(3) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another department or agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a)
(1) Records have been withheld;
(2) A request has been denied for failure to describe requested records or for other procedural deficiency or because requested records cannot be located;
(3) A fee waiver has been denied;
(4) A request has not been decided within the time limits provided in § 1007.6; or
(5) A request for expedited processing under § 1007.5(g) has been denied.
(b)
(c)
(2) The appeal shall be addressed to the Executive Director, The Presidio Trust, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052.
(3) To expedite processing, both the envelope containing a notice of appeal and the face of the notice should bear the legend “FREEDOM OF INFORMATION APPEAL.”
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The appellant shall be advised in writing of the reasons for the extension and the date on which a final determination on the appeal is expected to be dispatched.
(3) If no determination on the appeal has been reached at the end of the 20 working day period, or the extension thereof, the requester is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies, giving rise to a right of review in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, as specified in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4).
(4) When no determination can be reached within the applicable time limit, the appeal will nevertheless continue to be processed. On expiration of the time limit, the requester shall be informed of the reason for the delay, of the date on which a determination may be reached to be dispatched, and of the right to seek judicial review.
(5) An appeal ordinarily will not be adjudicated if the request becomes a matter of FOIA litigation.
(d)
(2) If a requested record (or portion thereof) is being made available over the objections of a submitter made in accordance with § 1007.4(c), the submitter shall be provided notice as described in § 1007.5(b)(3).
(a)
(2) Fees shall not be charged if the total amount chargeable does not exceed the costs of routine collection and processing of the fee. The Presidio Trust shall periodically determine the cost of routine collection and processing of a fee and publish such amount on its website.
(3) Where there is a reasonable basis to conclude that a requester or group of requesters acting in concert has divided a request into a series of requests on a single subject or related subjects to avoid assessment of fees, the requests may be aggregated and fees charged accordingly.
(4) Fees shall be charged to recover the full costs of providing such services as certifying that records are true copies or sending records by a method other than regular mail, when the Presidio Trust elects to provide such services.
(5) The following definitions shall apply to this part:
(i) A
(ii) The term
(iii) The term
(iv) An
(v) A
(vi) A
(vii) The term
(viii) The term
(b)
(2) A commercial use requester may not be charged fees for time spent resolving legal and policy issues affecting access to requested records.
(c)
(2) Such requesters may not be charged fees for costs incurred in:
(i) Searching for requested records;
(ii) Examining requested records to determine whether they are exempt from mandatory disclosure;
(iii) Deleting reasonably segregable exempt matter;
(iv) Monitoring the requester's inspection of agency records; or
(v) Resolving legal and policy issues affecting access to requested records.
(d)
(2) Representatives of the news media may not be charged fees for costs incurred in:
(i) Searching for requested records;
(ii) Examining requested records to determine whether they are exempt from mandatory disclosure;
(iii) Deleting reasonably segregable exempt matter;
(iv) Monitoring the requester's inspection of agency records; or
(v) Resolving legal and policy issues affecting access to requested records.
(e)
(2) Such requesters may not be charged for costs incurred in:
(i) Examining requested records to determine whether they are exempt from disclosure;
(ii) Deleting reasonably segregable exempt matter;
(iii) Monitoring the requester's inspection of agency records; or
(iv) Resolving legal and policy issues affecting access to requested records.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(2) Where a requester has previously failed to pay a fee within 30 days of the date of billing, processing of any request from that requester shall ordinarily be suspended until the requester pays any amount still owed, including applicable interest, and makes advance payment of allowable fees anticipated in connection with the request.
(3) Advance payment of fees may not be required except as described in paragraphs (h) (1) and (2) of this section.
(4) Issuance of a notice requiring payment of overdue fees or advance payment shall toll the time limit in § 1007.6 until receipt of payment.
(i)
(j)
(k)
Pub. L. 104-333, 110 Stat. 4097 (16 U.S.C. 460bb note); 5 U.S.C. 552a.
(a)
(b)
(1) To those officers or employees of the Presidio Trust who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties; or
(2) Required by the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
(c)
(1) For a routine use which has been described in a system notice published in the
(2) To the Bureau of the Census for purposes of planning or carrying out a census or survey or related activity pursuant to the provisions of Title 13, U.S. Code.
(3) To a recipient who has provided the system manager responsible for the system in which the record is maintained with advance adequate written assurance that the record will be used solely as a statistical research or reporting record, and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable;
(4) To the National Archives and Records Administration as a record which has sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by the U.S. Government, or for evaluation by the Archivist of the United States or the designee of the Archivist to determine whether the record has such value;
(5) To another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality
(6) To a person pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual if upon such disclosure notification is transmitted to the last known address of such individual;
(7) To either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee thereof, any joint committee of Congress or subcommittee of any such joint committee;
(8) To the Comptroller General, or any of his authorized representatives, in the course of the performance of the duties of the General Accounting Office;
(9) Pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or
(10) To a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3(d) of the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966, as amended (31 U.S.C. 3711(e)).
(d)
(2) When a record is disclosed in connection with a Freedom of Information Act request made under this part and it is appropriate and administratively feasible to do so, the requester shall be informed of any information known to the Presidio Trust indicating that the record may not be fully accurate, complete, or timely.
(e)
(2)
(a)
(2) The accounting shall record:
(i) The date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of a record to any person or to another agency; and
(ii) The name and address of the person or agency to whom the disclosure was made.
(3) Accountings prepared under this section shall be maintained for at least five years or the life of the record, whichever is longer, after the disclosure for which the accounting is made.
(b)
(2) An individual desiring access to an accounting of disclosures of a record pertaining to the individual shall submit a request by following the procedures of § 1008.13.
(c)
(a)
(2) Individuals desiring to determine whether records pertaining to them are maintained in two or more systems shall make a separate inquiry concerning each system.
(b)
(2) To expedite processing, both the envelope containing a request and the face of the request should bear the legend “PRIVACY ACT INQUIRY.”
(3) The request shall state that the individual is seeking information concerning records pertaining to him or herself and shall supply such additional identifying information, if any, as is called for in the system notice describing the system.
(4) The request must include verification of the requester's identity, including the requester's full name, current address, and date and place of birth. The request must be signed by the requester, and the signature must be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, which permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization.
(5) If the request is made on behalf of a minor or someone determined by a court to be incompetent, for access to records about that individual, the requester must establish:
(i) The identity of the individual who is the subject of the record, by stating the name, current address, date and place of birth, and, at the requester's option, the Social Security number of the individual;
(ii) The requester's identity, as required in paragraph 4 above of this section;
(iii) That the requester is the parent or guardian of that individual, which the requester may prove by providing a copy of the individual's birth certificate showing the requester's parentage or by providing a court order establishing the requester's guardianship; and
(iv) That the requester is acting on behalf of that individual in making the request.
(6) Individuals who have reason to believe that information pertaining to them may be filed under a name other than the name they are currently using (
(a)
(2) Individuals desiring access to records maintained in two or more separate systems shall submit a separate request for access to the records in each system.
(b)
(2) To expedite processing, both the envelope containing a request and the face of the request should bear the legend “PRIVACY ACT REQUEST FOR ACCESS.”
(3) Requesters shall specify whether they seek all of the records contained in the system which relate to them or only some portion thereof. If only a portion of the records which relate to the individual are sought, the request shall reasonably describe the specific record or records sought.
(4) If the requester seeks to have copies of the requested records made, the request shall state the maximum amount of copying fees which the requester is willing to pay. A request which does not state the amount of fees the requester is willing to pay will be treated as a request to inspect the requested records. Requesters are further notified that under § 1008.15(d) the failure to state willingness to pay fees as high as are anticipated by the Presidio Trust will delay processing of a request.
(5) The request shall supply such identifying information, if any, as is called for in the system notice describing the system.
(6) The request must include verification of the requester's identity, including the requester's full name, current address, and date and place of birth. The request must be signed by the requester, and the signature must be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, which permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization.
(7) If the request is made on behalf of a minor or someone determined by a court to be incompetent, for access to records about that individual, the requester must establish:
(i) The identity of the individual who is the subject of the record, by stating the name, current address, date and place of birth, and, at the requester's option, the Social Security number of the individual;
(ii) The requester's identity, as required in paragraph 6 above of this section;
(iii) That the requester is the parent or guardian of that individual, which the requester may prove by providing a copy of the individual's birth certificate showing the requester's parentage or by providing a court order establishing the requester's guardianship; and
(iv) That the requester is acting on behalf of that individual in making the request.
(8) Requests failing to meet the requirements of this paragraph shall be returned to the requester with a written notice advising the requester of the deficiency in the request.
(a)
(b)
(1) Was compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding; or
(2) Is contained in a system of records which has been excepted from the access provisions of the Privacy Act by rulemaking.
(c)
(d)
(2) A decision denying a request for access, in whole or part, shall be in writing and shall:
(i) State the basis for denial of the request;
(ii) Contain a statement that the denial may be appealed to the Executive Director pursuant to § 1008.16 by writing to the Executive Director, The Presidio Trust, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052; and
(iii) State that the appeal must be received by the foregoing official within 20 working days of the date of the decision.
(3) If the decision denying a request for access involves records which fall under the jurisdiction of another agency, the individual shall be informed in a written response which shall:
(i) State the reasons for the denial;
(ii) Include the name, position title, and address of the official responsible for the denial; and
(iii) Advise the individual that an appeal of the declination may be made only to the appropriate official of the relevant agency, and include that official's name, position title, and address.
(4) Copies of decisions denying requests for access made pursuant to paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section will be provided to the Privacy Act Officer.
(e)
(2) Unless the Privacy Act Officer determines that reduction or waiver of fees is appropriate, fees for copying a record in response to a request made under § 1008.14 shall be charged in accordance with the provisions of this section and the current schedule of charges determined by the Executive Director and published on the Trust's website. Such charges shall be set at the level necessary to recoup the full allowable direct costs to the Trust.
(3) Where it is anticipated that fees chargeable in connection with a request will exceed the amount the person submitting the request has indicated a willingness to pay, the Privacy Act Officer shall notify the requester and shall not complete processing of the request until the requester has agreed, in writing, to pay fees as high as are anticipated.
The Privacy Act permits individuals to request amendment of records pertaining to them contained in a system of records if they believe the records are not accurate, relevant, timely or complete. 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(2). A request for amendment of a record shall be submitted in accordance with the procedures in this part.
(a) Submission of petitions for amendment. (1) A request for amendment of a record shall be submitted to the Privacy Act Officer unless the system notice describing the
(2) A petition for amendment of a record may be submitted only if the individual submitting the petition has previously requested and been granted access to the record and has inspected or been given a copy of the record.
(b) Form of petition. (1) A petition for amendment shall be in writing, shall specifically identify the record for which amendment is sought, and shall be addressed to the Privacy Act Officer, The Presidio Trust, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052.
(2) To expedite processing, both the envelope containing a petition and the face of the petition should bear the legend “PRIVACY ACT PETITION FOR AMENDMENT.”
(3) The petition shall state, in detail, the reasons why the petitioner believes the record, or the objectionable portion thereof, is not accurate, relevant, timely or complete. Copies of documents or evidence relied upon in support of these reasons shall be submitted with the petition.
(4) The petition shall state, specifically and in detail, the changes sought in the record. If the changes involve rewriting the record or portions thereof or involve adding new language to the record, the petition shall propose specific language to implement the changes.
(5) The petition must include verification of the petitioner's identity, including the petitioner's full name, current address, and date and place of birth. The petition must be signed by the petitioner, and the signature must be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, which permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization.
(6) If the petition is made on behalf of a minor or someone determined by a court to be incompetent, for access to records about that individual, the petitioner must establish:
(i) The identity of the individual who is the subject of the record, by stating the name, current address, date and place of birth, and, at the petitioner's option, the Social Security number of the individual;
(ii) The petitioner's identity, as required in paragraph 5 above of this section;
(iii) That the petitioner is the parent or guardian of that individual, which the petitioner may prove by providing a copy of the individual's birth certificate showing the petitioner's parentage or by providing a court order establishing the petitioner's guardianship; and
(iv) That the petitioner is acting on behalf of that individual in making the request.
(7) Petitions failing to meet the requirements of this paragraph shall be returned to the petitioner with a written notice advising the petitioner of the deficiency in the petition.
Pub. L. 104-333, 110 Stat. 4097 (16 U.S.C. 460bb note); 28 U.S.C. 2672.
The purpose of this part is to establish procedures for the filing and settlement of claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (in part, 28 U.S.C. secs. 2401(b), 2671-2680, as amended). The officers to whom authority is delegated to settle tort claims shall follow and be guided by the regulations issued by the Attorney General prescribing standards and procedures for settlement of tort claims (28 CFR part 14).
(a) In making an award from proceeds or revenues of the Presidio Trust, the Presidio Trust will process payment using an agreement signed by the claimant and the Executive Director, or his or her designee. In making an award from proceeds or revenues not provided for by the Presidio Trust, the Presidio Trust will process payment as prescribed by 28 CFR 14.10.
(b) Prior to payment, appropriate releases shall be obtained as provided in 28 CFR 14.10.
(c) Any award, compromise, or settlement in excess of $25,000 shall be effected only with the prior written approval of the Attorney General or his or her designee.
16 U.S.C. 460bb appendix, as amended.
(a) * * *
(7) The following timelines for the referral of a delinquent debt to the FMS:
(i) That debts over 120 days delinquent and eligible for the centralized administrative offset collection actions described in paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section must be referred to the FMS for collection (see §§ 1011.10 through 1011.12);
(ii) That debts over 180 days delinquent not previously referred to the FMS under paragraph (i) of this section must be referred to the FMS for cross servicing debt collection (see § 1011.9).
(a)
(a)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown 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
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
3.
EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
21 U.S.C. 346a.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published on August 22, 2016. The NPRM proposed changes to FEMA's “Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands” regulations to implement Executive Order 13690, which established the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS). FEMA also withdraws the proposed supplementary policy (FEMA Policy: 078-3), which clarified how FEMA would apply the FFRMS. On August 15, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13807, which revoked Executive Order 13690. Accordingly, the NPRM and supplementary policy are withdrawn.
FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rule published August 22, 2016 (81 FR 57402) as of March 6, 2018.
The docket for this withdrawn rulemaking is available on the internet at
Kristin Fontenot, Director, Office of Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (OEHP), Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, DHS/FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Suite 313, Washington, DC 20472-3020. Phone: 202-646-2741; Email:
On August 22, 2016, FEMA published an NPRM entitled “Updates to Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands Regulations To Implement Executive Order 13690 and the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard” in the
On August 15, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13807 (“Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects”) which revoked Executive Order 13690. See 82 FR 40463, Aug. 24, 2017. Executive Order 13807 left in place Executive Order 11988, which provides for uniform floodplain management standards and procedures across the Executive Branch, and which is currently reflected in FEMA regulations.
The withdrawal of the NPRM qualifies as a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771.
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 5201
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Oklahoma State University of Stillwater, Oklahoma, an exclusive license to the variety of peanut described in Plant Variety Protection Certificate Number 201500363, “VENUS”, issued on June 27, 2017.
Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2018.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.
Brian T. Nakanishi of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.
The Federal Government's rights in this plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Mississippi State University of Mississippi State, Mississippi, an exclusive license to the variety of blueberry described in U.S. Plant Patent Application Serial No. 15/731,025, “BLUEBERRY PLANT NAMED `GUMBO',” filed on April 7, 2017.
Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2018.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.
Brian T. Nakanishi of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.
The Federal Government's patent rights in this plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Oklahoma State University of Stillwater, Oklahoma, an exclusive license to the variety of peanut described in Plant Variety Protection Certificate Number 201600156, “LARIAT”, issued on November 28, 2016.
Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2018.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.
Brian T. Nakanishi of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.
The Federal Government's rights in this plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the
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 March 7, 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
Direct requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions to Robin A. Pennington, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233 (or via the internet at
The Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS) is one of many voluntary geographic partnership programs that collects boundaries to update the U.S. Census Bureau's geographic database of addresses, streets, and boundaries. The Census Bureau uses its geographic database to link demographic data from surveys and the decennial census to locations and areas, such as cities, school districts, and counties. In order to tabulate statistics by localities, the Census Bureau must have accurate addresses and boundaries.
The boundaries collected during the BAS and other geographic programs become bounding features for census blocks, which are the building blocks for all Census Bureau geographic boundaries. While the Census Bureau's geographic programs differ in requirements, time frame, and participants, the BAS and other geographic programs all follow the same basic process:
1. The Census Bureau invites eligible participants to the program. For the BAS, the Census Bureau invites legal governments.
2. If they elect to participate in the program, participants receive a copy of the boundaries or addresses that the Census Bureau has on file. BAS participants can choose to review and update their boundaries using Geographic Update Partnership Software (GUPS)—which is a free customized mapping software—paper maps, or their own mapping software.
3. Participants return their updates to the Census Bureau.
4. The Census Bureau processes and verifies all submissions for accuracy, and updates its geographic database with boundary or address updates submitted by the participants.
5. The Census Bureau uses the newly updated boundaries and addresses to tabulate statistics.
The Census Bureau conducts the Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS) to collect and maintain information about the inventory of legal boundaries and legal actions affecting the boundaries of:
• Counties and equivalent entities.
• Federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native federal reservations and off-reservation trust lands.
• Incorporated places.
• Minor civil divisions (MCDs).
• Tribal subdivisions.
This information provides an accurate identification of geographic areas for the Census Bureau to use in conducting the decennial and economic censuses and ongoing surveys, preparing population estimates, and supporting other statistical programs of the Census Bureau and the legislative programs of the federal government.
Through the BAS, the Census Bureau asks each government to review materials and verify the accuracy of the information the Census Bureau has on file or submit corrections. The Census Bureau also requests that if necessary, each government update the boundaries, supply information documenting each legal boundary change, and provide changes in the inventory of governments.
The BAS allows the Census Bureau to collect accurate boundaries for legal areas, which improves the accuracy of the statistics the Census Bureau tabulates. The Census Bureau uses the BAS results to support a number of programs, including congressional and state legislative redistricting, the decennial census and related preparatory tests, the economic census, and the Special Census Program. The American Community Survey and Population Estimates Program use the legal boundaries updated through the BAS to disseminate survey results and estimates.
Numerous federal programs rely on accurate boundaries from the BAS. The U.S. Geological Survey depicts the annual legal boundaries submitted to the BAS on the National Map online. The Department of Housing and Urban Development uses the legal boundaries updated through the BAS to determine jurisdictional eligibility for various grant programs, such as the Community Development Block Grant program. The Department of Agriculture uses legal boundaries updated through the BAS to determine eligibility for various rural housing and economic development programs.
While the Census Bureau has a national implementation of the BAS, the Census Bureau reviews each state's laws for inclusion in the BAS materials sent to participants. In addition, if it comes to the Census Bureau's attention that an area of non-tribal land is in dispute between two or more jurisdictions, the Census Bureau will not make annexations or boundary corrections until all affected parties come to a written agreement, or there is a documented final court decision regarding the matter and/or dispute. If there is a dispute over an area of tribal land, the Census Bureau will not make additions or boundary corrections until
The BAS includes approximately 40,000 entities. The BAS universe and mailing materials vary depending upon the needs of the Census Bureau in fulfilling its censuses and household surveys. Every survey year includes the following:
• Counties or equivalent entities.
• Incorporated places with a population of at least 2,500 people.
• MCDs in the six New England states.
• Federally recognized American Indian reservations (AIRs), off-reservation trust lands (ORTLs), and tribal subdivisions.
• A single respondent for the Hawaiian home land (HHL) boundary and status information.
• A single respondent for the municipio, barrio, and subbarrio boundary and status information in Puerto Rico.
As illustrated in the table below from 2016 to 2021, the BAS universe varies throughout the decade. The Census Bureau divides the reporting universe years into three categories:
From 2018 to 2020, the BAS includes all governmentally active counties and equivalent entities, all incorporated places, all legally defined MCDs, HHLs, legal governments in Puerto Rico, and legally defined federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) areas (including the Alaska Native Regional Corporations (ANRCs)). Each governmental entity surveyed will receive materials covering its jurisdiction and one or more forms. These three years coincide with the Census Bureau's preparation for the decennial census.
In all other years, including 2021, the BAS reporting universe includes all governmental counties and equivalent entities, MCDs in the six New England states, those incorporated places that have a population of 2,500 or greater, and all legally defined federally recognized AIAN areas, including ANRCs. During these years, the Census Bureau may enter into agreements with individual states to modify the universe of MCDs and/or incorporated places to include additional entities that are known by that state to have had boundary changes, without regard to population size.
In the years 2016 through 2020, state participants in the Redistricting Data Program (RDP) may request coordination between the BAS and RDP submissions for the Block Boundary Suggestion Project (BBSP) and Voting District Project (VTDP). The alignment of the BAS with the BBSP and VTDP facilitates increased cooperation between state and local governments and provides the opportunity to align their effort with updates from state and local government officials participating in the BAS.
The Census Bureau maintains several methods to collect information and updates for legal boundaries. The Census Bureau provides the participant with current geography derived from the Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing Database (MTDB) on CD/DVD, paper maps, or online services. The participant reviews the geography and provides the Census Bureau any changes or updates. The Census Bureau updates the MTDB based on the submitted changes and uses that data to tabulate statistics for other programs like the American Community Survey, the Population Estimates Program, and the economic and decennial censuses.
The two methods for BAS participants to view and update the Census Bureau's record of legal boundaries are through digital map files (Digital BAS) or paper maps (Paper BAS).
The following BAS collection methods allow the Census Bureau to coordinate among various levels of governments and obtain the most accurate boundary information:
• Annual Response.
• Boundary Quality Assessment and Reconciliation Project (BQARP).
• Boundary Validation Program (BVP).
• Consolidation Agreements.
• Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
• State Certification.
In digital BAS, participants fill out the online BAS forms and choose one of the following options:
• Download free software and MTDB spatial data.
• Receive free software and MTDB spatial data on CD/DVD.
• Download MTDB spatial data and use their own Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software.
If the BAS participant elects to receive GUPS on CD/DVD, the package contains:
1. Introductory letter from the Director of the Census Bureau.
2. Appropriate BAS form(s) that contains entity-specific identification information.
a. BAS-1: Incorporated places and consolidated cities.
b. BAS-2: Counties, parishes, and boroughs.
c. BAS-3: MCDs.
d. BAS-5: AIAN areas.
3. CD or DVD and software CD for GUPS.
4. CD(s) or DVD(s) of Census Bureau spatial boundaries files.
For the traditional paper package, respondents complete the BAS form and reviews Census Bureau maps of their legal area. If needed, respondents draw boundary updates or corrections on the maps using pencils provided in the package. The package contains large format maps, printed forms, and supplies to complete the survey.
The typical BAS package contains:
1. Introductory letter from the Director of the Census Bureau.
2. Appropriate BAS form(s) that contains entity-specific identification information.
a. BAS-1: Incorporated places and consolidated cities.
b. BAS-2: Counties, parishes, and boroughs.
c. BAS-3: MCDs.
d. BAS-5: AIAN areas.
3. BAS Respondent Guide.
4. Set of maps.
5. Return postage-paid envelope to submit boundary changes.
6. Supplies for updating paper maps.
In Annual Response, the Census Bureau invites governments to participate in the BAS. The Annual Response is an announcement email letter and a one-page form for the state and county governments that do not have a consolidation agreement. Tribal, county, and local governments indicate whether they have boundary changes to report and provide a current contact person. The Census Bureau uses email and encourages governments to use the online form and download BAS materials online to reduce cost and respondent burden. All governments, without a consolidation agreement, receive the Annual Response email regardless of population size.
The following table shows the details of the Annual Response, which occurs between January and May of each year.
To improve boundary quality in the Census Bureau's MTDB, the Census Bureau uses the Boundary Quality Assessment and Reconciliation Project (BQARP) to support the BAS program. The goal of the BQARP is to assess, analyze, and improve the spatial quality of legal and administrative boundaries within the MTDB, which the BAS would then continue the collection of annexations and de-annexations on a transaction basis as they occur over time. The BQARP is a one-time project that eases the burden of BAS participants by addressing smaller boundary corrections. After a state has completed the BQARP, BAS participants will only need to submit boundary changes, such as annexations or de-annexations. Ensuring quality and spatially accurate boundaries is a critical component of the geographic preparations for the 2020 Census and the Census Bureau's ongoing geographic partnership programs and surveys. In addition, the improvement of boundary quality is an essential element of the Census Bureau's commitment as the responsible agency for legal boundaries under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-16.
The Census Bureau will conduct the 2020 Boundary Validation Program (BVP) in conjunction with the 2020 BAS. The Census Bureau conducts the BVP every ten years to provide the highest elected or appointed officials (HEOs) of tribal and local governments an opportunity to review the boundary data collected during the BAS over the last decade. The 2020 BVP will cover:
• All actively functioning counties or statistically equivalent entities.
• Incorporated places (including consolidated cities).
• MCDs.
• All federally recognized AIRs and off-reservation trust land entities in the United States.
• Municipios, barrios, barrio-pueblos and subbarrios in Puerto Rico.
In addition, the Census Bureau will send a letter to the governor of each state explaining the 2020 BVP process and noting that the Census Bureau will review the state boundaries in conjunction with relevant county boundaries as part of the BVP.
The Census Bureau will conduct the 2020 BVP in two phases: Initial and final. During the initial BVP phase, every HEO in the BAS universe will receive a BVP form, a letter with instructions, and a CD/DVD containing a complete set of 2020 BAS maps in PDF format for their governmental unit. The Census Bureau asks the HEO to review the 2020 BAS maps contained on the CD/DVD and return the BVP form within ten days of receipt. If the HEO determines that there are no changes to report, the HEO will sign and return the validated BVP form. If the HEO determines that their entity requires boundary changes, the Census Bureau will instruct the HEO to return the unsigned BVP form and work with their local BAS contact to submit boundary changes through the 2020 BAS process. If either the HEO or the BAS contact submits 2020 BAS boundary updates, effective as of January 1, 2020, by the deadline of March 1, 2020, the entity will be included in the final phase of the BVP.
In the final BVP phase, once the Census Bureau applies the participant's 2020 BAS boundary updates to the MTDB, the Census Bureau will provide each HEO a complete set of updated paper maps. This is participants' final opportunity to review the boundary and verify that the Census Bureau clearly reflects the 2020 BAS changes in the MTDB. In the final BVP phase, each HEO submits any remaining corrections within five days directly to the Census Bureau using the instructions provided in the BAS respondent guide.
Consolidation agreements allow state and county government officials the opportunity to reduce the response burden for their local governments in states where there are no legislative requirements for local governments to report their legal updates to the state or county. Under a consolidation agreement, a state or county is allowed to respond on behalf of the local governments documented in the agreement. The Census Bureau sends the BAS materials to the state or county, as appropriate, and sends a reminder notification to the local government to report their updates to their BAS consolidator.
In states with legislation requiring local governments to report all legal boundary updates to a state agency, state officials may enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Census Bureau. States have the option to report the list of governments with known legal boundary changes to the Census Bureau. The BAS will include only those governments listed or the state may report the legal boundary changes directly to the Census Bureau on behalf of the governments.
Through the BAS State Certification program, the Census Bureau invites the governor-appointed State Certifying Official (SCO) from each state to review the boundary and governmental unit information collected during the previous BAS cycle. The purpose of the State Certification program is to verify the accuracy, validity, and completeness of the BAS information with state governments. Every year, excluding 2020, the Census Bureau mails materials containing the listings of the information collected from the previous BAS year to the SCO for review. These listings include the attribute information for disincorporations and legal boundary changes as well as the names and functional statuses of incorporated places and minor civil divisions (MCDs). The SCO may request that the Census Bureau edit the attribute data, add missing records, or remove invalid records if their state government maintains an official record of all effective changes to legal boundaries and governmental units as mandated by state law. State certification packages contain a letter to the governor, a state certifying official letter, a discrepancy letter, and a state certification respondent guide.
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.
Summarization of comments submitted in response to this notice will be included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. Comments will also become a matter of public record.
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.
The Census Bureau produces statistics used to monitor activity in the large and dynamic construction industry. These statistics help state and local governments and the federal government, as well as private industry, to analyze this important sector of the economy. The accuracy of the Census Bureau statistics regarding the amount of construction authorized depends on data supplied by building and zoning officials throughout the country. The Census Bureau uses Form C-411 to obtain information from state and local building permit officials needed for updating the universe of permit-issuing
The questions on Form C-411 pertain to the legal requirements for issuing building or zoning permits in the local jurisdictions. Information is obtained on such items as geographic coverage and types of construction for which permits are issued. We do not plan any changes to the information we collect on the C-411 forms.
The appropriate form is sent to a jurisdiction when the Census Bureau has reason to believe that a new permit system has been established or an existing one has changed. This is based on information from a variety of sources including survey respondents, regional councils and the Census Bureau's Geography Division which keeps abreast of changes in corporate status.
We use the information to verify the existence of new permit systems or changes to existing systems. Based on the information, the Census Bureau adds new permit-issuing places to the universe, delete places no longer issuing permits, and makes changes to the universe to reflect those places that have merged.
Failure to maintain the universe of permit-issuing places would result in deficient samples and inaccurate statistics. This in turn jeopardizes the accuracy of the above mentioned economic indicators. These indicators are closely monitored by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and other economic policy makers because of the sensitivity of the housing industry to changes in interest rates.
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
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to expand FTZ 84 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone, and to an ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate authority for Site 51 if not activated within five years from the month of approval.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain lined paper products (lined paper) from India and the antidumping duty (AD) orders on lined paper from India and the People's Republic of China (China) would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of the continuation of the AD orders and the CVD order.
Applicable March 6, 2018.
John Conniff, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1009.
On September 28, 2006, Commerce published in the
On August 1, 2011, Commerce and the ITC initiated the first sunset reviews of the Orders pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
On July 3, 2017, Commerce initiated and the ITC instituted second sunset reviews of the CVD order on lined paper from India and the AD orders on lined paper from India and China pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.
On February 2, 2018, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, the ITC published its determination that revocation of the AD orders on lined paper from India and China and revocation of the CVD order on lined paper from India would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
The scope of these orders includes certain lined paper products, typically school supplies (for purposes of this scope definition, the actual use of or labeling these products as school supplies or non-school supplies is not a defining characteristic) composed of or including paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines on ten or more paper sheets (there shall be no minimum page requirement for loose leaf filler paper), including but not limited to such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition books, wireless notebooks, loose leaf or glued filler paper, graph paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger dimension of the paper measuring 8-3/4 inches to 15 inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are measured size (not advertised, stated, or “tear-out” size), and are measured as they appear in the product (
Specifically excluded from the scope of these orders are:
• Unlined copy machine paper;
• writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to products commonly known as “tablets,” “note pads,” “legal pads,” and “quadrille pads”), provided that they do not have a front cover (whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper;
• three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not include subject paper;
• index cards;
• printed books and other books that are case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap;
• newspapers;
• pictures and photographs;
• desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not limited to such products generally known as “office planners,” “time books,” and “appointment books”);
• telephone logs;
• address books;
• columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily suited for the recording of written numerical business data;
• lined business or office forms, including but not limited to: pre-printed business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing and address labels, manifests, and shipping log books;
• lined continuous computer paper;
• boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not limited to
• Stenographic pads (“steno pads”), Gregg ruled (“Gregg ruling” consists of a single- or double-margin vertical ruling line down the center of the page. For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic pad, the ruling would be located approximately three inches from the left of the book), measuring 6 inches by 9 inches;
Also excluded from the scope of these orders are the following trademarked products:
• Fly
• Zwipes
• FiveStar®Advance
• FiveStar Flex
Merchandise subject to these orders is typically imported under headings 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9050, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020, 4820.10.2030, 4820.10.2040, 4820.10.2050, 4820.10.2060, and 4820.10.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS headings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the AD orders and the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies 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 orders on lined paper from India and China and the CVD order on lined paper from India.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD and CVD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of these orders will be the date of publication in the
These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public workshops.
Free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in April, May, and June of 2018. Certain fishermen and shark dealers are required to attend a workshop to meet regulatory requirements and to maintain valid permits. Specifically, the Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop is mandatory for all federally permitted Atlantic shark dealers. The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop is mandatory for vessel owners and operators who use
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held on April 5, May 3, and June 7, 2018. The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held on April 4, April 11, April 23, May 7, May 10, and May 21, 2018. See
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held in Norfolk, VA; Fort Lauderdale, FL; and Manahawkin, NJ. The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in Manahawkin, NJ; Kitty Hawk, NC; Revere, MA; Kenner, LA; Charleston, SC; and Largo, FL. See
Rick Pearson by phone: (727) 824-5399, or by fax: (727) 824-5398.
The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding these workshops are posted on the internet at:
Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark dealers have been prohibited from receiving, purchasing, trading, or bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit that first receives Atlantic sharks (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop are issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks. These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Approximately 142 free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops have been conducted since January 2008.
Currently, permitted dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop. However, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit which first receives Atlantic sharks. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and who fills out dealer reports. Atlantic shark dealers are prohibited from renewing a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location that first receives Atlantic sharks has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Additionally, trucks or other conveyances that are extensions of a dealer's place of business must possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate.
1. April 5, 2018, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., La Quinta Inn, 1387 North Military Trail, Norfolk, VA 23502.
2. May 3, 2018, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., La Quinta Inn, 999 West Cypress Creek Road, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309.
3. June 7, 2018, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72 East, Manahawkin, NJ 08050.
To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander at
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items to the workshop:
• Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the attendee is an owner or agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.
• Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the permitted dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a specific business location, a copy of the appropriate valid permit, and proof of identification.
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.
Since January 1, 2007, shark limited-access and swordfish limited-access permit holders who fish with longline or gillnet gear have been required to submit a copy of their Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. As such, vessel owners who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel owners whose certificate(s) will expire prior to the next permit renewal, must attend a workshop to fish with, or renew, their swordfish and shark limited-access permits. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited-access permit applicants who intend to fish with longline or gillnet gear must attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and submit a copy of their workshop certificate before either of the permits will be issued. Approximately 274 free Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops have been conducted since 2006.
In addition to certifying vessel owners, at least one operator on board vessels issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit that uses longline or gillnet gear is required to attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and receive a certificate. Vessels that have been issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit and that use longline or gillnet gear may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates onboard at all times. Vessel operators who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel operators whose certificate(s) will expire prior to their next fishing trip, must attend a workshop to operate a vessel with swordfish and shark limited-access permits that uses longline or gillnet gear.
1. April 4, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72 East, Manahawkin, NJ 08050.
2. April 11, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 5353 North Virginia Dare Trail, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949.
3. April 23, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hampton Inn, 230 Lee Burbank Highway, Revere, MA 02151.
4. May 7, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Hotel, 901 Airline Drive, Kenner, LA 70062.
5. May 10, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hampton Inn, 678 Citadel Haven Drive, Charleston, SC 29414.
6. May 21, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn Express, 210 Seminole Boulevard, Largo, FL 33770.
To register for a scheduled Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Angler Conservation Education at (386) 682-0158.
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items with them to the workshop:
• Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate swordfish and/or shark permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification.
• Representatives of a business-owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable swordfish and/or shark permit(s), and proof of identification.
• Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.
The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth sawfish, and prohibited sharks. In an effort to improve reporting, the proper identification of protected species and prohibited sharks will also be taught at these workshops. Additionally, individuals attending these workshops will gain a better understanding of the requirements for participating in these fisheries. The overall goal of these workshops is to provide participants with the skills needed to reduce the mortality of protected species and prohibited sharks, which may prevent additional regulations on these fisheries in the future.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from the Eastern Massachusetts (MA) National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting seabird and shorebird monitoring and research in the Eastern MA NWR Complex (Complex). Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than April 5, 2018.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Amy Fowler, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.
On December 5, 2017, NMFS received a request from the USFWS for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to seabird and shorebird monitoring and research activities within the Complex. NMFS determined the application adequate and complete on December 18, 2017. The USFWS's request is for take of gray seals and harbor seals by Level B harassment only. Neither the USFWS nor NMFS expect mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously issued an IHA to the USFWS for similar work (82 FR 12342, March 2, 2017). The USFWS complied with all the requirements (
The USFWS is proposing to conduct biological tasks for refuge purposes at Monomoy NWR, Nantucket NWR, and Nomans Land Island NWR in MA. These three refuges are managed through the Complex as part of the NWR System of the USFWS. Complex staff census and monitor the presence of breeding and migrating shorebirds using the beaches of Monomoy, Nantucket, and Nomans Land Island NWRs for nesting from April 1 to November 30, annually. Monitoring activities occur daily (on Monomoy and Nantucket) from April to August and is necessary to document the productivity (number of chicks fledged per pair) and population of protected shorebird and seabird species. Monomoy NWR also participates in several less frequent, but equally important, high priority conservation tasks to monitor for threatened and endangered species, including censusing northeastern beach tiger beetles (
The USFWS proposes to conduct the research activities at various times for each project from April 1 through November 30, 2018. Due to scheduling, time, tide constraints, and favorable weather/ocean conditions, the exact survey dates and durations are variable. The proposed IHA, if issued, would be effective from April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019. More information on the scope of proposed activities can be found in the
The Complex is made up of eight refuges, including its three coastal refuges: Monomoy NWR, Nantucket NWR, and Nomans NWR. The three main activity sites are NWRs managed by the USFWS and are islands located off the coast of Cape Cod, MA. Although Monomoy NWR consists of three managed barrier islands, pinnipeds are only disturbed while carrying out biological activities on the Atlantic side of South Monomoy Island where gray seals primarily haul out. Therefore, activities mentioned at Monomoy NWR will only refer to South Monomoy Island. While biological tasks performed at these three refuges differ in some regard, all activities are necessary to carry out high priority conservation work for threatened and endangered species. Each activity location is described below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
A description of each activity, based on location, is presented below. A summary of this information can also be found in Table 1.
On January 10, 1986, the USFWS listed the Atlantic Coast population of piping plovers (
The piping plover recovery efforts at the Complex correspond closely to management recommendations in the Piping Plover Recovery Plan. In order to monitor the productivity (number of chicks fledged per pair) of piping plovers at Monomoy NWR, it is necessary to identify suitable nesting habitat for the species. At Monomoy, piping plovers generally select areas that are sandy with some cobble on the beach face and occasionally nest in dense vegetation or behind primary dunes. The same can be said for least terns and American oystercatcher pairs which also nest on South Monomoy Island. These nesting areas are adjacent to known gray seal haulout sites.
Piping plovers begin returning to their Atlantic Coast nesting beaches in mid-March. The first nest is generally laid in mid-April and eggs will continue to be present on the beach until late July. During this time, nests are located by USFWS staff by looking for a number of signs: Continuous presence of adult birds, courtship and territorial behavior in a certain area, large concentrations of tracks, and scrapes (nests or nest attempts). Methods for finding nests include waiting for a disturbed bird to return to its nest or covering probable nesting areas by searching the ground for signs of scraps and zig-zagging the whole area to make sure the entire habitat is covered. Methods for finding nests can sometimes lead to seal disturbance. Nests are visited 4-5 times a week and confirmation of adult presence and incubation is confirmed at a distance when possible to prevent disturbance. Nests hatch after 28 days of incubation and chicks will remain with one or both parents until they fledge at 25-35 days of age. Depending on the date of hatching, flightless chicks may be present on refuge beaches from mid-May until late August. Chicks are monitored until they fledge and may move hundreds of yards from the nest site to feed. Feeding areas include intertidal areas along the ocean and sound sides of South Monomoy Island as well as washover areas.
Similar activities are performed when searching and monitoring American oystercatcher nests and broods. No American oystercatcher pairs nested near seal haulout sites in 2015, but have nested on the ocean side of South Monomoy Island in previous years. In 2001, the American oystercatcher warranted special attention from the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan after the population severely declined to under 11,000 individuals. Monomoy NWR has the largest concentration of nesting American oystercatchers on Cape Cod and nesting success at this site is important to the survival of the species. The nesting season occurs from the end of April until mid-August. Monomoy NWR also serves as an important staging site for resting migrants, and bands are often read and reported to the American Oystercatcher Working Group. Staging American oystercatcher will sometimes roost near seal haulout sites.
Least terns nest in small groups around South Monomoy Island. Productivity is not measured throughout the season, but nesting pairs are censused during a 2-3 day period in mid-June. Least terns are censused using the line-sweep method throughout the extent of the nesting colonies and checked by staff weekly to gauge productivity.
USFWS staff install symbolic fencing (sign posts with “area closed” and “beach closed” informational signs) around nest sites of piping plovers, American oystercatchers, and least terns to inform the public about the bird's presence and protect critical habitat from human disturbance. These areas are adjacent to known seal haulout sites and are regularly monitored throughout the season.
Similar biological activities are carried out on Nantucket NWR as Monomoy NWR. Piping plover, least tern, and American oystercatcher are known species to use Nantucket NWR and nearby lands for nesting from the end of April until mid-August. Beach nesting birds are monitored following similar methods and protocols as Monomoy NWR and areas of nesting are posted with closed signs. Signs are placed at least 150 feet from known seal haulout areas on Nantucket NWR, which predominately occur at the north tip of the Refuge. These posts help protect those areas from public disturbance. Nesting beach birds generally do not nest within the closed area for seals, but instead nest adjacent to the haulouts. If need be, staff will briefly enter the closed area to check nests, but otherwise stay outside of the closed area, greater than 150 feet from seal haulouts. Seabirds and shorebirds do not nest on the Complex every year; in 2015, no beach birds nested on Nantucket NWR.
Nomans NWR is closed to the public and is only visited 1-3 times a year by USFWS staff. During these visits, the presence of shorebirds and seabirds are noted for record. Shorebirds and seabirds are inventoried by scoping suitable nesting and feeding habitat on the island. The greatest potential for marine mammal disturbance occurs in safe boat landing zones, because these areas often overlap with hauled out seals. Every precautionary measure is taken to reduce disturbance to seals on Nomans Land Island NWR, but staff will land a boat or walk within 50 yards (yd) of seal haulouts if safety reasons prevail. A 25-foot Parker is used to travel to and from Nomans NWR.
On November 2, 1987, the Service listed the northeastern breeding population of the roseate terns as Federally endangered. Monomoy NWR serves as an important nesting and
In August, USFWS staff traverse areas of suitable staging habitat, including sand flats and open sand beaches, and make quick estimates of the number of staging terns. The terns are counted using binoculars and spotting scopes from a distance that does not disturb the birds. Color bands, field readable bands, and any tagged or banded birds are identified for reporting purposes. Observations on behavior and disturbance are also documented. Depending on the size of the flock, these surveys can last anywhere between one to three hours.
Staging tern counts are carried out on Nantucket NWR following similar methods and protocols mentioned for Monomoy NWR.
Staging tern counts are not performed on Nomans NWR.
On December 11, 2014, the USFWS listed the rufa subspecies of the red knot as Federally threatened under the ESA. As noted in the State of the Birds 2014 report, the knot's status is representative of the steep declines represented in shorebirds that migrate long distances (NABCI 2014). Threats to shorebirds have become more diverse and widespread in recent decades, requiring coordinated conservation efforts across their vast ranges. Protection of breeding, migration, and wintering habitat is critical to this species' recovery (Niles
Southeastern MA, Monomoy NWR and surrounding beaches in Chatham, Orleans, and Eastham in particular, likely provide one of the most important areas for adult and juvenile red knots during their southward migration (Koch and Paton 2009; Harrington
The red knot stopover study is not conducted on Nantucket NWR or Nomans NWR.
In August of 1990, the USFWS listed the northeastern beach tiger beetle as threatened under the ESA. Currently northeastern beach tiger beetle can be found at only two sites in MA: One on the south shore of Martha's Vineyard and one on South Monomoy Island and Nauset/South Beach in Chatham, MA (USFWS 1994, USFWS 2015). Searches on Monomoy in the 1980s failed to locate the northeastern beach tiger beetle, but the structure of the habitat seemed favorable, making Monomoy the leading candidate as an introduction site. The first beetle larvae transplant occurred in May 2000. Since 2004, tiger beetle larvae have not been transferred to Monomoy (USFWS 2015). However, through continued adult tiger beetle monitoring, the annual presence of tiger beetles has been documented on the refuge. Annual monitoring confirms successful survival and production of tiger beetles through all stages of life, and gives a firm indication of a new self-sustaining population at Monomoy NWR.
Northeastern beach tiger beetle live their entire life on the beach, and prefer medium to medium-course sand. Adults occur on the beach from June through September and often congregate around the water's edge on warm days (USFWS 2011). On Monomoy NWR, the population occurs in habitat on the Atlantic side of South Monomoy Island on the water's edge and in the wrack line. Several index counts of the tiger beetle population are completed by USFWS staff during July and August each year. Counts are conducted by slowly walking the water's edge at a width of 2-3 people across and tallying adults seen on the surface of the beach until the extent of suitable habitat is covered.
Northeastern beach tiger beetle surveys are not conducted on Nantucket NWR or Nomans Land Island NWR.
Since 2011, Monomoy has participated in a long-term coastal shoreline monitoring project in collaboration with Rutgers University and the National Park Service (NPS) protocol. The annual shoreline surveys are conducted twice a year to gain a finer understanding of the rate of shoreline change and to provide baseline information for sea level rise. Two 1-day surveys are conducted at most sites, one in the spring and one in the fall. Surveys are only conducted in the fall at Monomoy NWR, typically between September and November, consequent to the large number of seals using the area in the spring. To document accurate data on shoreline change, a handheld Trimble device is used to GPS the neap high tide swash line around the ocean-facing extent of South Monomoy Island by walking the beach at a normal pace. The survey takes approximately one day to complete.
Shoreline surveys are not conducted on Nantucket NWR or Nomans NWR.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see “Proposed Mitigation” and “Proposed Monitoring and Reporting”).
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in the Complex and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. Until 2017, NMFS SARs relied on Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) population models to determine the abundance of gray seals in Canada. The portion of gray seals in U.S. waters was not determined until the 2017 draft SARs (NMFS 2017). All values presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 2017 draft SARs (NMFS 2017). The 2017 draft SARs were published in the
All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are included in Table 2. As described below, both species (with two managed stocks) temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have proposed authorizing it.
There are three major populations of gray seals found in the world; eastern Canada (western North Atlantic stock), northwestern Europe, and the Baltic Sea. The gray seals that occur in the project area belong to the western North Atlantic stock, which ranges from New Jersey to Labrador. Based on genetic analysis from the Canadian and U.S. populations, all individuals were placed into one population providing further evidence that this stock is one interbreeding population (Wood
Monomoy NWR is the largest haulout site for gray seals on the U.S. Atlantic seaboard, and one of only two consistent sites in Massachusetts (the other being Muskeget Island, west of Nantucket) where gray seals pup (USFWS 2015). Gray seals are known to use Monomoy NWR and Nantucket NWR land and water year round, with higher numbers accumulating during the winter and spring when pupping and molting occur. While gray seal pupping grounds are historically further north on Sable Island in Nova Scotia and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in Canada, there has been a year-round breeding population on Cape Cod and the islands since the late 1990s (NOAA 2015a, USFWS 2015).
Gray seals start to group up in fall and pupping generally occurs from mid-December to early February (USFWS 2015). Gray seal pupping on Monomoy NWR was limited in the past but has been increasing rapidly in recent years. By early spring, upwards of 19,000 gray seals can be found hauled out on Monomoy NWR (B. Josephson, NOAA, personal communication). While many of these seals use Monomoy NWR for breeding, others make their way to the refuge to molt. By late spring, gray seal abundance continues to taper until the fall.
Gray seal pupping information for Nantucket NWR and Nomans Land Island NWR is limited, but evidence suggests that a small number of pups are born on the latter. Aerial images and evidence do not show that pups are born on Nantucket NWR, although speculations persist (S. Wood, NOAA, personal communication). Similar trends in distribution at Monomoy NWR occur at Nomans and Nantucket NWRs, but in significantly less numbers. Gray seals are most abundant at the activity sites from late fall until spring, and less frequent during the summer months when most activity is occurring. Raw counts of gray seal counts from 2015 are summarized in Table 3.
Harbor seals found on the project area are included in the western North Atlantic stock, which ranges from Canadian Arctic to southern New England and New York, and occasionally to the Carolinas (Waring
Harbor seals occur seasonally in the Complex, and generally arrive in early September and remain through May (Waring
The best current abundance estimate of harbor seals is 75,834 (CV = 0.15) which is from a 2012 survey (Waring
NMFS does not expect acoustic stimuli to result from human presence, and will therefore not have the potential to harass marine mammals, incidental to the conduct of the proposed activities. One activity (cannon nets) may have an acoustic component, but we believe take from this activity can be avoided.
This section includes a brief explanation of the sound measurements frequently used in the discussions of acoustic effects in this notice. Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, and is usually measured in micropascals (µPa), where 1 pascal (Pa) is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an area of one square meter. Sound pressure level (SPL) is the ratio of a measured sound pressure and a reference level. The commonly used reference pressure is 1 µPa for underwater, and the units for SPLs are dB re: 1 µPa. The commonly used reference pressure is 20 µPa for in air, and the units for SPLs are dB re: 20 µPa.
SPL is an instantaneous measurement expressed as the peak, the peak-peak, or the root mean square (rms). Root mean square is the square root of the arithmetic average of the squared instantaneous pressure values. All references to SPL in this document refer to the root mean square unless otherwise noted. SPL does not take into account the duration of a sound.
Activities that may have an acoustic component (
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination” section considers the content of this section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section, and the “Proposed Mitigation” section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
Acoustic and visual stimuli generated by: (1) Vessel landings; (2) research activities (
Researchers have demonstrated temporary threshold shifts (TTS) in certain captive odontocetes and pinnipeds exposed to strong sounds (reviewed in Southall
Pinnipeds have the potential to be disturbed by underwater noise generated by the engine of the vessel (Born
As a general statement from the available information, pinnipeds exposed to intense (approximately 110 to 120 dB re: 20 µPa) non-pulse sounds often leave haulout areas and seek refuge temporarily (minutes to a few hours) in the water (Southall
It is likely that the initial vessel approach would cause a subset, or all of the marine mammals hauled out to flush into the water. The physical presence of the vessel could also lead to non-auditory effects on marine mammals involving visual or other cues. Noise from the vessel would not be expected to cause direct physical effects but have the potential to affect behavior. The primary factor that may influence abrupt movements of animals is engine noise, specifically changes in engine noise. Responses by mammals could include hasty dives or turns, change in course, or flushing from a haul out site.
If pinnipeds are present on Nomans NWR when the vessel approaches, it is likely that the vessel would cause some number of the pinnipeds to flush; however, the USFWS staff would approach in a slow and controlled manner, as far away as possible from haulouts to prevent or minimize flushing. Staff would also avoid or proceed cautiously when operating boats in the direct path of swimming seals that may be present in the area as far from hauled out seals as possible.
The appearance of USFWS personnel may have the potential to cause Level B harassment of marine mammals hauled out on the beaches in the proposed action area. Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle to conspicuous changes in behavior, movement, and displacement. Disturbance may result in reactions ranging from an animal simply becoming alert to the presence of the USFWS staff (
Reactions to human presence, if any, depends on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson
Disturbances resulting from human activity can impact short- and long-term pinniped haulout behavior (Renouf
In cases where vessels actively approached marine mammals (
In 1997, Henry and Hammil (2001) conducted a study to measure the impacts of small boats (
In 2004, Acevedo-Gutierrez and Johnson (2007) evaluated the efficacy of buffer zones for watercraft around harbor seal haulout sites on Yellow Island, Washington. The authors estimated the minimum distance between the vessels and the haulout sites; categorized the vessel types; and evaluated seal responses to the disturbances. During the course of the seven-weekend study, the authors recorded 14 human-related disturbances which were associated with stopped powerboats and kayaks. During these events, hauled out seals became noticeably active and moved into the water. The flushing occurred when stopped kayaks and powerboats were at distances as far as 453 and 1,217 ft (138 and 371 m) respectively. The authors note that the seals were unaffected by passing powerboats, even those approaching as close as 128 ft (39m), possibly indicating that the animals had become tolerant of the brief presence of the vessels and ignored them. The authors reported that on average, the seals quickly recovered from the disturbances and returned to the haulout site in less than or equal to 60 minutes. Seal numbers did not return to pre-disturbance levels within 180 minutes of the disturbance less than one quarter of the time observed. The study concluded that the return of seal numbers to pre-disturbance levels and the relatively regular seasonal cycle in abundance throughout the area counter the idea that disturbances from powerboats may result in site abandonment (Acevedo-Gutierrez and Johnson 2007). As a general statement from the available information, pinnipeds exposed to intense (approximately 110 to 120 decibels re: 20 µPa) non-pulsed sounds often leave haulout areas and seek refuge temporarily (minutes to a few hours) in the water (Southall
There are other ways in which disturbance, as described previously, could result in more than Level B harassment of marine mammals. They are most likely to be consequences of stampeding, a potentially dangerous occurrence in which large numbers of animals succumb to mass panic and rush away from a stimulus. These situations are: (1) Falling when entering the water at high-relief locations; (2) extended separation of mothers and pups; and (3) crushing of pups by large males during a stampede. However, NMFS does not expect any of these scenarios to occur from the USFWS's research activities. There is the risk of injury if animals stampede towards shorelines with precipitous relief (
The only habitat modification associated with the proposed activity is installation of signs on beaches where haulouts are located. Thus, NMFS does not expect that the proposed activity would have any effects on marine mammal habitat and NMFS expects that there will be no long- or short-term physical impacts to pinniped habitat in the Complex.
The proposed activities are not expected to result in any permanent impact on habitats used by marine mammals, including prey species and foraging habitat. The main impact associated with the proposed activity will be direct effects on marine mammals from human presence at haulouts (
NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed research and monitoring activities would result in any permanent effects on the habitats used by the
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to USFWS research and monitoring surveys. NMFS expects that the presence of the USFWS personnel could disturb animals hauled out on beaches near research activities and that the animals may alter their behavior or attempt to move away from the USFWS personnel. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations.
The greatest disturbance to gray seals is expected to occur during the beach nesting bird breeding season from April to August. During April and May, when seals are hauled out in very large numbers on the refuge, they may be present at beaches of varying widths, between 30 m and 300 m. In narrower areas, all of the seals may be disturbed; in mid-width areas, some of the younger and smaller seals may flush, but large males may remain on the beach; and in the widest area, USFWS activities may have no impact on the hauled out seals. USFWS staff conduct research and monitoring work outside of the season of highest gray seal numbers.
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
As discussed earlier, NMFS assumes that pinnipeds that move greater than two body lengths or make longer retreats over the beach, or if already moving, make a change of direction of greater than 90 degrees or flush into the water in response to the presence of surveyors, are behaviorally harassed, and thus subject to Level B taking. Take estimation is based on the number of seals observed in past research years that have been flushed during research activities.
Take estimates were based on NOAA unpublished data (Table 3) and USFWS field observations. While the average number of gray seals present (in regards to Monomoy) from April until August is greater than what is reflected in Table 5, not every hauled out seal on the beach is impacted from each activity, and not all seals are impacted from every activity event. This is especially true for Monomoy NWR because the seal haulout stretches across 4+ miles of beach, whereas the haulouts on Nomans NWR and Nantucket NWR are more compact at a central location.
For shorebird and seabird monitoring and research on Monomoy, an average 1,000 gray seals was estimated based on Table 3 unpublished data and field observations of staff working on the island. Seals on South Monomoy Island will haul out in groups along the Atlantic shoreline. Although gray seals will haul out daily on South Monomoy, they will not always be present in the same location every day, and will haul out during different times of the day in accordance with the tide. USFWS staff face the greatest difficulty avoiding seals along the narrow shoreline sections of the island at the south end of South Monomoy Island. Seal haulouts can be readily avoided given the width of the beach and availability of preferred nesting beach bird habitat located closer to the dunes. While the average number of gray seals hauled out on South Monomoy between April and August is 9,000, an average of 1,000 individuals (at any given time) better describes the number of seals staff come into contact with (Table 5). USFWS staff monitor beach birds along the 4+ mile Atlantic shoreline of South Monomoy 5-6 days a week (Table 1). It is important to note that the entire extent of the shoreline is not monitored every day. Staff monitor as many areas as time allows, although there are some days when the north or south end of the island are not visited. Disturbance does not always occur when seal haulout areas are visited. During the 17 week nesting season, USFWS estimates that seals are disturbed during shorebird and seabird monitoring twice a week. This equates to 34 events of disturbance. The same ideology and number of events was applied to Nantucket for this activity (Table 5). Nomans Land NWR is only visited twice a year during the spring and summer, and the number of takes per event is based on observations of staff visiting the island.
The number of gray seal takes per roseate tern staging count and resighting event was estimated based on staff observations from previous surveys. Seals are rarely disturbed during this activity, as roseate terns generally prefer to roost on flats or open sand, while seals prefer to haul out on the shoreline of South Monomoy and Nantucket. However, disturbance is possible if roseate terns roost adjacent to the northern end of the haulout area on South Monomoy Island or the haulout on Nantucket. The number of resighting events is based on previous year's survey efforts.
The number of gray seal takes provided for the red knot study were derived from previous year's efforts and staff observation. Trapping does not always occur on South Monomoy Island, and in fact did not occur there in 2017. Trapping locations are chosen based on reconnaissance efforts conducted to locate red knot roosts. When trapping is conducted on South Monomoy Island, the cannon nets are set in one location along the Atlantic shoreline and are not moved for the remainder of the trapping effort. Therefore, only the haulouts closest to the trapping site may be affected, which the USFWS estimates to be around 250 seals (Table 5). Gray seal numbers for Cape Cod were provided from seal surveys conducted by the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies. The number of events per red knot trapping activity reflects previous year's efforts. Trapping does not occur if a seal haulout is located within 100 m of a red knot roost.
The number of gray seal takes estimated for Northeastern beach tiger beetle census is based on USFWS staff observation. This activity usually takes two to three days to conduct and results in some seal disturbance. The number of takes provided for the coastal shoreline change survey is based on unpublished data from NOAA for the month of October (Table 3). Monomoy no longer conducts shoreline surveys in the spring when seal haulouts are at their highest numbers; only one survey is conducted in the fall.
It is unclear exactly how many harbor seals occur at the Complex, therefore it is difficult to determine how many takes occur since harbor seals are mainly present during the off season when research and monitoring is limited. Harbor seals are not present at all gray seal haulouts but at haulouts where both species are present, USFWS staff estimate that gray seal haulouts during the summer are comprised of 5 percent or less harbor seals. Due to the lack of available data on presence, harbor seal takes are not broken down by activity or site. Rather, the number of harbor seal Level B takes requested was calculated by taking 5 percent of the total gray seal take estimate. USFWS is requesting 1,964 Level B takes of harbor seals incidental to research and monitoring activities.
These incidental harassment take numbers represent less than three percent of the affected stocks of harbor seals. Under the 2017 draft SARs, the take number of gray seals exceeds the stock abundance estimate in U.S. waters (Table 6). However, actual take may be slightly less if animals decide to haul out at a different location for the day or if animals are foraging at the time of the survey activities. The number of individual seals taken is also assumed to be less than the take estimate since these species show high philopatry (Waring
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking” for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Researchers, USFWS staff, and volunteers will be properly informed about the MMPA take prohibitions, and will educate the public on the importance of not disturbing marine mammals, when applicable. Staff at Nantucket NWR will remain present on the beaches utilized by pinnipeds to prevent anthropogenic disturbance during times of high public use (late spring to early fall). Staff at Monomoy NWR will also be present on beaches utilized by seals during the same time of year, and will inform the public to keep a distance from haulouts if an issue is noticed. Similar to the USFWS, the NPS also takes precautionary mitigation to help prevent seal take by the public. In August and on the weekends in September, staff and volunteers are present on the National Seashore beaches to share with the public the importance of preventing disturbance to seals by keeping people at a proper viewing distance of at least 50 yards.
The presence/proximity of seal haulouts and the loud sound created by the firing of cannon nets are taken into consideration when selecting trapping sites for the Red Knot Stopover Study. Trapping sites are decided based on the presence of red knots, the number of juveniles located within roosts, and the observation of birds with attached geolocators and flags. Sites are not trapped on if there is a strong possibility of disturbing seals (
The proposed mitigation measures are designed to minimize the potential for behavioral harassment of pinnipeds hauled out near the survey sites. The proposed surveys occur outside of the period of highest seal abundance at the Complex. While the survey timing overlaps with harbor seal pupping season, pupping is not known to occur at the Complex. Gray seal pupping has been documented at the Complex but generally occurs between December and February, when USFWS staff will not be conducting surveys. We believe the proposed mitigation measures are practicable for the applicant to implement.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
As part of its IHA application, the USFWS proposes to conduct marine mammal monitoring, in order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring, and satisfy the monitoring requirements of the proposed IHA. These include:
Monitoring seals as project activities are being conducted. Proposed monitoring requirements in relation to the USFWS's proposed activities would include species counts, numbers of observed disturbances, and descriptions of the disturbance behaviors during the research activities, including location, date, and time of the event. In addition, the USFWS would record observations regarding the number and species of any marine mammals either observed in the water or hauled out. Behavior of seals will be recorded on a three point scale: 1= alert reaction, not considered harassment; 2= moving at least two body lengths, or change in direction greater than 90 degrees; 3= flushing (Table 4). USFWS staff would also record and report all observations of sick, injured, or entangled marine mammals on Monomoy NWR to the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) marine mammal rescue team, and will report to NOAA if injured seals are found at Nantucket NWR and Nomans NWR. Tagged or marked marine mammals will also be recorded and reported to the appropriate research organization or Federal agency, as well as any rare or unusual species of marine mammal. Photographs will be taken when possible. This information will be incorporated into a report for NMFS at the end of the season. The USFWS will also coordinate with any university, state, or Federal researchers to attain additional data or observations that may be useful for monitoring marine mammal usage at the activity sites.
If at any time injury, serious injury, or mortality of the species for which take is authorized should occur, or if take of any kind of other marine mammal occurs, and such action may be a result of the USFWS's activities, the USFWS would suspend research activities and contact NMFS immediately to determine how best to proceed to ensure that another injury or death does not occur and to ensure that the applicant remains in compliance with the MMPA.
The USFWS would submit a draft report to NMFS Office of Protected Resources no later than 90 days after the conclusion of research and monitoring activities in the 2018 season. The report will include a summary of the information gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth in the proposed IHA. The USFWS will submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report. If the USFWS receives no comments from NMFS on the draft report, NMFS will consider the draft report to be the final report.
The report will describe the operations conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the proposed project. The report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The report will provide:
1. A summary and table of the dates, times, and weather during all research activities;
2. Species, number, location, and behavior of any marine mammals observed throughout all monitoring activities;
3. An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals exposed to human presence associated with the USFWS's activities; and
4. A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation measures of the IHA and full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Description and location of the incident (including water depth, if applicable);
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
The USFWS shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. We will work with the USFWS to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The USFWS may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that the USFWS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the marine mammal observer determines that the cause of injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that the USFWS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (
NMFS has defined negligible impact as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
Although the USFWS's survey activities may disturb a small number of marine mammals hauled out on beaches in the Complex, NMFS expects those impacts to occur to a localized group of animals. Marine mammals would likely become alert or, at most, flush into the water in reaction to the presence of the USFWS personnel during the proposed activities. Much of the disturbance will be limited to a short duration, allowing marine mammals to reoccupy haulouts within a short amount of time. Thus, the proposed action is unlikely to result in long-term impacts such as permanent abandonment of the area because of the availability of alternate areas for pinnipeds to avoid the resultant acoustic and visual disturbances from the research activities.
The USFWS's activities would occur during the least sensitive time (
Moreover, the USFWS's mitigation measures regarding vessel approaches and procedures that attempt to minimize the potential to harass the seals would minimize the potential for flushing and large-scale movements. Thus, the potential for large-scale movements and flushing leading to injury, serious injury, or mortality is low.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No injury (Level A harassment) or serious injury is anticipated or authorized;
• No mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• Impacts will occur to a localized group of animals;
• Disturbance will be limited to a short duration, allowing marine mammals to reoccupy haulouts within a short amount of time;
• Activities will occur during the least sensitive time (
• The USFWS's mitigation measures regarding visual and acoustic disturbance to hauled out pinnipeds would minimize the potential for flushing and large-scale movements, therefore the potential for large-scale movements and flushing leading to injury, serious injury, or mortality is low;
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
NMFS estimates that the USFWS's proposed activities could potentially take, by Level B harassment only, two species of marine mammal under our jurisdiction. For each species, these estimates are small numbers (less than three percent of the affected stock of harbor seals and less than eight percent of the stock of gray seals) relative to the population size (Table 6). As stated before, the number of individual seals taken is also assumed to be less than the take estimate (number of exposures) since we assume that the same seals may be behaviorally harassed over multiple days.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the USFWS for conducting research activities at the Eastern MA NWR locations, from April 1, 2018 through November 30, 2018, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex (USFWS) is hereby authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) to harass marine mammals incidental to conducting research activities in the Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex), when adhering to the following terms and conditions.
1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid from April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019.
2. This IHA is valid only for activities associated with the research activities and human presence in the Complex.
3. General Conditions.
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the USFWS, its designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking are the gray seal (
(c) The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the species listed in condition 3(b). The authorized take numbers are shown below:
(i) 2,147 harbor seals.
(ii) 39,680 gray seals.
(d) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death of any of the species listed in condition 3(b) of the Authorization or any taking of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(e) The USFWS shall conduct briefings between survey crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and Complex staff prior to the start of all research and monitoring activities, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
(f) The USFWS may not conduct activities between the dates of December 1, 2018 and March 31, 2019.
4. Mitigation Measures.
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation measures:
(a) Research activities shall be conducted only between April 1, 2018 and November 30, 2018.
(b) Ensure that vessel approaches to Nomans NWR shall be such that the techniques are least disturbing to marine mammals. The vessel must conduct a slow and controlled approach to the island as far away as possible from haulouts. USFWS staff shall avoid operating boats in the direct path of swimming seals that may be present in the area unless seals are in the only safe path to the beach.
(c) Provide instructions to USFWS staff and team members on appropriate conduct in the vicinity of hauled out marine mammals. The USFWS research teams shall maintain a quiet working atmosphere by avoiding making unnecessary noise and by using hushed voices while near hauled out seals; shall remain at least 50 yards (yd) from seals unless absolutely necessary to conduct endangered species conservation work; and shall choose pathways to study sites that will minimize disturbance to seals.
(d) Ensure cannon nets will not be used closer than 100 m from seals.
(e) Ensure that the waters surrounding the haulouts are free of predators (
5. Monitoring.
The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine mammal monitoring during seabird and shorebird research. Monitoring and reporting shall be conducted in accordance with the Monitoring Plan. The holder of this IHA is required to:
(a) Monitor seals when research activities are conducted in the presence of marine mammals.
(b) Record the date, time, and location (or closest point of ingress) of each of the research activities in the presence of marine mammals.
(c) Collect the following information for each visit:
(i) Information on the numbers (by species) of marine mammals observed during the activities, by age and sex, if possible;
(ii) The estimated number of marine mammals (by species) that may have been harassed during the activities based on the 3-point disturbance scale;
(iii) Any behavioral responses or modifications of behaviors that may be attributed to the specific activities (
(iv) The date, location, and start and end times of the event;
(v) Information on the weather, including the tidal state and horizontal visibility; and
(vi) Observations of sick, injured, or entangled marine mammals, and any tagged or marked marine mammals. Photographs will be taken when possible.
6. Reporting.
The holder of this Authorization is required to:
(a) Submit a draft report on all monitoring conducted under the IHA within 90 calendar days of the completion of seabird and shorebird research and monitoring activities. A final report shall be prepared and submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report must contain the informational elements described in the Monitoring Plan, at minimum (see attached), and shall also include:
(i) A summary of the dates, times, and weather during all research activities;
(ii) Species, number, location, and behavior of any marine mammals, observed throughout all monitoring activities;
(iii) An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals that are known to have been exposed to visual and acoustic stimuli associated with the research activities; and
(iv) A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation measures of the IHA and full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring.
(b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
(i) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, the USFWS shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (301-427-8461), NMFS, and the Greater Atlantic Regional Stranding Coordinator (978-282-8478), NMFS. The report must include the following information:
1. Time and date of the incident;
2. Description of the incident;
3. Environmental conditions (
4. Description of all marine mammal observations and active sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
5. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
6. Fate of the animal(s); and
7. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with the USFWS to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The USFWS may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
(ii) In the event that the USFWS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
The report must include the same information identified in 6(b)(i) of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with the USFWS to determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.
(iii) In the event that the USFWS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
7. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed research and monitoring project. We also request comment on the potential for renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a second one-year IHA without additional notice when 1) another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section is planned or 2) the activities would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section, provided all of the following conditions are met:
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to expiration of the current IHA.;
• The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed activities or include changes so minor (
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized; and
• Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate, and the original findings remain valid.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of issuance of Letter of Authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and implementing regulations, notice is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to the United States Air Force (USAF) 96th Civil Engineer Group/Environmental Planning Office (96 CEG/CEIEA) at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) to take marine mammals incidental to testing and training activities in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR) in the Gulf of Mexico over the course of five years. These activities are considered military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA).
This LOA is valid from February 13, 2018 through February 12, 2023.
The LOA and supporting documents may be obtained online at:
Rob Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 301-427-8401.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill marine mammals. NMFS
The NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated above and amended the definition of “harassment” as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): “(i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment).”
An authorization for incidental taking shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s); will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant); and, if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Regulations governing the taking of individuals of two species of marine mammals, by Level A and Level B harassment, incidental to Eglin AFB testing and training activities in the EGTTR are valid from February 13, 2018 through February 12, 2023 and are codified at 50 CFR part 218, subpart G. The regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. Pursuant to those regulations, NMFS issued a five-year LOA on February 8, 2018. For detailed information on this action, please refer to the February 8, 2018
On April 15, 2017, NMFS received a request for regulations from Eglin AFB for the taking of marine mammals incidental to testing and training activities in the EGTTR (defined as the area and airspace over the Gulf of Mexico controlled by Eglin AFB, beginning at a point three nautical miles (NM) off the coast of Florida) for a period of five years. On August 24, 2017, we published a notice of receipt of Eglin AFB's application in the
We have issued a LOA to Eglin AFB authorizing the take of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to testing and training activities on the EGTTR. The level and type of take authorized by the LOA is the same as the level and type of take analyzed in and covered by the final rule (83 FR 5545, February 8, 2018). Take by mortality or serious injury is not anticipated or authorized. Take of marine mammals will be minimized through implementation of mitigation and monitoring measures, including: Mission delay during live ordnance mission activities if protected species, large schools of fish, or large flocks of birds are observed feeding at the surface within the zone of influence; mission delay if daytime weather and/or sea conditions preclude adequate monitoring for detecting marine mammals and other marine life; aborting activities for remainder of day if one or more sperm or baleen whales are detected during pre-mission monitoring activities; and ramp-up procedures will be implemented for gunnery operations. Eglin AFB is required to also comply with monitoring and reporting measures under 50 CFR 218.65 which includes use of vessel-based monitoring, aerial-based monitoring and video-based monitoring via live high-definition video feed; employment of marine mammal monitors who have completed Eglin's Marine Species Observer Training; and submission of monitoring reports that will record all occurrences of marine mammals and any behavior or behavioral reactions observed, any observed incidents of injury or behavioral harassment, and any required mission delays. Additionally, the rule and LOA include an adaptive management component that allows for timely modification of mitigation or monitoring measures based on new information, when appropriate. For full details on the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements, please refer to the final rule (83 FR 5545; February 8, 2018).
Issuance of the LOA is based on findings, described in the preamble to the final rule, that the total taking of marine mammals incidental to the testing and training activities in the EGTTR will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
The LOA will remain valid through February 12, 2023, provided Eglin AFB remains in conformance with the conditions of the regulations and the LOA, including the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described in 50 CFR part 218, subpart G and the LOA.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of public meeting.
Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), this notice sets forth the announcement of a public meeting of the Community Bank Advisory Council (CBAC or Council) of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau or CFPB). The notice also describes the functions of the Council.
The meeting date is Thursday, March 22, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.; 1:15 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. eastern daylight time. The CBAC Card, Payment, and Deposits Markets Subcommittee, CBAC Consumer Lending Subcommittee, and
The meeting location is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.
Crystal Dully, Outreach and Engagement Associate, 202-435-9588,
Section 2 of the CBAC Charter provides: Pursuant to the executive and administrative powers conferred on the Bureau by section 1012 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), the Director established the Community Bank Advisory Council under agency authority.
Section 3 of the CBAC Charter states: “The purpose of the Advisory Council is to advise the Bureau in the exercise of its functions under the federal consumer financial laws as they pertain to community banks with total assets of $10 billion or less”
The Community Bank Advisory Council will discuss a call for evidence, regulatory updates, and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA).
Persons who need a reasonable accommodation to participate should contact
Written comments will be accepted from interested members of the public and should be sent to
The Council's agenda will be made available to the public on Wednesday March 7, 2018, via
A recording and summary of this meeting will be available after the meeting on the CFPB's website
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for information.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is seeking comments and information from interested parties to assist the Bureau in assessing potential changes that can be implemented to the Bureau's public reporting practices of consumer complaint information, consistent with law, to consider whether any changes to the practices would be appropriate.
Comments must be received by June 4, 2018.
You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2018-0006, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All submissions in response to this request for information, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Proprietary information or sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other individuals, should not be included. Submissions will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
Darian Dorsey, Deputy Assistant Director, Office of Consumer Response, at 202-435-7268. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
An important aspect of the Bureau's mission is hearing directly from the American public about their experiences in the consumer financial marketplace. Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5511(c)(2), “collecting, investigating, and responding to consumer complaints” is one of the six statutory “primary functions” of the Bureau. Since it began collecting complaints in July 2011, the Bureau has published a variety of reports analyzing complaints and responses. Some of these reports are specifically required by the Act.
The Act requires the Bureau to provide certain information to Congress
In July 2015, the Bureau began publishing a series of monthly complaint reports to highlight trends from consumer complaints submitted to the Bureau. Monthly complaint reports include complaint data on complaint volume, most-complained-about companies, state and local information, and product trends. Each report highlights a particular product and geographic location and provides insight into the consumer complaints handled by the Bureau. The report uses three-month rolling averages, comparing the current average to the same period in the prior year, where appropriate, to account for monthly and seasonal fluctuations. In some cases, month-to-month comparisons are used to highlight more immediate trends.
In May 2017, the Bureau began publishing special edition monthly complaint reports that highlight complaint information not routinely covered by statutorily-required and monthly complaint reports. These reports include, for example, complaint information aggregated for all 50 States, complaint information aggregated by specific population groups (
After requesting public comment on a proposed policy statement, in June 2012 the Bureau issued a final policy statement and began publishing consumers' credit card complaints in a public web-based database.
The Bureau is using this request for information (RFI) to seek public input regarding potential changes that can be implemented to the Bureau's public reporting practices of consumer complaint information, consistent with law, to consider whether any changes to the practices would be appropriate. The Bureau encourages comments from all interested members of the public. The Bureau anticipates that the responding public may include financial industry participants, government agencies, consumer advocacy and financial education groups, trade associations, academic and research organizations, and consumers.
The Bureau will issue a subsequent RFI seeking public input regarding consumer inquiries and related process activities. The purpose of this RFI is to seek feedback on all aspects of its consumer complaint reporting and publication practices; the Bureau is not seeking comment in this RFI on consumer inquiries and related process activities.
To allow the Bureau to more effectively evaluate suggestions, the Bureau requests that, where possible, comments include:
• The usefulness of complaint reporting and analysis to external stakeholders, including but not limited to financial industry participants, government agencies, consumer advocacy and financial education groups, trade associations, academic and research organizations, and consumers; and
• Specific suggestions or best practices for complaint reporting and publication given the Bureau's statutory objectives, including the Bureau's objective to ensure that markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.
The following represents a preliminary attempt by the Bureau to identify elements of Bureau complaint reporting and publication practices on which it should immediately focus. This non-exhaustive list is meant to assist in the formulation of comments and is not intended to restrict the issues that may be addressed. In addressing these issues and questions, the Bureau requests that commenters identify with specificity the consumer complaint reporting and publication practices at issue, providing legal citations where appropriate and available.
The Bureau is seeking feedback on all aspects of its consumer complaint reporting and publication practices, including:
1. Specific, statutorily-permissible suggestions regarding the frequency of the Bureau's reporting on consumer complaints;
2. Specific, statutorily-permissible suggestions on the content of the Bureau's reporting on consumer complaints, including:
a. Whether the Bureau should include more, less, or the same amount of reporting on State and local complaint trends;
b. Whether it is net beneficial or net harmful to the transparent and efficient operation of markets for consumer financial products and services for the Bureau to publish the names of the most-complained-about companies;
c. Whether the Bureau should provide more, less, or the same data fields in the Consumer Complaint Database;
d. Whether the Bureau should provide more, less, or the same amount of context for complaint information, particularly with regard to product or service market size and company share;
e. Whether the Bureau should supplement observations from consumer complaints with observations of company responses to complaints;
f. Whether the Bureau should share more, less, or the same amount of information on month-to-month trends; and
g. Whether the Bureau should share more, less, or the same amount of information on particular products and services;
3. Specific suggestions on the reporting methodology, including:
a. Should the Bureau continue to analyze data for seasonal fluctuations? If so, how?; and
b. Should the Bureau provide more, less, or the same amount of context for complaint information, particularly with regard to product and service market size and company share, including what data set(s) or data source(s) the Bureau should use;
4. Specific, statutorily-permissible suggestions for the publication process of consumer complaint information, including:
a. Whether the Bureau should provide the public with a publication schedule;
b. Whether the Bureau should notify the most-complained-about companies of their inclusion in a Bureau report prior to publication and invite company comment;
c. Whether the Bureau should devote resources to building tools to enable users to analyze complaint information; and
d. Whether the Bureau should expand, limit, or maintain the same level of access to complaint information available to external stakeholders such as financial institutions and the public.
12 U.S.C. 5511(c).
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
DoD announces an early engagement opportunity regarding implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 within the acquisition regulations.
Early inputs should be submitted in writing via the Defense Acquisition Regulations System (DARS) website shown below. The website will be updated when early inputs will no longer be accepted.
Submit early inputs via the DARS website at
Send inquiries via email to
DoD is providing an opportunity for the public to provide early inputs on implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 within the acquisition regulations. The public is invited to submit early inputs on sections of the NDAA for FY 2018 via the DARS website at
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by May 7, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0479, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Mr. Mark Gomersall, 571-372-6099. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available electronically on the internet at:
DFARS clause 252.234-7002, Earned Value Management System, requires contractors to respond in writing to initial and final determinations of significant deficiencies in the contractor's business systems as defined in the clause.
Department of Defense.
Amendment of Federal Advisory Committee.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is amending the charter for the Defense Business Board (“the Board”).
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.
The Board's charter is being amended in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d). Pursuant to statutory changes that took effect on February 1, 2018, the DoD disestablished the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer and established the Office of the Chief Management Officer (CMO). The DoD is amending the charter for the Board previously announced in the
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of amendment.
On December 2, 2008, DoD published a
This notice may be implemented beginning on March 6, 2018.
Dr. Jagadeesh Pamulapati, Director, DoD Laboratories Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350, (571) 372-6372,
Section 211 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 specified the “Discharge of Certain Authorities to Conduct Personnel Demonstration Projects” be carried out through the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E)), which makes the current processes for adoptions, minor changes and
In the notice published on December 2, 2008, 73 FR 73248-73252:
1. On page 73249, in the first column, at the end of the sentence under
2. On page 73250, in the second column, add the following at the end of the last sentence under Overview: “subject to section 4703 of Title 5 United States Code, as applicable.”
3. On page 73251, in the third column, add the following sentence after the first sentence in section D. “Section 211 of the NDAA for FY 2017 specified the “Discharge of Certain Authorities to Conduct Personnel Demonstration Projects” be carried out through the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (who shall place an emphasis in the exercise of such authorities on enhancing efficient operations of the laboratory and who may, in exercising such authorities, request administrative support from science and technology reinvention laboratories to review, research, and adjudicate personnel demonstration project proposals).”
4. On page 73251, in the third column, add the following at the end of the third sentence in section D “will be documented, in accordance with section 4703 of Title 5 United States Code, as applicable, in a DoD issuance.”
5. On page 73251, in the third column delete the forth sentence in section D.
6. On page 73251, in the third column delete the first, second and third bullet in section D.
Department of Defense.
Amendment of Federal Advisory Committee.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is amending the charter for the Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee (“the Committee”).
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.
The Committee's charter is being amended in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d). Pursuant to statutory changes that took effect on February 1, 2018, the DoD disestablished the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer and established the Office of the Chief Management Officer (CMO). The DoD is amending the charter for the Committee previously announced in the
Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 7, 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 Deputy Director, Defense Travel Management Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04J25-01, Alexandria, VA 22350-6000 or call 571.372.1300 or email
Respondents provide personal information to facilitate reserving travel and distribution of payment for travel such as financial routing and account number, US Passport number and home mailing address. To collect the personal information for DTS, users login and authenticate to the electronic DTS
On February 26, 2018, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (collectively, the Parties) filed a motion to defer the present March 1, 2018 effective date for the modifications to the Revised Tariff Sheets (Motion), accepted by the Commission on February 13, 2018, in this proceeding.
By this notice, the Parties' request to shorten the date for filing answers to the Motion to one day is denied. Answers to the Motion shall be filed on or before March 5, 2018.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission (March 28, 2018).
All documents may be filed electronically via the internet. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website at
Please include the project number (P-2216-084) on any comments, motions, or recommendations filed.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued in this proceeding on February 2, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene a staff-led technical conference in the above-referenced proceeding on Tuesday and Wednesday, April 3-4, 2018 from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (ET). The conference will be held in the Commission Meeting Room at Commission headquarters, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Commissioners may attend and participate. The purpose of this conference is to discuss issues related to the coordination of affected systems that have been raised in the complaint filed by EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. against Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. in Docket No. EL18-26-000 and in the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Generator Interconnection NOPR) on the interconnection process in Docket No. RM17-8-000. The first day of the conference will focus on questions specific to issues raised in the complaint filed in Docket No. EL18-26-000, while the second day of the conference will focus on the broader affected systems issues raised in the Generator Interconnection NOPR in Docket No. RM17-8-000.
Attached to this Supplemental Notice is a preliminary agenda for the technical conference. Additional information regarding the final conference program and speakers will be provided in a subsequent supplemental notice of technical conference.
Those interested in speaking at the technical conference should notify the Commission by March 2, 2018 by completing the online form at the following web page:
The conference will be open for the public to attend. Information on the technical conference will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website,
This event will be webcast and transcribed. Anyone with internet access can navigate to the “FERC Calendar” at
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about this technical conference, please contact:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Marco DM Holdings, L.L.C.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 20, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Westlake Expansion Project, proposed by Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) in the above-referenced docket. Gulf South requests authorization to construct and operate one new compressor station, two new meter and regulator (M&R) stations, and about 0.3 mile of 16-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Westlake Expansion Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The proposed Westlake Expansion Project includes the following facilities:
• One new 10,000 horsepower compressor station (Westlake Compressor Station);
• 0.3 mile of 16-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline;
• one new delivery M&R station (Entergy Lake Charles M&R Station); and
• one new receipt M&R station (Varibus M&R Station).
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups, including commenters; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's website (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments with the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket number (CP17-476-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at 202-502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Take notice that on February 21, 2018, pursuant to Rule 204 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (“Commission”) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.204, Targa NGL Pipeline Company LLC (Targa or Petitioner) filed a petition for temporary waiver of the tariff filing and reporting requirements of sections 6 and 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act and parts 341 and 357 of the Commission's regulations with respect to service on certain natural gas liquids pipeline facilities owned and operated by Targa within the state of Texas, as well as between points in Texas and Louisiana, as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on February 20, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2017), Medallion Delaware Express, LLC and Medallion Pipeline Company, LLC, filed a petition for a declaratory order seeking approval of the overall tariff rate structure and terms of service, open
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; meeting.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) will be held April 19 and 20, 2018, at Holiday Inn Washington-Capitol 550 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20024.
The CHPAC advises the Environmental Protection Agency on science, regulations, and other issues relating to children's environmental health.
April 19, 2018, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and April 20, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m..
550 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20024.
Angela Hackel, Office of Children's Health Protection, U.S. EPA, MC 1107T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-2977 or
The meetings of the CHPAC are open to the public. An agenda will be posted to
For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Angela Hackel at 202-566-2977 or
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 April 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID)
Number and the File Symbol of interest as shown 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.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests by pesticide registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide product registrations and to amend certain product registrations to terminate uses. EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the requests, or unless the registrants withdraw their requests. If these requests are granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted after the registrations have been cancelled and uses terminated only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order.
Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0014, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Christopher Green, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0367; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
1.
2.
This notice announces receipt by EPA of requests from pesticide registrants to cancel certain pesticide products and amend product registrations to terminate certain uses. The affected products and the registrants making the requests are identified in Tables 1 and 2 of this unit.
Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant or if the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of this request, EPA intends to issue an order in the
Table 3 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for the registrants of the products listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of this unit.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(B)) requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(C)) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
The registrants listed in Table 3 of Unit II have requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed requests.
Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for product cancellation or use termination should submit the withdrawal in writing to the person listed under
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the action. If the requests for voluntary cancellation and amendments to terminate uses are granted, the Agency intends to publish the cancellation order in the
In any order issued in response to these requests for cancellation of product registrations and for amendments to terminate uses, EPA proposes to include the following provisions for the treatment of any existing stocks of the products listed in Tables 1 and 2 of Unit II.
The registrant has requested to the Agency via letter dated November 10, 2017, a 12-month period (until November 30, 2018), to sell, distribute or use existing stocks of the subject product.
For all other voluntary product cancellations, identified in Table 1 of Unit II, registrants will be permitted to sell and distribute existing stocks of voluntarily canceled products for 1 year after the effective date of the cancellation, which will be the date of publication of the cancellation order in the
Once EPA has approved product labels reflecting the requested amendments to terminate uses, identified in Table 2 of Unit II, registrants will be permitted to sell or distribute products under the previously approved labeling for a period of 18 months after the date of
Persons other than the registrant may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of canceled products and products whose labels include the terminated uses until supplies are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products and terminated uses.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. 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 April 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the File Symbol of interest as shown 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
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. 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.
7 U.S.C. 136
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, (Privacy Act), the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is making a revision to an existing system of records entitled “Suspended Counterparty System” (FHFA-23). The Suspended Counterparty System contains information that FHFA uses to implement the Suspended Counterparty Program by which the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the eleven Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks) are required to submit reports to FHFA when they become aware that an individual or institutions and any
To be assured of consideration, comments must be received on or before April 5, 2018. The revisions to the existing system will become effective on April 5, 2018 without further notice unless comments necessitate otherwise. FHFA will publish a new notice if the effective date is delayed to review comments or if changes are made based on comments received.
Submit comments to FHFA, identified by “2018-N-2,” using any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
See
Tasha Cooper, Associate General Counsel,
FHFA seeks public comments on the revision to the system of records and will take all comments into consideration.
All comments received will be posted without change on the FHFA website at
This notice informs the public of FHFA's proposed revisions to an existing system of records. This notice satisfies the Privacy Act requirement that an agency publish a system of records notice in the
As required by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), and pursuant to section 7 of OMB Circular No. A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” dated December 23, 2016 (81 FR 94424 (Dec. 23, 2016)), prior to publication of this notice, FHFA submitted a report describing the revisions to the system of records covered by this notice to the Office of Management and Budget, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
The “Suspended Counterparty System” (FHFA-23) system of records is being revised to change the name to “Suspended Counterparty Program System,” expand the purpose of the system, and to add three new routine uses. The name change is to more accurately reflect the system and program. The current purpose of the system is to receive reports from the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the eleven Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) when they become aware that an individual or institutions and any affiliates thereof, who are currently or have been engaged in a covered transaction with a regulated entity within three years of when the regulated entity becomes aware of the covered misconduct, have engaged in fraud or other financial misconduct. FHFA is proposing to expand the purpose of the system to include collecting information from other organizations and entities, besides Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHLBanks, that voluntarily submit reports to FHFA about counterparties that have engaged in covered misconduct as defined in the Suspended Counterparty Regulation at 12 CFR 1227.2.
The three new routine uses will permit FHFA to share information in the Suspended Counterparty System with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHLBanks (hereinafter “regulated entities); with state and federal housing or financial regulators; and state or federal professional licensing agencies.
The revisions to the system of records notice is described in detail below. All other aspects of the system of records notice, other than the changes described below, remain unchanged.
Suspended Counterparty Program System FHFA-23.
Sensitive but unclassified.
Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20219, and any alternate work site utilized by employees of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) or by individuals assisting such employees.
Office of General Counsel, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20219.
The purpose of the System is expanded to include collecting information from other organizations and entities that voluntarily submit reports to FHFA about counterparties that have engaged in covered misconduct as defined in the Suspended Counterparty Regulation at 12 CFR 1227.2.
(13) To an FHFA regulated entity.
(14) To state and federal housing or financial regulators.
(15) To state or federal professional licensing agencies.
The FHFA Suspended Counterparty System (FHFA-23) system of records was last published in the
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. 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.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting of the Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis Meeting (ACET). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by 100 room seating and 100 ports for audio phone lines. Time will be available for public comment. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting. Comments should be submitted in writing by email to the contact person listed below. The deadline for receipt is Monday, April 9, 2018. Persons who desire to make an oral statement, may request it at the time of the public comment period on April 17, 2018 at 3:20 p.m. EDT. This meeting is accessible by web conference: 1-877-927-1433 and participant passcode: 12016435 and
The meeting will be held on April 17, 2018, 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., EDT.
8 Corporate Blvd., Building 8, Conference Rooms 1A and 1B, Atlanta, Georgia, 30329 and web conference.
Margie Scott-Cseh, Committee Management Specialist, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop: E-07, Atlanta, Georgia, 30329, telephone (404) 639-8317;
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting for the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 100 people. The public is also welcome to view the meeting by webcast. Check the CLIAC website on the day of the meeting for the webcast link
The meeting will be held on April 10, 2018, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., EDT and April 11, 2018, 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., EDT.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Building 31, Great Room, Silver Spring, MD 20993.
Nancy Anderson, MMSc, MT(ASCP), Senior Advisor for Clinical Laboratories, Division of Laboratory Systems, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services, Office of Public Health Scientific Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop F-11, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027 telephone (404) 498-2741;
All people attending the CLIAC meeting in-person are required to register for the meeting online at least 5 business days in advance for U.S. citizens and at least 10 business days in advance for international registrants. Register at:
It is the policy of CLIAC to accept written public comments and provide a brief period for oral public comments on agenda items. Public comment periods for each agenda item are scheduled immediately prior to the Committee discussion period for that item. In general, each individual or group requesting to make oral comments will be limited to a total time of five minutes (unless otherwise indicated). To assure adequate time is scheduled for public comments, speakers should notify the contact person below at least 5 business days prior to the meeting date. For individuals or groups unable to attend the meeting, CLIAC accepts written comments until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated). However, it is requested that comments be submitted at least 5 business days prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Committee for their consideration and public distribution. Written comments, one hard copy with original signature, should be provided to the contact person at the mailing or email address below, and will be included in the meeting's Summary Report. The CLIAC meeting materials will be made available to the Committee and the public in electronic format (PDF) on the internet instead of by printed copy. Check the CLIAC website on the day of the meeting for materials:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting space accommodates approximately 150 people. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting, to the contact person below. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by joining the teleconference at the USA toll-free, dial-in number at 1-866-659-0537; the pass code is 9933701. The conference line has 150 ports for callers. The Web conference by which the public can view presentations
The meeting will be held on April 11, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. EDT. A public comment session will follow at 5:30 p.m. and conclude at 6:30 p.m. or following the final call for public comment, whichever comes first.
Doubletree by Hilton Hotel Oak Ridge—Knoxville, 215 S. Illinois Avenue, Oak Ridge, TN 37830; Phone: (865) 481-2468, Fax: (865) 481-2474. Audio conference call via FTS Conferencing. The USA toll-free dial-in number is 1-866-659-0537; the pass code is 9933701. Web conference by Skype: meeting CONNECTION:
Theodore Katz, MPA, Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, Mailstop E-20, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone (513) 533-6800, Toll Free 1 (800) CDC-INFO, Email
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. 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.
Michael Goldcamp, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer/CDC, 1095 Willowdale Road, Mailstop H1808, Morgantown, West Virginia, 26505, (304) 285-5951;
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than May 7, 2018.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, in compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HRSA is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the program), as required by the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of HHS is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.
For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the Program in general, contact Lisa L. Reyes, Clerk of Court, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357-6400. For information on HRSA's role in the Program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 08N146B, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-6593, or visit our website at:
The program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10
A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods
Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the
Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:
1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and
2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:
a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or
b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.
In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than April 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Lisa Wright-Solomon, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Announcing project period extensions with Funding for Health Center Program Award recipients in Puerto Rico.
HRSA provided additional grant funds to 4 award recipients in Puerto Rico with project periods ending in fiscal year 2018 to extend their current project periods by 12 months to prevent interruptions in the provision of critical health care services while they recover from Hurricane Maria.
HRSA awarded approximately $17 million to the four existing Health Center Program award recipients noted in Table 1.
Olivia Shockey, Expansion Division Director, Office of Policy and Program Development, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following 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.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines).
A notice listing all currently HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs is published in the
If any laboratory or IITF has withdrawn from the HHS National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) during the past month, it will be listed at the end and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.
This notice is also available on the internet at
Giselle Hersh, Division of Workplace Programs, SAMHSA/CSAP, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16N03A, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 240-276-2600 (voice).
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines). The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the
The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Public Law 100-71. The “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs,” as amended in the revisions listed above, requires strict standards that laboratories and IITFs must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens for federal agencies.
To become certified, an applicant laboratory or IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a laboratory or IITF must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.
Laboratories and IITFs in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. A HHS-certified laboratory or IITF must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA
In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines dated January 23, 2017 (82 FR 7920), the following HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:
Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory (
Coast Guard, DHS.
Solicitation for membership.
This notice requests individuals interested in serving on the Area Maritime Security Committee (AMSC), Charleston, SC, submit their resume to the Federal Maritime Security Coordinator (FMSC), Charleston, SC. The Committee assists the FMSC, Charleston, SC, in developing, reviewing, and updating the Area Maritime Security Plan for their area of responsibility.
Requests for membership should reach the FMSC, Charleston, SC, by April 5, 2018.
Resumes should be submitted to the following address: Coast Guard Sector Charleston, Attention: Mr. Dennis Bradford, 1050 Register St., North Charleston, SC 29405.
For questions about submitting an application, or about the AMSC in general, contact, Mr. Dennis Bradford at
Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-295) added section 70112 to Title 46 of the U.S. Code, and authorized the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating to establish Area Maritime Security Advisory Committees for any port area of the United States. (See 33 U.S.C. 1226; 46 U.S.C. chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 192; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.01; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1). Under 46 U.S.C. 70112(g)(1)(B), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) does not apply to AMSCs.
The AMSCs shall assist the FMSC in the development, review, update, and exercising of the Area Maritime Security Plan for their area of responsibility. Such matters may include, but are not limited to: Identifying critical port infrastructure and operations; identifying risks (threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences); determining mitigation strategies and implementation methods; developing and describing the process to continually evaluate overall port security by considering consequences and vulnerabilities, how they may change over time, and what additional mitigation strategies can be applied; and providing advice to, and assisting the FMSC in developing and maintaining the Area Maritime Security Plan.
Members of the AMSC should have at least five years of expertise related to maritime or port security operations.
Applicants may be required to pass an appropriate security background check prior to appointment to the Committee. Applicants must register with and remain active as Coast Guard HOMEPORT users if appointed. Members' terms of office will be for five years; however, a member is eligible to serve additional terms of office. Members will not receive any salary or other compensation for their service on an AMSC. In accordance with 33 CFR 103.305, members may be selected from the Federal, Territorial, or Tribal governments; the State government and political subdivisions of the State; local public safety, crisis management, and emergency response agencies; law enforcement and security organizations; maritime industry, including labor; other port stakeholders having a special competence in maritime security; and port stakeholders affected by security practices and policies.
The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or any other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.
Those seeking membership should submit their resume to
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of a currently approved collection, 1600-0002.
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 purpose of the information collected is to ensure proper closing of physically complete contracts. The information will be used by DHS contracting officers to ensure compliance with terms and conditions of DHS contracts and to complete reports required by other Federal agencies such as the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Department of Labor (DOL). If this information is not collected, DHS could inadvertently violate statutory or regulatory requirements and DHS's interests concerning inventions and contractors' claims would not be protected.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 7, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2018-0010, at:
•
Nancy Harvey, (202) 447-0956,
This information collection is associated with the forms listed below and is necessary to implement applicable parts of the HSAR (48 CFR Chapter 30). There are four forms under this collection of information request that are used by offerors, contractors, and the general public to comply with requirements in contracts awarded by DHS. The information collected is used by contracting officers to ensure compliance with terms and conditions of DHS contracts.
The forms are as follows:
These forms will be prepared by individuals, contractors or contract employees during contract
• DHS Forms 0700-01, 0700-02 and 0700-03: Prepared by individuals, contractors or contract employees prior to contract closure to determine whether there are excess funds that are available for deobligation versus remaining (payable) funds on contracts; assignment or transfer of rights, title, and interest to the Government; and release from liability. The contracting officer obtains the forms from the contractor for closeout, as applicable. Forms 0700-01 and 02 are mainly used for calculating costs related to the closeout of cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, and labor-hour contracts; and, Form 0700-03 is mainly used for calculating costs related to the closeout of cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, and labor-hour contracts but can be used for all contract types.
• DHS Form 0700-04 is prepared by contractor employees making claims for unpaid wages. Contracting officers must obtain this form from employees seeking restitution under contracts to provide to the Comptroller General. This form is applicable to all contract types, both opened and closed.
The purpose of the information collected is to ensure proper closing of physically complete contracts. The information will be used by DHS contracting officers to ensure compliance with terms and conditions of DHS contracts and to complete reports required by other Federal agencies such as the General Services Administration (GSA) and DOL. If this information is not collected, DHS could inadvertently violate statutory or regulatory requirements and DHS's interests concerning inventions and contractors' claims would not be protected.
The four DHS forms are available on the DHS Homepage (
There are FAR and HSAR clauses that require protection of rights in data and proprietary information if requested and designated by an offeror or contractor. Additionally, disclosure or non-disclosure of information is handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. There is no assurance of confidentiality provided to the respondents. No PIA is required as the information is collected from DHS personnel (contractors only). Although, the DHS/ALL/PIA-006 General Contacts lists PIA does provided basic coverage. And technically, because this information is not retrieved by personal identifier, no system of records notice 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.
The burden estimates provided are based upon contracts reported by DHS and its Components to the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for Fiscal Year 2016. No program changes occurred and there were no changes to the information being collected. However, the burden was adjusted to reflect an agency adjustment increase of 46,701 in the number of 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, 1600-0002. 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,
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice; Correction.
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. This notice corrects the due date on previous published notice on February 28, 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 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,
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 Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice of sales of reverse mortgage loans.
This notice announces HUD's intention to competitively offer multiple residential reverse mortgage pools
This notice also generally describes the bidding process for the sale and certain persons who are ineligible to bid. This is the third sale offering of its type and the sale will be held on April 11, 2018.
For this sale action, the Bidder's Information Package (BIP) is expected to be made available to qualified bidders on or about March 7, 2018. Bids for the HVLS 2018-1 sale will be accepted on the Bid Date of April 11, 2018 (Bid Date). HUD anticipates that award(s) will be made on or about April 13, 2018 (the Award Date).
To become a qualified bidder and receive the BIP, prospective bidders must complete, execute, and submit a Confidentiality Agreement and a Qualification Statement acceptable to HUD. Both documents are available via the HUD website at:
John Lucey, Director, Asset Sales Office, Room 3136, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone 202-708-2625, extension 3927. Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may call 202-708-4594 (TTY). These are not toll-free numbers.
HUD announces its intention to sell in HVLS 2018-1 due and payable Secretary-held reverse mortgage loans. The loans consist of first liens secured by single family, vacant residential properties, where all borrowers are deceased, and no borrower is survived by a non-borrowing spouse.
A listing of the mortgage loans is included in the due diligence materials made available to qualified bidders. The mortgage loans will be sold without FHA insurance and with servicing released. HUD will offer qualified bidders an opportunity to bid competitively on the mortgage loans. The loans are expected to be offered in regional pools.
The BIP describes in detail the procedure for bidding in HVLS 2018-1. The BIP also includes a standardized non-negotiable Conveyance, Assignment and Assumption Agreement for HVLS 2018-1 (CAA). Qualified bidders will be required to submit a deposit with their bid. Deposits are calculated based upon each qualified bidder's aggregate bid price.
HUD will evaluate the bids submitted and determine the successful bid, in terms of the best value to HUD, in its sole and absolute discretion. If a qualified bidder is successful, the qualified bidder's deposit will be non-refundable and will be applied toward the purchase price. Deposits will be returned to unsuccessful bidders.
This notice provides some of the basic terms of sale. The CAA, which is included in the BIP, provides comprehensive contractual terms and conditions. To ensure a competitive bidding process, the terms of the bidding process and the CAA are not subject to negotiation.
The BIP describes how qualified bidders may access the due diligence materials remotely via a high-speed internet connection.
HUD reserves the right to remove mortgage loans from HVLS 2018-1 at any time prior to the Award Date. HUD also reserves the right to reject any and all bids, in whole or in part, and include any reverse mortgage loans in a later sale. Deliveries of mortgage loans will occur in conjunction with settlement and servicing transfer, approximately 30 to 45 days after the Award Date.
The HVLS 2018-1 reverse mortgage loans were insured by and were assigned to HUD pursuant to section 255 of the National Housing Act, as amended. The sale of the reverse mortgage loans is pursuant to section 204(g) of the National Housing Act.
HUD selected an open competitive whole-loan sale as the method to sell the mortgage loans for this specific sale transaction. For HVLS 2018-1, HUD has determined that this method of sale optimizes HUD's return on the sale of these loans, affords the greatest opportunity for all qualified bidders to bid on the mortgage loans, and provides the quickest and most efficient vehicle for HUD to dispose of the mortgage loans.
In order to bid in HVLS 2018-1 as a qualified bidder, a prospective bidder must complete, execute and submit both a Confidentiality Agreement and a Qualification Statement acceptable to HUD. In the Qualification Statement, the prospective bidder must provide certain representations and warranties regarding the prospective bidder, including but not limited to (i) the prospective bidder's board of directors, (ii) the prospective bidder's direct parent, (iii) the prospective bidder's subsidiaries, (iv) any related entity with which the prospective bidder shares a common officer, director, subcontractor or sub-contractor who has access to Confidential Information as defined in the Confidentiality Agreement or is involved in the formation of a bid transaction (collectively the “Related Entities”), and (v) the prospective bidder's repurchase lenders. The prospective bidder is ineligible to bid on any of the reverse mortgage loans included in HVLS 2018-1 if the prospective bidder, its Related Entities or its repurchase lenders, is any of the following, unless other exceptions apply as provided for in the Qualification Statement.
1. An individual or entity that is currently debarred, suspended, or excluded from doing business with HUD pursuant to the Governmentwide Suspension and Debarment regulations at 2 CFR parts 180 and 2424;
2. An individual or entity that is currently suspended, debarred or otherwise restricted by any department or agency of the federal government or of a state government from doing business with such department or agency;
3. An individual or entity that is currently debarred, suspended, or excluded from doing mortgage related business, including having a business license suspended, surrendered or revoked, by any federal, state or local government agency, division or department;
4. An entity that has had its right to act as a Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”) issuer terminated and its interest in mortgages backing Ginnie Mae mortgage-backed securities extinguished by Ginnie Mae;
5. An individual or entity that is in violation of its neighborhood stabilizing outcome obligations or post-sale reporting requirements under a Conveyance, Assignment and Assumption Agreement executed for
6. An employee of HUD's Office of Housing, a member of such employee's household, or an entity owned or controlled by any such employee or member of such an employee's household with household to be inclusive of the employee's father, mother, stepfather, stepmother, brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, grandparent, grandson, granddaughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, first cousin, the spouse of any of the foregoing, and the employee's spouse;
7. A contractor, subcontractor and/or consultant or advisor (including any agent, employee, partner, director, or principal of any of the foregoing) who performed services for or on behalf of HUD in connection with the sale;
8. An individual or entity that knowingly acquired or will acquire prior to the sale date material non-public information, other than that information which is made available to Bidder by HUD pursuant to the terms of this Qualification Statement, about mortgage loans offered in the sale;
9. An individual or entity that knowingly uses the services, directly or indirectly, of any person or entity ineligible under 1 through 10 to assist in preparing any of its bids on the mortgage loans;
10. An individual or entity which knowingly employs or uses the services of an employee of HUD's Office of Housing (other than in such employee's official capacity); or
The Qualification Statement has additional representations and warranties which the prospective bidder must make, including but not limited to the representation and warranty that the prospective bidder or its Related Entities are not and will not knowingly use the services, directly or indirectly, of any person or entity that is, any of the following (and to the extent that any such individual or entity would prevent the prospective bidder from making the following representations, such individual or entity has been removed from participation in all activities related to this sale and has no ability to influence or control individuals involved in formation of a bid for this sale):
(1) An entity or individual is ineligible to bid on any included reverse mortgage loan or on the pool containing such reverse mortgage loan because it is an entity or individual that:
(a) Serviced or held such reverse mortgage loan at any time during the six-month period prior to the bid; or
(b) is any principal of any entity or individual described in the preceding sentence;
(c) any employee or subcontractor of such entity or individual during that six-month period; or
(d) any entity or individual that employs or uses the services of any other entity or individual described in this paragraph in preparing its bid on such reverse mortgage loan.
HUD reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to disclose information regarding HVLS 2018-1, including, but not limited to, the identity of any successful qualified bidder and its bid price or bid percentage for any pool of loans or individual loan, upon the closing of the sale of all the Mortgage Loans. Even if HUD elects not to publicly disclose any information relating to SFLS 2018-1, HUD will disclose any information that HUD is obligated to disclose pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and all regulations promulgated thereunder.
This notice applies to HVLS 2018-1 and does not establish HUD's policy for the sale of other mortgage loans.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of proposed action and request for comments.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposing to amend its categorical exclusions (CATEXs) under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for certain BIA actions and is seeking comment. The BIA is requesting comment on whether to revise or delete any current CATEXs or add any new CATEXs.
Comments and related material must be postmarked no later than May 7, 2018.
Please submit your comments by only one of the following means: (1) By mail to: Dr. BJ Howerton, MBA, Branch Chief Environmental and Cultural Resource Management C/O Department of the Interior, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192; or (2) by email to:
Dr. BJ Howerton, (703) 390-6524, email:
The NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the potential environmental consequences of their decisions before deciding whether and how to proceed. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) encourages Federal agencies to use CATEXs to protect the environment more efficiently by: (a) Reducing the resources spent analyzing proposals which generally do not have potentially significant environmental impacts, and (b) focusing resources on proposals that may have significant environmental impacts. The appropriate use of CATEXs allow the NEPA review to be concluded without preparing either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) (40 CFR 1500.4(p) and § 1508.4).
The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA define CATEXs as a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and for which, therefore, neither an EA nor an EIS is required. (40 CFR 1508.4). The CEQ regulations encourage the use of CATEXs to reduce unnecessary paperwork and delays. A CATEX is a form of NEPA compliance; it is not an exemption from NEPA, but an exemption from requirements to prepare an EIS. Agency procedures must consider “extraordinary circumstances,” in which case a normally excluded action may have a significant effect and require preparation of an EA or EIS.
The Department of the Interior (Interior) has established CATEXs at 43 CFR 46.210. In addition, BIA has bureau-specific CATEXs. The most recent CATEXs BIA established were three based on CATEXs currently used by the United States Forest Service (FS), as described in FS regulations 36 CFR 220, and by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as described the Departmental Manual, 516 DM 11. The BIA relied on the experience of the FS and BLM and applied its expertise to
This notice provides information on current BIA CATEXs and requests comment.
Most of the current BIA CATEXs reside in the Departmental Manual in Part 516 Chapter 10: Managing the NEPA Process—Bureau of Indian Affairs. The majority of those exclusions in section 10.5 have an effective date of May 27, 2004. In addition, a CATEX for single family homesites at section 10.5(M)(7), became effective August 10, 2012.
10.5 Categorical Exclusions.
A. Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement of Existing Facilities. Examples are normal renovation of buildings, road maintenance and limited rehabilitation of irrigation structures.
B. Transfer of Existing Federal Facilities to Other Entities. Transfer of existing operation and maintenance activities of Federal facilities to tribal groups, water user organizations, or other entities where the anticipated operation and maintenance activities are in a signed contract, follow BIA policy, and no change in operations or maintenance is anticipated.
C. Human Resources Programs. Examples are social services, education services, employment assistance, tribal operations, law enforcement and credit and financing activities not related to development.
D. Administrative Actions and Other Activities Relating to Trust Resources. Examples are: Management of trust funds (collection and distribution), budget, finance, estate planning, wills and appraisals.
E. Self-Determination and Self-Governance.
(1) Self-Determination Act contracts and grants for BIA programs listed as categorical exclusions, or for programs in which environmental impacts are adequately addressed in earlier NEPA analysis.
(2) Self-Governance compacts for BIA programs which are listed as categorical exclusions or for programs in which environmental impacts are adequately addressed in earlier NEPA analysis.
F. Rights-of-Way.
(1) Rights-of-Way inside another right-of-way, or amendments to rights-of-way where no deviations from or additions to the original right-of-way are involved and where there is an existing NEPA analysis covering the same or similar impacts in the right-of-way area.
(2) Service line agreements to an individual residence, building or well from an existing facility where installation will involve no clearance of vegetation from the right-of-way other than for placement of poles, signs (including highway signs), or buried power/cable lines.
(3) Renewals, assignments and conversions of existing rights-of-way where there would be essentially no change in use and continuation would not lead to environmental degradation.
G. Minerals.
(1) Approval of permits for geologic mapping, inventory, reconnaissance and surface sample collecting.
(2) Approval of unitization agreements, pooling or communitization agreements.
(3) Approval of mineral lease adjustments and transfers, including assignments and subleases.
(4) Approval of royalty determinations such as royalty rate adjustments of an existing lease or contract agreement.
H. Forestry.
(1) Approval of free-use cutting, without permit, to Indian owners for on-reservation personal use of forest products, not to exceed 2,500 feet board measure when cutting will not adversely affect associated resources such as riparian zones, areas of special significance, etc.
(2) Approval and issuance of cutting permits for forest products not to exceed $5,000 in value.
(3) Approval and issuance of paid timber cutting permits or contracts for products valued at less than $25,000 when in compliance with policies and guidelines established by a current management plan addressed in earlier NEPA analysis.
(4) Approval of annual logging plans when in compliance with policies and guidelines established by a current management plan addressed in earlier NEPA analysis.
(5) Approval of Fire Management Planning Analysis detailing emergency fire suppression activities.
(6) Approval of emergency forest and range rehabilitation plans when limited to environmental stabilization on less than 10,000 acres and not including approval of salvage sales of damaged timber.
(7) Approval of forest stand improvement projects of less than 2000 acres when in compliance with policies and guidelines established by a current management plan addressed in earlier NEPA analysis.
(8) Approval of timber management access skid trail and logging road construction when consistent with policies and guidelines established by a current management plan addressed in earlier NEPA analysis.
(9) Approval of prescribed burning plans of less than 2000 acres when in compliance with policies and guidelines established by a current management plan addressed in earlier NEPA analysis.
(10) Approval of forestation projects with native species and associated protection and site preparation activities on less than 2000 acres when consistent with policies and guidelines established by a current management plan addressed in earlier NEPA analysis.
(11) Harvesting live trees not to exceed 70 acres, requiring no more than 0.5 mile of temporary road construction. Such activities:
(a) Shall not include even-aged regeneration harvests or vegetation type conversions.
(b) May include incidental removal of trees for landings, skid trails, and road clearing.
(c) May include temporary roads which are defined as roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation not intended to be part of the BIA or Tribal transportation systems and not necessary for long-term resource management. Temporary roads shall be designed to standards appropriate for the intended uses, considering safety, cost of transportation, and impacts on land and resources; and
(d) Shall require the treatment of temporary roads constructed or used so as to permit the reestablishment by artificial or natural means, of vegetative cover on the roadway and areas where the vegetative cover was disturbed by the construction or use of the road, as necessary to minimize erosion from the disturbed area. Such treatment shall be designed to reestablish vegetative cover as soon as practicable, but at least within 10 years after the termination of the contract.
Examples include, but are not limited to:
(a) Removing individual trees for sawlogs, specialty products, or fuelwood.
(b) Commercial thinning of overstocked stands to achieve the desired stocking level to increase health and vigor.
(12) Salvaging dead or dying trees not to exceed 250 acres, requiring no more than 0.5 mile of temporary road construction. Such activities:
(a) May include incidental removal of live or dead trees for landings, skid trails, and road clearing.
(b) May include temporary roads which are defined as roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation not intended to be part of the BIA or Tribal transportation systems and not necessary for long-term resource management. Temporary roads shall be designed to standards appropriate for the intended uses, considering safety, cost of transportation, and impacts on land and resources; and
(c) Shall require the treatment of temporary roads constructed or used so as to permit the reestablishment, by artificial or natural means, of vegetative cover on the roadway and areas where the vegetative cover was disturbed by the construction or use of the road, as necessary to minimize erosion from the disturbed area. Such treatment shall be designed to reestablish vegetative cover as soon as practicable, but at least within 10 years after the termination of the contract.
(d) For this CE, a dying tree is defined as a standing tree that has been severely damaged by forces such as fire, wind, ice, insects, or disease, such that in the judgment of an experienced forest professional or someone technically trained for the work, the tree is likely to die within a few years.
Examples include, but are not limited to:
(a) Harvesting a portion of a stand damaged by a wind or ice event.
(b) Harvesting fire damaged trees.
(13) Commercial and noncommercial sanitation harvest of trees to control insects or disease not to exceed 250 acres, requiring no more than 0.5 miles of temporary road construction. Such activities:
(a) May include removal of infested/infected trees and adjacent live uninfested/uninfected trees as determined necessary to control the spread of insects or disease and
(b) May include incidental removal of live or dead trees for landings, skid trails, and road clearing.
(c) May include temporary roads which are defined as roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation not intended to be part of the BIA or tribal transportation systems and not necessary for long-term resource management. Temporary roads shall be designed to standards appropriate for the intended uses, considering safety, cost of transportation, and impacts on land and resources; and
(d) Shall require the treatment of temporary roads constructed or used so as to permit the reestablishment, by artificial or natural means, of vegetative cover on the roadway and areas where the vegetative cover was disturbed by the construction or use of the road, as necessary to minimize erosion from the disturbed area. Such treatment shall be designed to reestablish vegetative cover as soon as practicable, but at least within 10 years after the termination of the contract.
Examples include, but are not limited to:
(a) Felling and harvesting trees infested with mountain pine beetles and immediately adjacent uninfested trees to control expanding spot infestations (a buffer) and
(b) Removing or destroying trees infested or infected with a new exotic insect or disease, such as emerald ash borer, Asian longhorned beetle, or sudden oak death pathogen.
I. Land Conveyance and Other Transfers. Approvals or grants of conveyances and other transfers of interests in land where no change in land use is planned.
J. Reservation Proclamations. Lands established as or added to a reservation pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 467, where no change in land use is planned.
K. Waste Management.
(1) Closure operations for solid waste facilities when done in compliance with other federal laws and regulations and where cover material is taken from locations which have been approved for use by earlier NEPA analysis.
(2) Activities involving remediation of hazardous waste sites if done in compliance with applicable federal laws such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Pub. L. 96-516) or Toxic Substances Control Act (Pub. L. 94-469).
L. Roads and Transportation.
(1) Approval of utility installations along or across a transportation facility located in whole within the limits of the roadway right-of-way.
(2) Construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes and paths adjacent to existing highways and within the existing rights-of-way.
(3) Activities included in a “highway safety plan” under 23 CFR 402.
(4) Installation of fencing, signs, pavement markings, small passenger shelters, traffic signals, and railroad warning devices where no substantial land acquisition or traffic disruption will occur.
(5) Emergency repairs under 23 U.S.C. 125.
(6) Acquisition of scenic easements.
(7) Alterations to facilities to make them accessible for the elderly or handicapped.
(8) Resurfacing a highway without adding to the existing width.
(9) Rehabilitation, reconstruction or replacement of an existing bridge structure on essentially the same alignment or location (
(10) Approvals for changes in access control within existing right-of-ways.
(11) Road construction within an existing right-of-way which has already been acquired for a HUD housing project and for which earlier NEPA analysis has already been prepared.
M. Other.
(1) Data gathering activities such as inventories, soil and range surveys, timber cruising, geological, geophysical, archeological, paleontological and cadastral surveys.
(2) Establishment of non-disturbance environmental quality monitoring programs and field monitoring stations including testing services.
(3) Actions where BIA has concurrence or co-approval with another Bureau and the action is categorically excluded for that Bureau.
(4) Approval of an Application for Permit to Drill for a new water source or observation well.
(5) Approval of conversion of an abandoned oil well to a water well if water facilities are established only near the well site.
(6) Approval and issuance of permits under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa-ll) when the permitted activity is being done as a part of an action for which a NEPA analysis has been, or is being prepared.
(7) Approval of leases, easements or funds for single-family homesites and associated improvements, including but not limited to, construction of homes, outbuildings, access roads, and utility lines, which encompass five acres or less of contiguous land, provided that such sites and associated improvements do not adversely affect any tribal
The BIA encourages interested persons to submit written comments on any BIA CATEX. For example, comments may address keeping, revising, or deleting current CATEXS and suggest new CATEXS for consideration. Persons submitting information should include their name, address, and other appropriate contact information. Before including such 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. You may submit your information by one of the means listed under
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) hereby provides constructive notice that it will issue an appealable decision approving conveyance of the surface and subsurface estates in certain lands to Calista Corporation, an Alaska Native regional corporation, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, as amended (ANCSA).
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 within the time limits set out in the
You may obtain a copy of the decision from the Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.
Chelsea Kreiner, BLM Alaska State Office, 907-271-4205, or
As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that the BLM will issue an appealable decision to Calista Corporation. The decision approves conveyance of the surface and subsurface estates in certain lands pursuant to ANCSA (43 U.S.C. 1601,
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 within the following time limits:
1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall have until April 5, 2018 to file an appeal.
2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 shall be deemed to have waived their rights. Notices of appeal transmitted by facsimile will not be accepted as timely filed.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 (REA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Dumont Dunes Subgroup of the California Desert District Advisory Council (DAC) will meet as indicated below.
The BLM's Dumont Dunes Subgroup of the California DAC will hold public meetings on March 24, 2018, from 12:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., and on September 18, 2018, from 12:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
The meetings will be held at the Barstow Field Office, 2601 Barstow Rd., Barstow, CA 92311.
Katrina Symons, BLM Barstow Field Office, email:
The Dumont Dunes Subgroup operates under the authority of the DAC and provides input to the BLM regarding issues pertinent to the Dumont Dunes Off-Highway Vehicle Area. Meetings are open to the public. Proposed agenda items for the two public meetings include holiday volunteer scheduling and BLM updates on management of the Area, according to the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The
Written comments may be filed in advance of the meetings addressed to the California Desert District Advisory Council, Dumont Dunes Subgroup, c/o Barstow Field Office, 2601 Barstow Rd., Barstow, CA 92311 or emailed to
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 in your comment that the BLM withhold your personal identifying information from public review, the BLM cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
43 CFR 1784.4-2
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Miles City Field Office (MCFO), Miles City, Montana, intends to prepare an amendment to the MCFO Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) with an associated Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the sale of the reversionary interest held by the United States (U.S.) in 11.83 acres of land previously conveyed out of Federal ownership, and by this Notice is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues.
This Notice initiates the public scoping process for the RMP Amendment with an associated EA. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until April 5, 2018. The BLM does not plan to hold any scoping meetings for this Plan Amendment. In order to be included in the analysis, all comments must be received prior to the close of the 30-day scoping period. We will provide additional opportunities for public participation as appropriate.
Send written comments to the Field Manager, Miles City Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 111 Garryowen Road, Miles City, MT 59301. Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the MCFO.
Beth Klempel, telephone 406-233-2800, or email
This document provides notice that the BLM MCFO, Miles City, MT, intends to prepare an amendment to the MCFO RMP with an associated EA, announces the beginning of the scoping process, and seeks public input on issues and planning criteria. The planning area is located in Custer County, Montana, and encompasses the reversionary interest held by the U.S. in 11.83 acres of land previously conveyed out of Federal ownership. The BLM has received a request from the current owner to purchase the reversionary interest held by the U.S. in the following described land:
The area described contains 11.83 acres in Custer County, Montana.
In 1992, the BLM conveyed the land described above to the Miles Community College under the authority of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of June 14, 1926 (R&PP) for educational and recreational purposes. Under the college's development plan with the BLM, it has used the land for a rodeo arena, equestrian events, recreation facilities, agriculture-related courses, and programs for the community college's use. If the college purchases the U.S.' reversionary interest, the college could also allow the public to rent the facilities for community use or large events, such as indoor rodeos, concerts, and agriculture and recreation expos. When public land is conveyed under the authority of the R&PP, the U.S. retains a reversionary interest in the land, which could result in title to the land reverting to the U.S. if the land is not used for the purposes for which it was conveyed, or if the land is sold or transferred without the BLM's approval. The BLM is responsible for monitoring the reversionary interest in perpetuity to ensure the land is used for the purposes for which it was conveyed.
The reversionary interest in the land described above was not specifically identified for sale in the 2015 MCFO RMP and a Plan Amendment is required to process a direct sale. The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the planning process.
The BLM anticipates that the EA will consider both a Plan Amendment and possible subsequent sale of the Federal reversionary interest. The BLM anticipates that the EA will include, at a minimum, input from the disciplines of land-use planning, renewable resources, and non-renewable resources. This Plan Amendment will be limited to an analysis of whether the reversionary interest in the land described above meets the criteria for sale under Section 203 of FLPMA.
You may submit comments in writing to the BLM as shown in the
The BLM will use its fulfillment of the NEPA public participation requirements to assist the agency in satisfying the public involvement requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C 470(f)) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA.
The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to
The BLM will evaluate identified issues to be addressed in the Plan Amendment, and will place them into one of three categories:
1. Issues to be resolved in the Plan Amendment;
2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or
3. Issues beyond the scope of this Plan Amendment.
The BLM will provide an explanation in the EA as to why an issue was placed in category two or three. The public is also encouraged to help identify any management questions and concerns that should be addressed in the Plan Amendment. The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns.
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 Park Service, Interior.
Request for nominations.
The National Park Service is soliciting nominations for one member of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee. The Secretary of the Interior will appoint one member from nominations submitted by national museum organizations or national scientific organizations. The Review Committee was established by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA), and is regulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
Nominations must be received by June 4, 2018.
Melanie O'Brien, Designated Federal Officer, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, National NAGPRA Program (2253), National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Room 7360, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 354-2201 or via email
Melanie O'Brien, Designated Federal Officer, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, National NAGPRA Program (2253), National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Room 7360, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 354-2201 or via email
The Review Committee is responsible for:
1. Monitoring the NAGPRA inventory and identification process;
2. Reviewing and making findings related to the identity or cultural affiliation of cultural items, or the return of such items;
3. Facilitating the resolution of disputes;
4. Compiling an inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains and developing a process for disposition of such remains;
5. Consulting with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations and museums on matters within the scope of the work of the Review Committee affecting such tribes or organizations;
6. Consulting with the Secretary of the Interior in the development of regulations to carry out NAGPRA; and
7. Making recommendations regarding future care of repatriated cultural items.
The Review Committee consists of seven members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary may not appoint Federal officers or employees to the Review Committee. Three members are appointed from nominations submitted by Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and traditional Native American religious leaders. At least two of these members must be traditional Indian religious leaders. Three members are appointed from nominations submitted by national museum or scientific organizations. One member is appointed from a list of persons developed and consented to by all of the other members.
Members serve as Special Government Employees, and are required to complete annual ethics training. Members are appointed for 4-year terms and incumbent members may be reappointed for 2-year terms. The Review Committee's work is completed during public meetings. The Review Committee attempts to meet in person twice a year and meetings normally last two or three days. In addition, the Review Committee may also meet by public teleconference one or more times per year.
Review Committee members serve without pay but are reimbursed for each day of meeting attendance. Review Committee members are also reimbursed for travel expenses incurred in association with Review Committee meetings (25 U.S.C. 3006(b)(4)). Additional information regarding the Review Committee, including the Review Committee's charter, meeting protocol, and dispute resolution procedures, is available on the National NAGPRA Program website, at
Individuals who are federally registered lobbyists are ineligible to serve on all FACA and non-FACA boards, committees, or councils in an individual capacity. The term “individual capacity” refers to individuals who are appointed to exercise their own individual best judgment on behalf of the government, such as when they are designated Special Government Employees, rather than being appointed to represent a particular interest.
Nominations must:
1. Be submitted by a national museum organization or national scientific organization and should be submitted on the official letterhead of the organization.
2. Affirm that the signatory is the official authorized by the organization to submit the nomination.
3. Affirm that the organization's activity pertains or relates to the United States as a whole, as opposed to a lesser geographical scope.
4. Provide the nominator's original signature, daytime telephone number, and email address.
5. Include the nominee's full legal name, home address, home telephone number, and email address.
Nominations should include a resume providing an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, including information that would enable the Department of the Interior to make an
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2; 25 U.S.C. 3006.
National Park Service, Interior.
Meeting notice.
The National Park Service is hereby giving notice of a meeting of the Gateway National Recreation Area Fort Hancock 21st Century Advisory Committee.
The meeting will take place on Friday, March 23, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., with a public comment period at 11:00 a.m. (Eastern).
The meeting will be held in the meeting room at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory, 74 Magruder Road, Sandy Hook Highlands, New Jersey 07732.
Daphne Yun, Acting Public Affairs Officer, Gateway National Recreation Area, 210 New York Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10305, or by telephone (718) 354-4602, or by email
Under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16), the purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the National Park Service, on the development of a reuse plan and on matters relating to future uses of certain buildings at the Fort Hancock Historic District, located within the Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area in New Jersey. All meetings are open to the public.
The Committee website,
Due to time constraints during the meeting, the Committee is not able to read written public comments submitted into the record. Individuals or groups requesting to make oral comments at the public Committee meeting will be limited to no more than five minutes per speaker.
All comments will be made part of the public record and will be electronically distributed to all Committee members. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your written comments, you should be aware that your entire comment including your personal identifying information will be publicly available. 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.
54 U.S.C. 100906; 5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) proposes to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 7, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by either of the following methods listed below:
• Electronically go to
• Email
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Nicole Mason 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 comments addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of BSEE; (2) Will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) Is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) How might BSEE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) How might BSEE 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
The SEMS program describes management commitment to safety and the environment, as well as policies and procedures to assure safety and environmental protection while conducting OCS operations (including those operations conducted by all personnel on the facility). BSEE will use the information obtained by submittals and observed via SEMS audits to ensure that operations on the OCS are conducted safely, as they pertain to both human and environmental factors, and in accordance with BSEE regulations, as well as industry practices. The ultimate work authority (UWA) and other recordkeeping will be reviewed diligently by BSEE during inspections/audits, etc., to ensure that industry is correctly implementing the documentation and that the requirements are being followed properly.
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 Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) proposes to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 7, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by either of the following methods listed below:
• Electronically go to
• Email
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Nicole Mason 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 comments addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of BSEE; (2) Will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) Is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) How might BSEE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) How might BSEE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
BSEE uses the information collected under 30 CFR 254 to determine
• Determine that lessees/operators have an adequate plan and are sufficiently prepared to implement a quick and effective response to a discharge of oil from their facilities or operations.
• Review plans prepared under the regulations of a State and submitted to BSEE to satisfy the requirements in 30 CFR 254 to ensure that they meet minimum requirements of OPA.
• Verify that personnel involved in oil-spill response are properly trained and familiar with the requirements of the spill-response plans and to lead and witness spill-response exercises.
• Assess the sufficiency and availability of contractor equipment and materials.
• Verify that sufficient quantities of equipment are available and in working order.
• Oversee spill-response efforts and maintain official records of pollution events.
• Assess the efforts of lessees/operators to prevent oil spills or prevent substantial threats of such discharges.
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
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Canon Virginia, Inc. on February 28, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain toner cartridges and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: Ninestar Corporation from China; Ninestar Image Tech Limited of China; Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd. of City of Industry, CA; Apex Microtech Ltd., of Hong Kong; Static Control Components, Inc., of Sanford, NC; Aster Graphics, Inc. of Placentia, CA; Jiangxi Yibo E-tech Co., Ltd. of China; Aster Graphics Co., Ltd. of China; Print-Rite Holdings Ltd. of Hong Kong; Print-Rite N.A., Inc. of La Vergne, TN; Union Technology Int'l (M.C.O.) Co. Ltd. of Macau; Print-Rite Unicorn Image Products Co. Ltd. of China; Kingway Image Co., Ltd. d/b/a Zhu Hai Kingway Image Co., Ltd. of China; Ourway Image Tech. Co., Ltd. of China; Ourway Image Co., Ltd. of China; Zhuhai Aowei Electronics Co., Ltd. of China; Ourway US Inc. of City of Industry, CA; Acecom, Inc.—San Antonio d/b/a InkSell.com of San Antonio, TX; ACM Technologies, Inc. of Corona, CA; Arlington Industries, Inc. of Waukegan, IL; Bluedog Distribution Inc. of Hollywood, FL; Do It Wiser LLC d/b/a Image Toner of Alpharetta, GA; EIS Office Solutions, Inc. of Houston, TX; eReplacements LLC of Grapevine, TX; Frontier Imaging Inc. of Compton, CA; Garvey's Office Products, Inc. of Niles, IL; Global Cartridges of Burlingame, CA; GPC Trading Co., Limited d/b/a GPC Image of Hong Kong; Hong Kong BoZe Co. Limited, d/b/a Greensky of Hong Kong; Master Print Supplies, Inc. d/b/a HQ Products of Burlingame, CA; i8 International, Inc. d/b/a Ink4Work.com of City of Industry, CA; Ink Technologies Printer Supplies, LLC of Dayton, OH; LD Products, Inc. of Long Beach, CA; Linkyo Corp. d/b/a SuperMediaStore.com of La Puente, CA; CLT Computers, Inc. d/b/a Multiwave and MWave of Walnut, CA; Imaging Supplies Investors, LLC d/b/a SuppliesOutlet.com, SuppliesWholesalers.com, and OnlineTechStores.com of Reno, NV; Online Tech Stores, LLC d/b/a SuppliesOutlet.com, SuppliesWholesalers.com, and OnlineTechStores.com of Grand Rapids, MI; Kuhlmann Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Precision Roller of Phoenix, AZ; Print After Print, Inc. d/b/a OutOfToner.com of Phoenix, AZ; Fairland, LLC d/b/a ProPrint of Anaheim Hills, CA; Reliable
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (Docket No. 3298) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Revised notice of open meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence will hold a meeting on April 26-27, 2018. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:
April 26-27, 2018.
Time: April 26—3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.; April 27—9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Mecham Conference Center, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, One Columbus Circle NE, Washington, DC 20544.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Notice is hereby given that, on January 16, 2018, pursuant to Section
Welkin Sciences, LLC, Colorado Springs, CO; Altagrove LLC, Herndon, VA; The Research Armadillo, Flower Mound, TX; Glover 38th St. Holdings LLC, Smithfield, VA; SpectrumFi, Sunnyvale, CA; Under the Grid, LLC, Pacific Grove, CA; System & Technology Research, Woburn, MA; Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY; Sage Management Enterprise, LLC, Columbia, MD; nLight Solutions LLC, Charlotte, NC; DRS Signal Solutions, Inc., Germantown, MD; and DRS Sustainment Systems, Inc., St. Louis, MO, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NSC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On September 24, 2014, NSC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 13, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 11, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, the following members have changed their names: Monolith Software to Federos, Frisco, TX; Labcities to Antarctic Palmtrees Limited, Watford, UNITED KINGDOM; iisy AG to solvatio AG, Rimpar, GERMANY; and ForecastCons Ltd. to FORNAX d.o.o., Podgorica, MONTENEGRO.
In addition, the following parties have withdrawn as parties to this venture: AdvOSS, Richmond, CANADA; Alaska Communications Systems Holdings, Inc., Anchorage, AK; Bell Integrator, Moscow, RUSSIA; Blueline, Antananarivo, MADAGASCAR; BLUGEM COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, Barnstaple, UNITED KINGDOM; Chorus New Zealand Limited, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND; City of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA; DigitalRoute, Stockholm, SWEDEN; Elite Business, Tunis, TUNISIA; EnterpriseWeb, Glen Falls, NY; Etihad Atheeb Telecom Company, Riyadh, SAUDI ARABIA; Fiberhome Telecommunication Technologies Co. Ltd., Wuhan, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Fulcrum Technologies Inc., Seattle, WA; HHB SOLUTIONS LIMITED, Kowloon, HONG KONG-CHINA; Higher Logic, LLC, Arlington, VA; Hitachi Data Systems, Santa Clara, CA; Infonova, Unterpremstatten, AUSTRIA; Intellity Consulting, SpA, Lima, PERU; IPvideosys, Sunnyvale, CA; Isle of Man—MICTA, Ballasalla, ISLE OF MAN; JBS, Chernihiv, UKRAINE; Kiltartan Consulting, Rondebosch, SOUTH AFRICA; MDS Global, Warrington, UNITED KINGDOM; Mediaan/abs bv, Heerlen, NETHERLANDS; MITRE, Bedford, MA; MSTelcom, Luanda, ANGOLA; Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Ikoma, JAPAN; Now New Zealand Limited, Napier, NEW ZEALAND; Ontology Systems, London, UNITED KINGDOM; OpenCell, Paris, FRANCE; OPT Nouvelle Calédonie, Nouméa, NEW CALEDONIA; PERÚ Connect SAC, Miraflores, PERU; Pervazive, Bengaluru, INDIA; Powerlink, Virginia, AUSTRALIA; PRESECURE Consulting
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and The Forum intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 21, 1988, The Forum filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on July 21, 2017. A notice was published in the
Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments regarding a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Tax Performance System.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by May 7, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained at no cost by contacting Patrick Holmes by telephone at (202) 693-3203, TTY1-877-889-5627, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room S-4519, Washington, DC 20210; by email:
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the OMB for final approval. This program helps to ensure 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 can be properly assessed.
Since 1987, states have been required by regulation at 20 CFR part 602 to operate a program to assess their Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax and benefit programs. TPS is designed to assess the major internal UI tax functions by utilizing several methodologies to examine the accuracy of the ETA 581, Contribution Operations Report, OMB approval number 1205-0178, expiring June 30, 2018, and its associated Computed Measures. A two-fold examination contains “Systems Reviews” which examine tax systems for the existence of internal controls and the extraction of small samples of those systems' transactions, which are then examined to verify the effectiveness of controls. Section 303(a)(1) of the Social Security Act authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• 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,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Chief Evaluation Office, Department of Labor.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance 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 of 1995 (PRA95). This 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 are properly assessed.
Currently, DOL is soliciting comments concerning the continued collection of data about Youth Career Connect (YCC) [SGA/DFA PY-13-01] grant program. A copy of the proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee's section below on or before May 7, 2018.
You may submit comments by either one of the following methods:
Jessica Lohmann by email at
I.
This document requests approval for an extension of previously approved information collection (OMB Control No. 1291-0002) to continue to meet the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the YCC grant program. This information collection maintains a reporting and record-keeping system for a minimum level of information collection that is necessary to comply with Equal Opportunity requirements, to hold YCC grantees appropriately accountable for the Federal funds they receive, allowing the Department to fulfill its oversight and management responsibilities.
II.
• 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.
• 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—for example, permitting electronic submission of responses.
III.
Comments submitted in response to this request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Chief Evaluation Office, Department of Labor.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance 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 of 1995 (PRA95). This program helps to ensure that required 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.
Currently, DOL is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data about the Analysis of Employer Performance Measurement Approaches. A copy of the proposed information Collection Request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before May 7, 2018.
You may submit comments by either one of the following methods:
Contact Megan Lizik by email at
The Chief Evaluation Office (CEO), in collaboration with the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), is conducting a 36-month analysis of employer services measurement approaches and metrics, as well as their cross-state and cross-program applicability, with a goal of understanding and implementing a final indicator of performance. Under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the Secretaries of Labor and Education are required to establish one or more primary indicators of performance that indicate the effectiveness of core programs in serving employers. Through town halls, workgroups, and questions posed through the notice of proposed rule-making, the Secretaries of Labor and Education established three measures to be piloted by States: (1) An employee retention measure, (2) an employer penetration rate, and (3) a repeat business measure. States were also encouraged to pilot additional measures to assess effectiveness in serving employers. No clear metric has emerged to date as a single point of measurement of success in providing services to employers.
The study will explore and establish an understanding of the state of the field in the area of employer services measurement and supplement the start-up of reporting by the States on the National Pilot measures. Key objectives of the study include: (1) Developing and understanding how employer services are defined by the federal government, States, localities, and core WIOA programs and exploring options for developing a uniform definition of employer services; (2) identifying what measures exist for understanding employer services, key objectives of these measures, and possibilities for uniform implementation at the federal level; and (3) developing options for an evaluation design to assess the validity, reliability, and feasibility of proposed measures and alternative measures of effectiveness in serving employers.
This notification requests clearance for: (1) A 45-minute online survey of state WIOA administrators in the fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands; (2) a 20-minute online survey of a sample of employers identified in partnership with the National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA); (3) site visits that include structured interviews and focus groups to approximately 8 States; and (4) interviews with approximately 8 employers.
The survey of state WIOA administrators will collect information on which measures are being used by States, including National Pilot measures and alternate measures, progress made in implementing those measures, and how those measures are being used beyond required federal reporting.
The survey of a sample of employers will document businesses' understanding of employer services from the workforce system and what it means for those services to be effective. The sample of employers will be drawn from DirectEmployers members, NASWA Business of the Year Award Winners, and others recommended by NASWA.
The site visits to a selection of approximately eight States are intended to allow a deeper understanding of why particular measures were selected, progress in implementing performance measures, and related challenges. This fieldwork will include semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The States will be selected based on the results of the survey and other study knowledge, to include a mix of locations in terms of geographic region, performance measures being used, and status of implementation. Semi-structured interviews with a selection of approximately eight employers are intended to more fully explore issues of interest that emerge from the employer survey responses. Employer interview respondents will be selected based on survey responses as well as suggestions from NASWA regarding employers with particularly strong experience engaging with the workforce system.
Currently, DOL is soliciting comments concerning the above data collection for the analysis of employer performance measurement approaches. DOL is particularly interested in comments that do the following:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency related to employer services, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the ICR to survey and fieldwork respondents, including the validity of the study approach and assumptions used;
• enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
At this time, the Department of Labor is requesting clearance for data collection via online surveys and fieldwork for the analysis of employer performance measurement approaches.
Comments submitted in response to this request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval; they will also become a matter of public record.
Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Proposed revision to Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-131, “Value Engineering”.
In accordance with OMB Memorandum M-17-26 “Reducing Burden for Federal Agencies by Rescinding and Modifying OMB Memoranda,” the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is proposing to amend OMB Circular A-131, Value Engineering, to reduce the reporting burden on Federal agencies. Value Engineering is an effective technique for cutting waste and inefficiency—helping Federal agencies reduce acquisition costs, improve performance, enhance quality, and foster innovation. The proposal would eliminate the requirement for agencies to report annually to OMB and instead encourage agencies to share best practices, case studies and other information on the Acquisition Gateway (
Interested parties should submit comments within 30 days of this notice.
Comments may be submitted through
James Wade, OFPP,
Value Engineering (VE) is a management technique that is used to analyze activities and identify alternative processes for completing the activities at a lower cost. Industry first developed VE during World War II as a means of continuing production despite shortages of critical materials. The Federal Government subsequently adopted VE as a mechanism to improve efficiency. Policies adding the use of VE are set forth in OMB Circular A-131 at
Use of VE supports the Administration's efforts to emphasize critical thinking and analysis instead of compliance activity and documentation. Although several Federal agencies have reported life-cycle savings in a broad range of acquisition programs, including defense, transportation, and construction projects, overall usage of VE by federal agencies has been limited. OFPP believes agency workforce awareness and consideration of VE can be improved by redirecting agency resources away from compliance reporting and towards information sharing with other agencies on use of the tool through the Acquisition Gateway (
Accordingly, OFPP proposes the following changes to Circular A-131, as revised in December 2013:
1. Replace section 8, entitled “Reports to OMB” with the following new section 8:
2. Make the following conforming changes:
a. Delete paragraph f. from section 7, which refers to reporting.
b. Delete the Attachment to the Circular, which provides a format for reporting to OMB.
For a copy of OMB Circular A-131, go to
Although public comment is not required in the development of these changes, OMB welcomes input on the proposed amendments to the Circular described above and will consider feedback prior to finalizing changes to the Circular.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption in response to an April 9, 2017, request from FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), in order to use Optimized ZIRLO
The exemption was issued on March 6, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0041 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Tanya E. Hood, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1387, email:
The FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. 50-334 and 50-412, which authorize operation of Beaver Valley. The licenses provide, among other things, that the facilities are subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the NRC now or hereafter in effect. The facilities consist of pressurized-water reactors located in Shippingport Borough on the Ohio River in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The ZIRLO® corrosion model was based on a model originally developed for zircaloy-4 cladding. As utilities moved to increased fuel thermal duty associated with higher peaking factors, uprated core power, and longer cycle lengths, cladding corrosion has become one of the important factors in assessing the potential for increased fuel thermal duty.
Pursuant to title 10 of the
The exemption request relates solely to the specific types of cladding material specified in these regulations for use in light-water reactors (
Pursuant to § 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when: (1) The exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present. Under § 50.12(a)(2), special circumstances include, among other things, when application of the specific regulation in the particular circumstance would not serve, or is not necessary to achieve, the underlying purpose of the rule.
The Optimized ZIRLO
The NRC staff's safety evaluation of Optimized ZIRLO
Conditions 6 and 7 relate to validating in-reactor performance and fuel performance models based on lead test assembly data obtained ahead of batch application. Westinghouse provided additional information from irradiation programs to comply with Conditions 6 and 7 of the NRC staff's safety evaluation, by letters dated February 25, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13070A188), and February 9, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15051A427), demonstrating compliance with these two conditions.
One of the main objectives of the ongoing Westinghouse creep (growth) program was to confirm the adequacy of the Westinghouse Performance Analysis and Design Model creep models for Optimized ZIRLO
The NRC staff performed its review of Conditions 6 and 7 in a letter dated August 3, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16173A354). The NRC staff determined that the data provided in Westinghouse letters dated February 25, 2013, and February 9, 2015, satisfy Conditions 6 and 7. Therefore, licensees no longer need to provide additional data when referencing WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A, “Optimized ZIRLO
The licensee provided documentation of its compliance with the Westinghouse topical report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A Addendum 1-A commitments in its application. Based on that documentation and the information contained in Westinghouse's revised compliance letters dated February 25, 2013, and February 9, 2015, the NRC staff finds the licensee's compliance with safety evaluation Conditions 6 and 7 is acceptable.
This exemption would allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO
The objectives of § 50.46(b)(2) and (b)(3) and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K, section I.A.5, are to ensure that cladding oxidation and hydrogen generation are appropriately limited during loss-of-coolant accidents and conservatively accounted for in ECCS evaluation models. As previously documented in the NRC staff's safety evaluation of topical reports submitted by Westinghouse, dated June 10, 2005, and subject to compliance with the specific conditions of approval established in the safety evaluation, the NRC staff found that Westinghouse demonstrated the applicability of the ECCS acceptance criteria to Optimized ZIRLO
The NRC staff previously found that metal-water reaction tests performed by Westinghouse on Optimized ZIRLO
The exemption request would allow the licensee to use an improved fuel rod cladding material. In its letter dated April 9, 2017, the licensee stated that all the requirements and acceptance criteria will be maintained. The licensee is required to handle and control special nuclear material in these assemblies in accordance with its approved procedures. Use of Optimized ZIRLO
Special circumstances, in accordance with § 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present whenever application of the regulation in the particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The underlying purpose of § 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K, is to establish acceptance criteria for ECCS performance. The regulations ensure that nuclear power reactors fueled with uranium oxide pellets within zircaloy or ZIRLO® cladding must be provided with an ECCS designed to provide core cooling following postulated loss-of-coolant accidents. Westinghouse demonstrated in its NRC-approved topical report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A Addendum 1-A that ECCS effectiveness will not be adversely affected by a change from zircaloy or ZIRLO® clad fuel to Optimized ZIRLO
The NRC staff determined that the exemption discussed herein meets the eligibility criteria for the categorical exclusion set forth in § 51.22(c)(9) because it is related to a requirement concerning the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR part 20, and the granting of this exemption involves: (1) No significant hazards consideration, (2) no significant change in the types or a significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and (3) no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, in accordance with § 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the NRC staff's consideration of this exemption request. The basis for the NRC staff's determination is discussed in an evaluation of the requirements of § 51.22(c)(9) in the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination for the associated amendment as published in the
The NRC is making the documents identified below available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated. To access documents related to this action, see
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that pursuant to § 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants FENOC an exemption from the requirements of § 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K, to allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment request; notice of opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order imposing procedures.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of two amendment requests. The amendment requests are for North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, and Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4. For each amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that they involve no significant hazards consideration. Because each amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI), an order imposes procedures to obtain access to SUNSI for contention preparation.
Comments must be filed by April 5, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by May 7, 2018. Any potential party as defined in § 2.4 of title 10 of the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0027, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0027, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation or reliability of any system,
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any safety-related SSC relied upon to mitigate design basis accidents. The proposed changes to the NI Basemat and the Auxiliary Building resolve inconsistencies to reflect NI existing structural design, which has been analyzed and shown to comply with seismic and structural criteria. The change to the Annex Building concrete thickness acceptance criteria is a clarification, and does not involve a change to the design of the Annex Building or reanalysis of the Annex Building. The seismic Category II section of the Annex Building has been shown to maintain its structural integrity following a design basis earthquake. The proposed changes to the Annex Building kitchen and restroom floor thickness do not affect the structural integrity or seismic response of the Annex Building. The design of these structures continues to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix A General Design Criterion 2, Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect existing safety margins. The proposed changes to the NI Basemat and the Auxiliary Building resolve inconsistencies to reflect NI existing structural design. The change to the Annex Building concrete thickness acceptance criteria is a clarification, and does not involve a change to the design of the Annex Building or reanalysis of the Annex Building. The proposed changes to the Annex Building kitchen and restroom floor thickness do not involve a reduction to the structural integrity of the seismic Category II portion of the building, as adequate reinforcement is provided in the floor of the kitchen and restroom areas of the [Control Support Area (CSA)] to support the design function of the Annex Building. No margin to the specified acceptable fuel design limits is affected by the proposed changes.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change will not affect the plant equipment or structure, including the SFP, NFSR, or fuel handling equipment, including how equipment is operated and maintained. There are no changes to the equipment for fuel handling or how fuel assemblies are handled, including how fuel assemblies are inserted into and removed from SFP and NFSR storage locations. There will be no changes to administrative means to verify correct fuel assembly storage in the SFP, which will now also be used to verify required [Rod Cluster Control Assembly (RCCA)] storage in selected Region 2 assemblies, or the required response to a fuel assembly misloading or drop event. There are no changes to how RCCAs will be handled, including how RCCAs are inserted into or removed from a fuel assembly or other location such as a[n] SFP storage location. Also, since the proposed change does not modify plant equipment or its operation and maintenance, including equipment used to maintain SFP soluble boron levels, the proposed change will not impact a boron dilution event or plant response to it.
The criticality safety evaluation concluded that the NFSR limiting accident is the optimum moderation condition with each storage location loaded with a maximum reactivity fuel assembly. The NFSR will maintain k
Regarding the SFP, there will now be two storage Regions. The process of choosing fuel assembly storage locations will not change, except that the storage arrangement (checkerboard) and burnup requirements will be revised and assemblies containing an RCCA can be stored in Region 2 without consideration of the burnup curves. The physical handling, insertion, removal, and storage of fuel assemblies in SFP racks will not change. The NAPS program for choosing fuel assembly storage locations, for fuel handling, and for assuring that the fuel assemblies are placed into correct locations will remain in place. Thus, the probability of a fuel assembly misloading or a fuel assembly drop in the SFP will not significantly increase due to the proposed change.
A number of postulated accidents for the SFP were reviewed for the proposed change which included postulated fuel assembly misloading and drop scenarios. The criticality safety evaluation for the SFP concluded that the limiting accident, which bounds all other scenarios, is a multiple misload of a maximum reactivity fuel assembly into each SFP storage location. The criticality safety evaluation concluded that a[n] SFP soluble boron concentration of 2600 [parts per million (ppm)] will maintain k
There are no changes to plant equipment, including its operation and maintenance, as a result of the proposed change, including equipment associated with maintaining SFP soluble boron concentration or possible flow paths that could contribute to a boron dilution event. Thus, no new avenues for a boron dilution event will be created. There will be no change regarding how the plant maintains boron concentration or responds to a boron dilution event. The criticality safety evaluation for the postulated boron dilution event shows that, like the existing analysis, the SFP maintains k
In each of the above scenarios the proposed change does not significantly increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated. In each postulated accident k
The NAPS SFP is currently licensed to store a fuel assembly in each of the 1737 spent fuel rack storage locations. Thus, the SFP seismic/structural loading requirements for the proposed change are bounded by the existing TS which have been shown to protect the fuel during normal and accident conditions, including during a postulated seismic event. Thus, there is no increase in the consequences of a seismic event.
The proposed license amendment makes no changes to any safety analysis limits, including core power level, operating temperature or pressure, or peaking factors. There are no changes being made to any fuel burnup limits. Thus, it is concluded that:
• There is no increase in the radiological consequences in response to postulated accidents,
• there is no change to the maximum allowable SFP heat load,
• there is no impact on fuel rod integrity during normal or accident conditions, and
• there is no impact on the ability of RCCAs to fully insert during normal or accident conditions.
Thus, it is concluded that the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident do not significantly increase.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
There is no change to any plant equipment, including how equipment is operated and maintained. Equipment used to handle fuel assemblies (or any heavy load) over the NFSR or the SFP, or how the fuel assemblies are stored, inserted into and removed from fuel storage locations is not changed. There is no change to how RCCAs will be inserted into or removed from a fuel assembly or other location, or otherwise how RCCAs are handled. Any fuel assemblies containing a[n] RCCA may now be stored in Region 2 without being in the “Acceptable” region of the burnup curves. However, if such an assembly was stored in Region 2 without the RCCA, it would be treated as any other fuel misload event in which an assembly is stored in Region 2 without meeting the requirements of the burnup curves. Thus, there are no new accidents created over and above the existing postulated accidents of a fuel misload or a fuel assembly drop in the SFP, or a flooding event in the NFSR area.
Also, since there is no change to the plant equipment or how equipment is operated and maintained, the probability of a new type of accident that could impact the SFP or NFSR is not significantly increased.
Since the proposed change will not change fuel/RCCA handling equipment or how fuel assemblies and RCCAs are handled and stored, nor will it change any other plant equipment, there is no mechanism for creating a new or different kind of accident not previously evaluated. Thus, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The licensing requirement for the SFP is that k
In addition the criticality safety evaluation concluded the following regarding normal conditions with 0 ppm soluble boron in the SFP:
• The SFP will maintain k
• For a fuel handling event that brings two fresh 5.0 weight percent U-235 fuel assemblies, not stored in a spent fuel rack or dry shielded container, [near] each other, k
The criticality safety evaluation also allows the following storage configurations. In each case the storage configuration either reduces or does not increase reactivity assuring that k
• Storing a[n] RCCA and/or cell blocker in a Region 1 empty location.
• Storing non-fuel components in any spent fuel rack storage location where fuel assemblies are allowed.
• Storing non-fuel components in the guide tubes of any fuel assembly.
The criticality safety evaluation evaluated Non-standard Fuel Assemblies stored in the NAPS SFP to determine whether they need to contain a[n] RCCA for Region 2 storage. This information is used to maintain k
The licensing requirements for the NFSR is that k
Thus, all the margins of safety are maintained, and the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request access to SUNSI. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and requisite need, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
(3) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The attachment to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting March 8-10, 2018, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the
Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided 30 minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the Cognizant ACRS Staff one day before meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the Cognizant ACRS Staff with a CD containing each presentation at least 30 minutes before the meeting.
In accordance with Subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463 and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), certain portions of this meeting may be closed, as specifically noted above. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting.
ACRS meeting agendas, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at
Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-6702), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 28, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (ET).
The meeting will be held in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 9:00 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at
On February 7, 2018, the Commission issued notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-10456), indicating that the meeting is open to the public (except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch), and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a quorum of the Commission may attend the meeting.
The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; a discussion of regulatory approaches to combat retail investor fraud; a discussion regarding financial support for law school clinics that support investors (which may include a recommendation of the Committee as a whole); a discussion regarding dual-class share structures (which may include a recommendation of the Investor as Owner Subcommittee); a discussion regarding efforts to combat the financial exploitation of vulnerable adults; subcommittee reports; and a nonpublic administrative work session during lunch.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
This matter comes before the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) on petition to review the approval, pursuant to delegated authority, of the Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (now known as Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.) (“BZX” or “Exchange”) proposed rule change to adopt Cboe Market Close, a closing match process for non-BZX Listed Securities.
On May 16, 2017, the Commission issued a notice of filing of the proposed rule change filed with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
On January 31, 2018, pursuant to Commission Rule of Practice 430,
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby:
It is further
It is further
By the Commission.
On January 19, 2018, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change, File No. SR-OCC-2018-004, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change by OCC would revise OCC's Schedule of Fees effective March 1, 2018 to implement an increase in clearing fees in accordance with OCC's Fee Policy,
OCC stated that it recently reviewed its current Schedule of Fees
OCC proposed to modify its Schedule of Fees to: (i) Increase its per contract clearing fee from $0.050 to $0.054 per contract; and (ii) adjust the quantity of contracts at which the fixed, per trade clearing fee begins from greater than 1,100 contracts per trade to greater than 1,018 contracts per trade. OCC stated that the proposed changes are designed to target a level of revenues sufficient to cover OCC's operating expenses plus the Business Risk Buffer while continuing to maintain its existing fixed, per trade, fee at $55 per trade.
OCC stated that in accordance with its Fee Policy, OCC will continue to monitor cleared contract volume and operating expenses to determine if further revisions to OCC's Schedule of Fees are required so that monies received from clearing fees cover its operating expenses plus the Business Risk Buffer.
On February 22, 2018, the Commission received a comment letter on the proposed rule change from Susquehanna International Group, LLP (“SIG”).
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C)
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the Commission's analysis of whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the proposed fee change. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed fee change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File No. SR-OCC-2018-004 and should be submitted on or before March 27, 2018. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal on or before April 10, 2018.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
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.
Applicants request an order to permit business development companies (“BDCs”) and certain closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with affiliated investment funds.
Alcentra Capital Corporation (the “Company”); Alcentra BDC Equity Holdings, LLC (the “Subsidiary”); Alcentra Middle Market Fund IV, L.P. (the “Existing Co-Investment Affiliate”); Alcentra NY, LLC (“Alcentra NY”); The Dreyfus Corporation (“Dreyfus”); Dreyfus Alcentra Global Credit Income 2024 Target Term Fund, Inc. (“DCF”); Stira Alcentra Global Credit Fund (“Stira Alcentra,” and together with the Company and DCF, the “Existing Regulated Funds”); and Stira Investment Adviser, LLC (“Stira Adviser”).
The application was filed on April 10, 2017 and amended on August 21, 2017, October 27, 2017, January 26, 2018, and February 14, 2018.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on March 26, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St. NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Alcentra Capital Corporation, Alcentra Middle Market Fund IV, L.P, Alcentra NY, LLC, Alcentra BDC Equity Holdings, LLC, The Dreyfus Corporation, and Dreyfus
Courtney S. Thornton, Senior Counsel, or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (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. The Company was organized as a corporation under the General Corporate Laws of the State of Maryland. The Company operates as an externally-managed, non-diversified, closed-end management investment company that has elected to be regulated as a business development company (“BDC”) under the Act.
2. The Subsidiary, a Delaware limited liability company, is a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub (as defined below), the sole business purpose of which is to hold one or more investments on behalf of the Company.
3. DCF is a Maryland corporation that is a diversified, closed-end management investment company registered under the Act that has a limited term of approximately seven years. DCF's investment objective is to seek high current income by investing at least 80% of its managed assets in credit instruments and other investments with similar economic characteristics. The Board of DCF currently consists of six members, all of whom are Independent Directors.
4. Stira Alcentra is a non-diversified, closed-end management company registered under the Act organized as a Delaware statutory trust. Stira Alcentra's investment objective is to provide current income and capital preservation with the potential for capital appreciation. Stira Alcentra intends to pursue its investment objective by providing customized financing solutions to lower middle-market and middle-market companies in the form of floating and fixed rate senior secured loans, second lien loans and subordinated debt and, to a lesser extent, minority equity investments. Stira Alcentra's shares will not be listed for trading on any securities exchange. Three of the five members of the Board of Stira Alcentra are Independent Directors.
5. The Existing Co-Investment Affiliate is a Delaware limited partnership. The Existing Co-Investment Affiliate's investment objective is to generate both current income and capital appreciation primarily by making direct investments in lower middle-market companies. The Existing Co-Investment Affiliate currently has no investments. In reliance on the exclusion from the definition of “investment company” provided by section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act, none of the Co-Investment Affiliates (as defined below) will be registered under the Act.
6. Alcentra NY is a Delaware limited liability company that is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). Alcentra NY is a subsidiary of the Alcentra Group, which is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (“BNY Mellon”). Alcentra NY serves as investment adviser to the Company pursuant to an investment advisory agreement. Because the Subsidiary is a wholly-owned, consolidated subsidiary of the Company, Alcentra NY manages the assets of the Subsidiary. Alcentra NY also serves as investment adviser to the Existing Co-Investment Affiliate and as sub-adviser to DCF and Stira Alcentra.
7. Dreyfus, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BNY Mellon, is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York and an investment adviser registered under the Advisers Act. Dreyfus serves as the investment manager to DCF pursuant to a management agreement. Dreyfus has delegated substantially all of its portfolio management obligations to Alcentra NY pursuant to an investment sub-advisory agreement, but is responsible for the overall management of DCF's portfolio and for the supervision and ongoing monitoring of Alcentra NY. Dreyfus will not source potential co-investments under the order.
8. Stira Adviser is organized as a Delaware limited liability company and is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. Stira Adviser serves as investment adviser to Stira Alcentra pursuant to an investment advisory agreement. Stira Adviser has delegated substantially all of its portfolio-management obligations to Alcentra NY pursuant to an investment sub-advisory agreement, but will have general oversight over the investment process on behalf of Stira Alcentra. Stira Adviser also will have ultimate responsibility for Alcentra NY's performance under the terms of the investment sub-advisory agreement.
9. Alcentra NY is solely responsible for identifying and recommending investments for Stira Alcentra. Prior to any investment by Stira Alcentra, Alcentra NY will hold an investment committee meeting, with respect to which Stira Adviser has observer rights. Stira Adviser will participate in the investment process with regard to Stira Alcentra through the exercise of its observer rights. Stira Adviser will not source any Potential Co-Investment Transactions (as defined below) under the requested Order.
10. Applicants seek an order (“Order”) to permit a Regulated Fund
11. Applicants state that a Regulated Fund may, from time to time, form one or more Wholly-Owned Investment Subs.
12. In selecting investments for the Regulated Funds, an Alcentra/Dreyfus Adviser will consider only the investment objective, investment policies, investment position, capital available for investment and other factors relevant to each Regulated Fund. Each of the Co-Investment Affiliates has or will have investment objectives and strategies that are similar to or overlap with the Objectives and Strategies
13. After making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), other than in the case of pro rata Dispositions (as defined below) and Follow-On Investments,
14. All subsequent activity, meaning either to (a) sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of an investment (collectively, a “Disposition”) or (b) complete a Follow-On Investment, in respect of an investment acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction will also be made in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the application. 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 Co-Investment Affiliate and Regulated Fund in such Disposition or Follow-On Investment 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 Board of any Regulated Fund may at any time rescind, suspend or qualify its approval of pro rata Dispositions and Follow-On Investments with the result that all Dispositions and/or Follow-On
15. No Independent Director of a Regulated Fund will have a financial interest in any Co-Investment Transaction, other than indirectly through share ownership in one of the Regulated Funds.
16. Under condition 14, if an Adviser, its principals, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser or its principals, and the Co-Investment Affiliates (collectively, the “Holders”) own in the aggregate more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting shares of a Regulated Fund (the “Shares”), then the Holders will vote such Shares as directed by an independent third party when voting on matters specified in the condition. Applicants believe that this condition will ensure that the Independent Directors will act independently in evaluating the Co-Investment Program, because the ability of the Adviser or its principals to influence the Independent Directors by a suggestion, explicit or implied, that the Independent Directors can be removed will be limited significantly. Applicants represent that the Independent Directors will evaluate and approve any such independent third party, taking into account its qualifications, reputation for independence, cost to the Regulated Fund's shareholders, and other factors that they deem relevant.
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 other Regulated Funds and Co-Investment Affiliates may be deemed to be a person related to a Regulated Fund in a manner described by section 57(b) by virtue of being under common control. 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.
Applicants agree that any Order of the Commission granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Each time an Alcentra/Dreyfus Adviser considers a Potential Co-Investment Transaction for a Co-Investment Affiliate or another Regulated Fund that falls within a Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies, the Regulated Fund's Alcentra/Dreyfus Adviser will make an independent determination of the appropriateness of the investment for the Regulated Fund in light of the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances.
2. (a) If the Alcentra/Dreyfus Adviser deems a Regulated Fund's participation in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for the Regulated Fund, it will then determine an appropriate level of investment for the Regulated Fund.
(b) If the aggregate amount recommended by the Alcentra/Dreyfus Adviser to be invested by the applicable Regulated Fund in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the other participating Regulated Funds and Co-Investment Affiliates, collectively, in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, the amount proposed to be invested by each such party will be allocated among them pro rata based on each participating party's capital available for investment in the asset class being allocated, up to the amount proposed to be invested by each. The applicable Alcentra/Dreyfus Adviser 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), the applicable Alcentra/Dreyfus Adviser will distribute written information concerning the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, including the amount proposed to be invested by each Regulated Fund and each Co-Investment Affiliate to the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated Fund for their consideration. A Regulated Fund will co-invest with one or more other Regulated Funds and/or one or more Co-Investment Affiliates only if, prior to the Regulated Fund's 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 stockholders and do not involve overreaching in respect of the Regulated Fund or its stockholders on the part of any person concerned;
(ii) the Potential Co-Investment Transaction is consistent with:
(A) The interests of the Regulated Fund's stockholders; and
(B) the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies;
(iii) the investment by the other Regulated Funds or any Co-Investment Affiliates would not disadvantage the Regulated Fund, and participation by the Regulated Fund would not be on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of any other Regulated Fund or Co-Investment Affiliate; provided that, if any other Regulated Fund or Co-Investment Affiliate, but not the Regulated Fund itself, gains the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors or the right to have a board observer or any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company, such event shall not
(A) The Eligible Directors will have the right to ratify the selection of such director or board observer, if any;
(B) the applicable Alcentra/Dreyfus Adviser agrees to, and does, provide periodic reports to the Board of the Regulated Fund 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 other Regulated Fund, or any Co-Investment Affiliate, or any affiliated person of either receives in connection with the right of any other Regulated Fund or a Co-Investment Affiliate 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 Co-Investment Affiliates (which 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 Advisers, the Co-Investment Affiliates, 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 applicable Alcentra/Dreyfus Adviser will present to the Board of the applicable Regulated Fund, on a quarterly basis, a record of all investments in Potential Co-Investment Transactions made by any of the other Regulated Funds and Co-Investment Affiliates 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 below,
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 Co-Investment Affiliate. The grant to a Co-Investment Affiliate 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 Co-Investment Affiliate or any Regulated Fund elects to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of an interest in a security that was acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the Alcentra/Dreyfus Adviser 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 each 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 any participating Co-Investment Affiliates and any other Regulated Funds.
(c) A Regulated Fund may participate in such Disposition without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Co-Investment Affiliate and Regulated 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 Alcentra/Dreyfus Adviser will provide its written recommendation as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Regulated Fund's 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 Co-Investment Affiliate and each Regulated Fund will bear its own expenses in connection with any such Disposition.
8. (a) If any Co-Investment Affiliate or any Regulated Fund desires to make a Follow-On Investment in a portfolio company whose securities were acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the Alcentra/Dreyfus Adviser 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 Co-Investment Affiliate and each Regulated Fund in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; (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); and (iii) the Board of the Regulated Fund is provided on a quarterly basis with a list of all Follow-On Investments made in accordance with this condition. In all other cases, the Alcentra/Dreyfus Adviser will provide its written recommendation as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Eligible Directors, and the Regulated Fund will participate in such Follow-On Investment solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
(c) If, with respect to any Follow-On Investment:
(i) The amount of the Follow-On Investment is not based on the Co-Investment Affiliates' and the Regulated
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the Alcentra/Dreyfus Adviser to be invested by each Regulated Fund in the Follow-On Investment, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the participating Co-Investment Affiliates in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the opportunity, then the amount to be invested by each such party will be allocated among them pro rata based on each participating party'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 Independent 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 the Co-Investment Affiliates and the other Regulated Funds that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, so that the Independent 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 Independent Directors will consider at least annually the continued appropriateness for the 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 Independent 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 Co-Investment Affiliate.
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 1933 Act) will, to the extent not payable by the Advisers under their respective advisory agreements with the Co-Investment Affiliates and the Regulated Funds, be shared by the participating Co-Investment Affiliates and the participating Regulated Funds in proportion to the relative amounts of the securities held or being 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) all other matters 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 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.
16. The Advisers to the Regulated Funds and Co-Investment Affiliates will maintain written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the foregoing conditions. These policies and procedures will require, among other things, that each of the Advisers to each Regulated Fund will be notified of all Potential Co-Investment Transactions that fall within a Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies and will be given sufficient information to make its independent determination and recommendations under conditions 1, 2(a), 7 and 8.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 8, 2018.
Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Peirce, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims;
Litigation matter; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to May 7, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
You must include the subject (PRA 60 Day Comment), information collection title (Statement of Political Contributions, Fees, and Commissions Relating to Sales of Defense Articles and Defense Services), and OMB control number (1405-0025) in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding this collection to Andrea Battista, who may be reached at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
DDTC regulates the export and temporary import of defense articles and services enumerated on the USML in accordance with the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2751
Respondents will submit information as attachments to relevant license applications or requests for other approval.
Pursuant to section 7070(c)(1) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2017 (Div. J, Pub. L. 115-31), I hereby determine that the Government of Venezuela has recognized the independence of, or has established diplomatic relations with, the Georgian territories of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia.
This determination shall be published in the
The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy will hold a public meeting from 10:30 a.m. until 12:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at the Rayburn Office Building, room 2200 (45 Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC 20515).
The public meeting will be on
This meeting is open to the public, members and staff of Congress, the State Department, Defense Department, the media, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations. An RSVP is required. To attend and make any requests for reasonable accommodation, email Michelle Bowen at
The United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy appraises U.S. Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics. The Advisory Commission may conduct studies, inquiries, and meetings, as it deems necessary. It may assemble and disseminate information and issue reports and other publications, subject to the approval of the Chairperson, in consultation with the Executive Director. The Advisory Commission may undertake foreign travel in pursuit of its studies and coordinate, sponsor, or oversee projects, studies, events, or other activities that it deems desirable and necessary in fulfilling its functions.
The Commission consists of seven members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The members of the Commission shall represent the public interest and shall be selected from a cross section of educational, communications, cultural, scientific, technical, public service, labor, business, and professional backgrounds. Not more than four members shall be from any one political party. The President designates a member to chair the Commission.
The current members of the Commission are: Mr. Sim Farar of California, Chairman; Mr. William Hybl of Colorado, Vice Chairman; Ambassador Penne Korth-Peacock of Texas; Anne Terman Wedner of Illinois; and Ms. Georgette Mosbacher of New York. Two seats on the Commission are currently vacant.
To request further information about the meeting or the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, you may contact its Executive Director, Dr. Shawn Powers, at
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice Tentatively Approving and Authorizing Finance Transaction.
On February 5, 2018, National Express Transit Corporation (National Express), an intrastate passenger motor carrier, and Brenda Baxter, Richard Wright, and Ralph Wright (collectively, Sellers) (National Express and Sellers collectively, Applicants), jointly filed an application for National Express to acquire from Sellers control of Aristocrat Limousine and Bus, Inc. (Aristocrat), an interstate and intrastate passenger motor carrier. The Board is tentatively approving and authorizing the transaction and, if no opposing comments are timely filed, this notice will be the final Board action. Persons wishing to oppose the application must follow the rules.
Comments must be filed by April 20, 2018. Applicants may file a reply by May 7, 2018. If no opposing comments are filed by April 20, 2018, this notice shall be effective on April 21, 2018.
Send an original and 10 copies of any comments referring to Docket No. MCF 21080 to: Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, send one copy of comments to: Andrew K. Light, Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, P.C., 10 W. Market Street, Suite 1400, Indianapolis, IN 46204.
Nathaniel Bawcombe at (202) 245-0376. Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.
National Express is a motor carrier incorporated under the laws of Delaware that provides intrastate passenger transportation service and utilizes approximately 774 passenger-carrying vehicles and 855 drivers. Additionally, National Express, which does not have interstate authority from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), owns and controls two passenger motor carriers that do hold FMCSA interstate carrier authority: Rainbow Management Service Inc. (Rainbow) (MC-490015), which provides interstate and intrastate charter and special party passenger services in New York, and Trans Express, Inc. (Trans Express) (MC-187819), which provides interstate and intrastate passenger transportation services in New York. National Express is indirectly controlled by a British corporation, National Express Group, PLC (Express Group). Express Group also indirectly controls the following interstate and intrastate motor carriers of passengers (collectively, National Express Affiliated Carriers):
• Beck Bus Transportation Corp., which holds interstate carrier authority (MC-143528), is primarily engaged in providing student school bus transportation services in Illinois;
• Durham School Services, L.P., which holds interstate carrier authority (MC-163066), is primarily engaged in
• MV Student Transportation Inc., which holds interstate carrier authority (MC-148934), is primarily engaged in providing student school bus transportation services, and charter passenger services to the public;
• National Express Transit—Yuma (NETY), which holds interstate carrier authority (MC-960629), is primarily engaged in providing paratransit services in the area of Yuma, Ariz.;
• Petermann Ltd., which holds interstate carrier authority (MC-364668), is primarily engaged in providing non-regulated school bus transportation services in Ohio, and charter passenger services to the public;
• Petermann Northeast LLC, which holds interstate carrier authority (MC-723926), is primarily engaged in providing student school bus transportation services, primarily in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and also provides charter passenger services to the public;
• Petermann Southwest LLC, which holds interstate carrier authority (MC-644996), is primarily engaged in providing non-regulated school bus transportation services in Texas, and also provides charter passenger services to the public;
• Petermann STSA, LLC, which holds interstate carrier authority (MC-749360), is primarily engaged in providing non-regulated school bus transportation services, primarily in Kansas, and also provides charter passenger services to the public;
• The Provider Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Provider Bus, which holds interstate carrier authority (MC-986909), is primarily engaged in providing non-regulated school bus transportation services in New Hampshire;
• Queen City Transportation, LLC, which holds interstate carrier authority (MC-163846), is primarily engaged in providing non-regulated school bus transportation in Ohio, and charter passenger services to the public;
• Trinity, Inc., which holds interstate carrier authority (MC-364003), provides non-regulated school bus transportation services in southeastern Michigan, and charter service to the public;
• Trinity Student Delivery LLC, which holds interstate carrier authority (MC-836335), primarily provides non-regulated school bus transportation services in areas of northern Ohio, and passenger charter services to the public; and
• White Plains Bus Company, Inc., d/b/a Suburban Charters, which holds interstate carrier authority (MC-160624), primarily provides non-regulated school bus transportation services in New York, and charter service to the public.
Aristocrat, a motor carrier of passengers, is a New Jersey corporation that holds interstate carrier authority (MC-173839). It provides intrastate and interstate passenger charter services in New Jersey, as well as interstate passenger charter services in New York and Pennsylvania. In providing its services, Aristocrat utilizes 33 passenger vehicles and 28 drivers. Sellers hold all the issued and outstanding equity stock of Aristocrat.
Applicants state that the proposed transaction would place Aristocrat under the control of National Express. The proposed transaction contemplates that National Express would assume 100% control of Aristocrat through stock ownership. According to Applicants, after the transaction, Aristocrat would continue to provide services under the same name but would be operated within the National Express corporate family. Applicants assert that Aristocrat is experienced in the passenger service markets already served by National Express and some of its affiliated carriers.
Under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b), the Board must approve and authorize a transaction that it finds consistent with the public interest, taking into consideration at least: (1) The effect of the proposed transaction on the adequacy of transportation to the public; (2) the total fixed charges that result; and (3) the interest of affected carrier employees. Applicants have submitted the information required by 49 CFR 1182.2, including information to demonstrate that the proposed transaction is consistent with the public interest under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b) and a statement, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 14303(g), that Rainbow, Trans Express, the National Express Affiliated Carriers, and Aristocrat exceeded $2 million in gross operating revenues for the preceding 12-month period.
Applicants submit that the proposed transaction would not have a material, detrimental impact on the adequacy of transportation services to the public but rather would improve services to the public. According to Applicants, National Express does not intend to change the operations of Aristocrat but would operate it within the National Express corporate family, which, National Express states, would enhance the overall viability of the carriers within the corporate family. National Express anticipates that the proposed transaction would result in operating efficiencies and cost savings derived from economies of scale, which would help ensure adequate service to the public.
Applicants state that there are no significant fixed charges associated with the proposed transaction.
Applicants also assert that because National Express intends to continue Aristocrat's existing operations, the proposed transaction would not have a substantial impact on employees or labor conditions, although staffing redundancies could potentially result in limited downsizing of back-office and/or managerial-level personnel.
Applicants further assert that the proposed transaction would not adversely affect competition or the public interest. Applicants claim that Aristocrat is a relatively small carrier in the overall markets in which it competes—interstate motor coach passenger charter services in the New York City metropolitan area, northern New York, northern New Jersey, and northern Pennsylvania (the Service Area). Applicants assert that Aristocrat directly competes with many other passenger charter services in the Service Area, and that there is a competitive market within the Service Area due to a large number of charter service providers. Additionally, Applicants state that the charter operations offered by Aristocrat are geographically dispersed from most of the affiliated carriers of National Express and that there is little overlap in service areas among National Express, its affiliates, and Aristocrat.
On the basis of the application, the Board finds that the proposed acquisition of control is consistent with the public interest and should be tentatively approved and authorized. If any opposing comments are timely filed, these findings will be deemed vacated, and, unless a final decision can be made on the record as developed, a procedural schedule will be adopted to reconsider the application.
This action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
1. The proposed transaction is approved and authorized, subject to the filing of opposing comments.
2. If opposing comments are timely filed, the findings made in this notice will be deemed vacated.
3. This notice will be effective April 21, 2018, unless opposing comments are filed by April 20, 2018.
4. A copy of this notice will be served on: (1) The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (2) the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530; and (3) the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman and Miller.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA invites comments on two information collections that will be expiring on May 31, 2018. PHMSA will request an extension with no change for the information collections identified by OMB control numbers 2137-0594 and 2137-0622.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 7, 2018.
Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
“Comments on PHMSA-2018-0016.” The Docket Clerk will date stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S. mail. Please note that due to delays in the delivery of U.S. mail to Federal offices in Washington, DC, we recommend that persons consider an alternative method (internet, fax, or professional delivery service) of submitting comments to the docket and ensuring their timely receipt at DOT.
Angela Dow by telephone at 202-366-1246, by fax at 202-366-4566, or by mail at DOT, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, PHP-30, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies two information collection requests that PHMSA will submit to OMB for renewal. The following information is provided for each information collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract of the information collection activity; (6) Description of affected public; (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (8) Frequency of collection. PHMSA will request a three-year term of approval for each information collection activity. PHMSA requests comments on the following information collections:
Comments are invited on:
(a) The need for the renewal and revision of these collections of information for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of advisory committee meeting.
This notice announces a public meeting of the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, also known as the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee (GPAC). The GPAC will meet to continue discussing topics and provisions for the proposed rule titled “Safety of Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipelines.”
The committee will meet on Monday, March 26, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 27, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on Wednesday, March 28, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET. Members of the public who wish to participate are asked to register no later than March 16, 2018. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, may notify PHMSA by March 16, 2018. For additional information, see the
The meeting will be held at a location yet to be determined in the Washington, DC Metropolitan area. The meeting location, agenda and any additional information will be published on the following pipeline advisory committee meeting and registration page at:
The meeting will not be webcast; however, presentations will be available on the meeting page and posted on the E-Gov website,
This meeting will be open to the public. Members of the public who wish to participate are asked to register at the meeting link above no later than March 16, 2018, prior to the meeting. Anyone wishing to make a statement on the topics discussed during the meeting should send an email to
If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the following statement: “Comments on PHMSA-2016-0136.” The docket clerk will date stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S. mail.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
For information about the meetings, contact Cheryl Whetsel by phone at 202-366-
The GPAC will be considering the proposed rule titled, “Safety of Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipelines,” which was published in the
• Require periodic assessments of pipelines in locations where persons are expected to be at risk that are not already covered under the integrity management (IM) program requirements.
• Modify the repair criteria, both inside and outside of high consequence areas.
• Require inspections of pipelines in areas affected by extreme weather, man-made and natural disasters, and other similar events.
• Provide additional specificity for in-line inspections, including explicit requirements to account for uncertainty of reported inspection data when evaluating in-line inspection data to identify anomalies.
• Expand integrity assessment methods to explicitly address guided wave ultrasonic inspection and excavation with direct in-situ examination.
• Provide clearer functional requirements for conducting risk assessments for IM, including addressing seismic risks.
• Expand the mandatory data collection and integration requirements for IM, including data validation and seismicity.
• Add requirements to address management of change.
• Repeal the use of API Recommended Practice 80 for gathering lines.
• Apply Type B requirements along with emergency requirements to newly regulated greater than 8-inch Type A gathering lines in Class 1 locations (GAO Recommendation 14-667).
• Extend the reporting requirements to all gathering lines.
• Expand requirements for corrosion protection to specify additional post-construction quality checks, and periodic operational and maintenance checks to address coating integrity, cathodic protection, and gas quality monitoring.
• Require operators to report maximum allowable operating pressure exceedances.
• Require safety features on in-line inspection tool launchers and receivers.
• Add certain types of roadways to the definition of “identified sites” (NTSB P-14-1).
• Address grandfathered pipe and pipe with inadequate records.
The GPAC meeting agenda will include a discussion and votes on the following topics as time permits:
• Issues not finalized during the March 2, 2018, meeting.
• MAOP Reconfirmation.
• Repair Criteria.
• Miscellaneous Issues and Definitions.
In addition, PHMSA will use this meeting to discuss the strategy for addressing the issues relative to gas gathering pipelines in the proposed rule.
The GPAC is a statutorily mandated advisory committee that advises PHMSA on proposed gas pipeline safety standards and their associated risk assessments. The committee is established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, as amended) and 49 U.S.C. 60115. The committee consists of 15 members with membership evenly divided among federal and state governments, the regulated industry, and the general public. The committee advises PHMSA on the technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability of each proposed pipeline safety standard.
Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Office of the Secretary (OST) announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval and invites public comment. Executive Order 12862 directs Federal agencies to provide service to the public that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private sector. In order to work continuously to ensure that our programs are effective and meet our customers' needs, the Department of Transportation (DOT) seeks to obtain OMB approval of a generic clearance to collect feedback on our service delivery.
Comments on this notice must be received by May 7, 2018.
Your comments should be identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0031 and may be submitted through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
All written comments will be available for public inspection on
Habib Azarsina, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590, 202-366-1965 (Voice), 202-366-7870 (Fax), or
The Department will submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary.
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government.
• The collections are noncontroversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies.
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future.
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained.
• Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the Department (if released, the Department must indicate the qualitative nature of the information).
This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential nonresponse bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury.
Notice.
The charter for the Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) was renewed on February 27, 2018, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
Michael Deneroff at (202) 317-6851, or send an email to
Notice is hereby given that the charter for the Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) was renewed on February 27, 2018, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2.
The establishment and operation of the Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) is required by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 98), Title II, Section 2001(b)(2).
The purpose of the ETAAC is to provide continued input into the development and implementation of the IRS organizational strategy for electronic tax administration. The ETAAC will provide an organized public forum for discussion of electronic tax administration issues such as prevention of identity theft and refund fraud in support of the overriding goal that paperless filing should be the preferred and most convenient method of filing tax and information returns. The ETAAC members will convey the public's perceptions of IRS electronic tax administration activities, offer constructive observations about current or proposed policies, programs and procedures, and suggest improvements.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning guidance necessary to facilitate business electronic filing under section 1561, guidance necessary to facilitate business electronic filing and reduction, guidance necessary to facilitate business election filing; finalization of controlled group qualification rules, and limitations on the importation of net built-in Losses.
Written comments should be received on or before May 7, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Sara Covington, (202) 317-6038, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
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.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8453-FE, U.S. Estate or Trust Declaration and Signature for an IRS e-file Return; Form 8453-EMP, Employment Tax Declaration for an IRS e-file Return; 8879-F, IRS e-file Signature Authorization for Form 1041 and Form 8879-EMP, IRS e-file Signature Authorization for Forms 940, 940-PR, 941, 941-PR, 941-SS, 943, 943-PR, 944, and 945.
Written comments should be received on or before May 7, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Sara Covington, (202) 317-6038, 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.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
The Charter for the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Committee (TAP), has been renewed for a two-year period beginning February 27, 2018.
Ms.Terrie English, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Director, at (214) 413-6522 or
Notice is hereby given under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988), and with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury to announce the charter renewal for the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Committee (TAP). The TAP purpose is to provide a taxpayer perspective to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on critical tax administrative programs. The TAP shall provide listening opportunities for taxpayers to independently identify suggestions or comments to improve IRS customer service through grass roots outreach efforts, and have direct access to elevate improvement recommendations to the appropriate operating divisions. The TAP shall also serve as a focus group to provide suggestions and/or recommendations directly to IRS management on IRS strategic initiatives.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending its regulations under the Federal Power Act (FPA) to remove barriers to the participation of electric storage resources in the capacity, energy, and ancillary service markets operated by Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) and Independent System Operators (ISO) (RTO/ISO markets).
This rule will become effective June 4, 2018.
This rule requires each RTO and ISO to revise its tariff to establish a participation model consisting of market rules that, recognizing the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources, facilitates their participation in the RTO/ISO markets. The participation model must (1) ensure that a resource using the participation model is eligible to provide all capacity, energy, and ancillary services that the resource is technically capable of providing in the RTO/ISO markets; (2) ensure that a resource using the participation model can be dispatched and can set the wholesale market clearing price as both a wholesale seller and wholesale buyer consistent with existing market rules that govern when a resource can set the wholesale price; (3) account for the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources through bidding parameters or other means; and (4) establish a minimum size requirement for participation in the RTO/ISO markets that does not exceed 100 kW. Additionally, each RTO/ISO must specify that the sale of electric energy from the RTO/ISO markets to an electric storage resource that the resource then resells back to those markets must be at the wholesale locational marginal price. We are taking this action pursuant to our legal authority under section 206 of the FPA to ensure that RTO/ISO tariffs are just and reasonable.
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Commission also proposed reforms related to distributed energy resource aggregations. While we continue to believe that removing barriers to distributed energy resource aggregations in the RTO/ISO markets is important, we have determined that more information is needed with respect to those proposals; therefore, we will not take final action on the proposed distributed energy resource aggregation reforms in this proceeding. Instead, the Commission will continue to explore the proposed distributed energy resource aggregation reforms under Docket No. RM18-9-000. To that end, concurrent with this Final Rule, a Notice of Technical Conference is being issued in Docket No. RM18-9-000 with questions related to the participation of distributed energy resource aggregations in the RTO/ISO markets so that we can gather additional information to help us determine what action to take on the distributed energy resource aggregation reforms proposed in the NOPR. All comments filed in response to the NOPR in this proceeding will be incorporated by reference into Docket No. RM18-9-000, and any further comments regarding the proposed distributed energy resource aggregation reforms, including comments regarding the technical conference, should be filed henceforth in Docket No. RM18-9-000.
1. In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is adopting reforms to remove barriers to the participation of electric storage resources
2. As the Commission explained in the NOPR, barriers to the participation of new technologies, such as many types of electric storage resources, in the RTO/ISO markets can emerge when the rules governing participation in those markets are designed for traditional resources and in effect limit the services that emerging technologies can provide.
3. To address barriers to the participation of electric storage resources in the RTO/ISO markets, in this Final Rule, we require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to establish a participation model consisting of market rules that, recognizing the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources, facilitates their participation in the RTO/ISO markets. The RTOs/ISOs generally have a set of tariff provisions that apply to all market participants. In addition, the RTOs/ISOs create tariff provisions for specific types of resources when those resources have unique physical and operational characteristics or other attributes that warrant distinctive treatment from other market participants.
4. For each RTO/ISO, the tariff provisions for the participation model for electric storage resources must (1) ensure that a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources is eligible to provide all capacity, energy, and ancillary services that it is technically capable of providing in the RTO/ISO markets; (2) ensure that a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources can be dispatched and can set the wholesale market clearing price as both a wholesale seller and wholesale buyer consistent with existing market rules that govern when a resource can set the wholesale price; (3) account for the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources through bidding parameters or other means; and (4) establish a minimum size requirement for participation in the RTO/ISO markets that does not exceed 100 kW. Additionally, each RTO/ISO must specify that the sale of electric energy from the RTO/ISO markets to an electric storage resource that the resource then resells back to those markets must be at the wholesale locational marginal price (LMP).
5. In the NOPR, the Commission also proposed reforms related to distributed energy resource aggregations.
6. As discussed further below, each RTO/ISO must file the tariff changes needed to implement the requirements of this Final Rule within 270 days of the publication date of this Final Rule in the
7. Electric storage resources have unique physical and operational characteristics, namely their ability to both inject energy to the grid and receive energy from it. Certain electric storage resources, such as pumped-hydro resources,
8. As the capabilities of electric storage resources improve and their costs decline to the point that they may be competitive with existing resources,
9. On November 17, 2016, the Commission issued the NOPR in this proceeding, proposing to amend its regulations under the FPA to remove barriers to the participation of electric storage resources in the RTO/ISO markets. The Commission received 109 comments on the NOPR proposals from a diverse set of stakeholders.
10. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that its proposal in this proceeding is a continuation of efforts pursuant to its authority under the FPA to ensure that the RTO/ISO tariffs and market rules produce just and reasonable rates, terms and conditions of service.
11. The Commission acknowledged in the NOPR that electric storage resources are already providing energy and ancillary services in some RTO/ISO markets.
12. Thus, the Commission preliminarily found that current tariffs that do not recognize the operational characteristics of electric storage resources limit the participation of electric storage resources in the RTO/ISO markets and result in inefficient use of these resources.
13. In response to the NOPR, commenters elaborate on the degree to which, and how, existing RTO/ISO market rules pose barriers to the participation of electric storage resources in the RTO/ISO markets and the impact of those barriers.
14. Alevo, Eagle Crest, Massachusetts State Entities, and NYISO Indicated Transmission Owners claim that RTO/ISO market rules hinder the full participation of electric storage resources by failing to recognize these resources' unique operating characteristics and requiring them to use market rules designed for other types of resources, such as generation.
15. A few commenters emphasize that making market rules technology neutral will remove barriers to entry for electric storage resources. For example, several commenters argue that market design should be technology neutral to ensure equal access to markets
16. While commenters addressed concerns with specific aspects of the NOPR proposals, most commenters, including the RTOs/ISOs, generally agree that the Commission should act to remove barriers to the participation of electric storage resources in the RTO/ISO markets.
17. Some commenters note that implementation of the reforms proposed in the NOPR could improve competition and/or efficiency in the RTO/ISO markets and provide other system benefits.
18. EPSA/PJM Power Providers argue that, because there are many
19. For the reasons discussed below, we find that existing RTO/ISO market rules are unjust and unreasonable in light of barriers that they present to the participation of electric storage resources in the RTO/ISO markets, thereby reducing competition and failing to ensure just and reasonable rates. Specifically, RTO/ISO market rules that limit the services that electric storage resources are technically capable of providing may create barriers to the participation of electric storage resources in the RTO/ISO markets. Barriers also exist in the RTOs/ISOs that have already adopted market rules that provide for the participation of electric storage resources because these participation models were often designed for electric storage resources with very specific characteristics (such as pumped-hydro resources or other electric storage resources with a maximum run-time that is less than one hour), thus limiting electric storage resources from providing the full range of services they are technically capable of providing.
20. These barriers adversely affect competition in the RTO/ISO markets by limiting the participation of resources that are technically capable of providing services in those markets. Moreover, these barriers reduce competition and market efficiency by inhibiting developers' incentives to design their electric storage resources to provide all capacity, energy, and ancillary services that these resources could otherwise provide. We find that better integration of electric storage resources into the RTO/ISO markets is necessary to enhance competition and, in turn, help to ensure that these markets produce just and reasonable rates. Accordingly, as discussed further below, we require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariffs to remove barriers to the participation of electric storage resources in the RTO/ISO markets.
21. While we agree with EPSA/PJM Power Providers that it is necessary to provide each RTO/ISO with flexibility in the manner it incorporates certain aspects of these reforms into its tariff as explained below, we find that the record in this proceeding provides sufficient basis for requiring the generic requirements discussed herein.
22. For the purpose of defining the set of resources for which an RTO/ISO must create a participation model, in the NOPR, the Commission proposed to define an electric storage resource as “a resource capable of receiving electric energy from the grid and storing it for later injection of electricity back to the grid regardless of where the resource is located on the electrical system.”
23. The comments received on the proposed definition of electric storage resources generally ask the Commission to modify or clarify the definition but disagree on how the Commission should do so. Some commenters ask the Commission to modify or clarify the definition of electric storage resource to broaden its application. For example, they raise concerns with how the Commission's proposed definition treats behind-the-meter resources. First, Energy Storage Association argues that the NOPR definition only applies to resources connected directly to the transmission or distribution system and, therefore, asks the Commission to extend these reforms to behind-the-meter electric storage resources that net inject energy to the grid.
24. Advanced Energy Economy expresses a related concern, arguing that the Commission's proposed definition of an electric storage resource does not capture all energy storage technologies, such as thermal and kinetic storage; storage co-located with generation resources (including variable resources) on the transmission grid; and other types of technologies that can perform an energy storage function but may not physically export electricity to the wholesale grid. Advanced Energy Economy suggests that the Commission remedy this concern by revising the definition of an electric storage resource to include all storage technologies that are capable of converting electric energy into stored energy and later supplying electric energy (either back to the grid or to a host customer or site).
25. In contrast, other commenters recommend that the Commission narrow its proposed definition of an electric storage resource.
26. Several commenters address the implications of the proposed definition for state and federal jurisdiction. Connecticut State Entities state that they welcome the Commission's efforts to
27. DTE Electric/Consumers Energy and MISO Transmission Owners assert that the Commission should allow states to decide whether electric storage resources in their state that are located on the distribution system or behind a retail meter are permitted to participate in the RTO/ISO markets through the electric storage resource participation model proposed in the NOPR.
28. In contrast, Genbright argues that the Commission must not only assert primary jurisdiction over electric storage resources' sales of services in the RTO/ISO markets but also ensure that RTOs/ISOs do not rely on
29. Consistent with the NOPR proposal, in this Final Rule, we revise section 35.38(b) of the Commission's regulations to define an electric storage resource as “a resource capable of receiving electric energy from the grid and storing it for later injection of electric energy back to the grid.” We find that removing the phrase “regardless of where the resource is located on the electrical system” from the NOPR proposal and instead clarifying where an electric storage resources may be located does not change the applicability of the definition and will also provide a more adaptable definition for other Commission actions.
30. We observe that an electric storage resource that injects electric energy back to the grid for purposes of participating in an RTO/ISO market engages in a sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce.
31. We disagree with commenters who assert that the definition of an electric storage resource should be limited to those electric storage resources that are interconnected to the transmission system. Electric storage resources interconnected to the distribution system are already participating in the RTO/ISO markets,
32. Some commenters argue that the Commission should broaden its definition of an electric storage resource to apply to behind-the-meter resources that do not inject electricity onto the grid. We decline to do so. Through this Final Rule, we seek to ensure that RTO/ISO market rules account for the unique physical and operational characteristic of electric storage resources, namely their bidirectional capability to both inject energy to the grid and receive energy from it. Expanding the definition of an electric storage resource to include behind-the-meter resources that do not inject electric energy onto the grid would not advance this purpose because they would not be injecting electric energy back to the grid. In addition, we have previously found that behind-the-meter resources that do not inject electric energy onto the grid are considered demand response.
33. We also clarify that, by “capable of . . . later injection of electric energy back to the grid,” we mean that the electric storage resource is both physically designed and configured to inject electric energy back onto the grid and, as relevant, is contractually permitted to do so (
34. While we decline in this Final Rule to expand the definition of an electric storage resource to include behind-the-meter resources that do not inject electric energy onto the grid, we note that the definition in this Final Rule establishes the minimum set of resources that each RTO/ISO must consider when developing an electric storage resource participation model to comply with this Final Rule. It does not preclude any RTO/ISO from proposing a broader definition for electric storage resources through a separate FPA section 205 filing.
35. Further, this Final Rule requires each RTO/ISO to implement market rules applicable to electric storage resources, as defined herein, that voluntarily seek to participate in the RTO/ISO markets; this Final Rule does not require electric storage resources to participate in those markets. The Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the wholesale markets and the criteria for participation in those markets, including the wholesale market rules for participation of resources connected at or below distribution-level voltages.
36. That said, we emphasize the ongoing, vital role of the states with respect to the development and operation of electric storage resources. Such state responsibilities include, among other things, retail services and matters related to the distribution system, including design, operations, power quality, reliability, and system costs. We add that nothing in this Final Rule is intended to affect or implicate the responsibilities of distribution utilities to maintain the safety and the reliability of the distribution system or their use of electric storage resources on their systems.
37. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to include a participation model consisting of market rules that, recognizing the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources, facilitates their participation in RTO/ISO markets.
38. Many commenters support the Commission's proposal to require each RTO/ISO to create a participation model for electric storage resources.
39. Some commenters, however, condition their support for the Commission's proposed electric storage resource participation model.
40. Whether or not they support the Commission's proposal to require each RTO/ISO to establish a participation model for electric storage resources, many commenters caution against granting undue preference in the markets to electric storage resources.
41. Commenters also address whether the Commission should provide regional flexibility for each RTO/ISO to comply with the rule by proposing requirements that accommodate electric storage resources that comport to their unique circumstances. Several commenters contend that regional flexibility is appropriate, with EEI, EPSA/PJM Power Providers, and Exelon noting that the proposed electric storage resource participation model provides such flexibility.
42. Other commenters argue that the Commission should defer to the RTOs/ISOs to develop the detailed participation rules that take into account the unique needs of each market.
43. For example, ISO-NE urges the Commission to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. Specifically, ISO-NE is concerned that (1) the focus on participation models and market participant types rather than on services is inconsistent with its core market design objective of technology neutrality and (2) the rulemaking could require ISO-NE to fundamentally change this technology-neutral approach to the detriment of its markets. ISO-NE argues that adopting participation models could allow resource owners to engage in participation model “shopping,” a form of tariff rule arbitrage.
44. Given these concerns, ISO-NE asks the Commission to provide only general guidance to RTOs/ISOs, requiring them to (1) examine the requirements associated with providing each wholesale service in their markets and (2) assess whether and how to revise those requirements to better accommodate the participation of electric storage resources. ISO-NE also asks the Commission to clarify that RTOs/ISOs are not required to adopt a specific participation model construct but instead may propose to incorporate the participation of electric storage resources in their markets in a manner consistent with the RTO's/ISO's existing market constructs.
45. Similarly, while NESCOE supports the intent of the NOPR, it observes that further information is required on whether each RTO/ISO could modify its existing participation model(s) to address any barrier to the participation of electric storage resources in the RTO/ISO markets, rather than being required to create a new participation model.
46. Some commenters request that the Commission establish detailed requirements for a participation model for electric storage resources.
47. Several commenters suggest that the participation model for electric storage resources should account for the physical and operational differences among electric storage technologies because different electric storage resources (such as pumped-hydro) have different operating characteristics, provide different services, and are not intended to serve the same roles within the electric grid.
48. Other commenters discuss the need to distinguish between electric storage resources based on their point of interconnection with the grid.
49. Two RTOs/ISOs request clarifications with respect to the Commission's proposal to require them to establish a participation model for electric storage resources.
50. Finally, several commenters share information on existing RTO/ISO initiatives to remove barriers to the participation of electric storage resources in their markets.
51. In this Final Rule, we adopt the NOPR proposal and add section 35.28(g)(9)(i) to the Commission's regulations to require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to include a participation model consisting of market rules that, recognizing the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources, facilitates their participation in the RTO/ISO markets. We find that requiring each RTO/ISO to create a participation model that recognizes the unique characteristics of electric storage resources will help eliminate barriers to their participation in the RTO/ISO markets, which will enhance competition and, in turn, help to ensure that these markets produce just and reasonable rates.
52. In response to concerns that the creation of a participation model for electric storage resources may undermine market designs that are based on services provided rather than resource type, we find that this Final Rule does not preclude an RTO/ISO from structuring its markets based on the technical requirements that a resource must meet to provide needed services. It simply requires that each RTO/ISO establish a participation model that ensures eligibility to participate in the RTO/ISO markets in a way that recognizes the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources. As such, this Final Rule does not grant undue preference to electric storage resources as a group or to specific electric storage technologies; rather, it removes barriers to their participation, enhancing competition among all resources that are technically capable of providing wholesale services. As noted above, resources that use the participation model required by this Final Rule must fulfill certain responsibilities set forth in the FPA and the Commission's rules and regulations.
53. With respect to commenters' arguments concerning regional flexibility in implementation, we find that this Final Rule strikes the appropriate balance between allowing each RTO/ISO to adopt market rules that complement its unique market design and providing sufficiently detailed requirements to ensure that each RTO/ISO eliminates barriers to electric storage resource participation in its markets. Specifically, this Final Rule does not adopt prescriptive, uniform market rules to which each RTO/ISO must adhere. Instead, the regulations establish minimum requirements (for, among other things, bidding parameters and resource size) that each RTO/ISO must meet when proposing market rules to comply with this Final Rule, permitting each RTO/ISO to propose market rules that comply with these minimum requirements in the way that best suits its individual market design.
54. We are not convinced that separate participation models are necessary for different types of electric storage resources (
55. We agree with CAISO that electric storage resources currently participate in the RTO/ISO markets in a variety of
56. While the participation model for electric storage resources should be designed to facilitate the participation of all types of electric storage technologies, we do not require all electric storage resources to use that participation model. To that end, we clarify that this Final Rule does not preclude electric storage resources from continuing to participate in demand response programs, as Alternative Technology Regulation Resources in ISO-NE, or under other participation models in any RTO/ISO in which they are eligible to participate. However, we clarify that, under section 35.28(g)(9) of the Commission's regulations, section 35.28(g)(9)(i) applies to resources using the participation model for electric storage resources and section 35.28(g)(9)(ii) applies to all electric storage resources that fall under the definition established in this Final Rule. Therefore, electric storage resources that may elect not to use the participation model for electric storage resources would still be able to pay the wholesale LMP for the electric energy they purchase from the RTO/ISO markets and then resell back to those markets.
57. To ensure that the proposed participation model for electric storage resources will facilitate the participation of both existing and future electric storage resource technologies in the RTO/ISO markets, the Commission proposed that each RTO/ISO define the criteria in its tariff that a resource must meet to qualify to use the participation model for electric storage resources (
58. While several commenters support providing each RTO/ISO with flexibility to propose appropriate qualification criteria on compliance with this Final Rule,
59. Both MISO and SPP point to existing qualification criteria for providing certain services in their markets that they argue should apply to resources that use the electric storage resource participation model to provide those services.
60. In addition to qualification criteria, Fluidic argues that RTOs/ISOs should modify their protocols and procedures to include a uniform accrediting process for determining the capacity of an electric storage resource for participation in their markets.
61. To implement the new requirement in section 35.28(g)(9)(i) of the Commission's regulations for a participation model for electric storage resources, in this Final Rule, we adopt the NOPR proposal to require each RTO/ISO to define in its tariff the criteria that a resource must meet to use the participation model for electric storage resources (
62. Because the qualification criteria must not limit participation to any particular technology and instead will be based on the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources, these criteria will allow new electric storage resource technologies to participate in the RTO/ISO markets without the need for additional tariff revisions to explicitly permit their participation. This focus on the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources rather than the specific
63. Also, as proposed in the NOPR, we provide each RTO/ISO with flexibility to propose qualification criteria that best suit its proposed participation model for electric storage resources. We decline to adopt Imperial Irrigation District's suggestion to specify that the qualification criteria for a resource to use the electric storage resource participation model should be limited to the physical and operational characteristics cited in the definition proposed in the NOPR (
64. In response to Fluidic, we clarify that the qualification criteria should not include a uniform accrediting process to determine the capacity of an electric storage resource. As discussed in the Eligibility to Provide All Capacity, Energy, and Ancillary Services section,
65. With respect to MISO's and SPP's comments, we note that, based on our understanding, the requirements that MISO and SPP characterize as qualification criteria are technical requirements to provide a particular wholesale service. Such technical requirements should not be used as qualification criteria to determine whether a resource may use the participation model for electric storage resources. Rather, MISO and SPP would continue to use these requirements to determine whether individual resources using the participation model for electric storage resources are eligible to provide specific services.
66. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that each RTO/ISO propose any necessary additions or modifications to its existing tariff provisions to specify: (1) Whether resources that qualify to use the participation model for electric storage resources will participate in the RTO/ISO markets through existing or new market participation agreements; and (2) whether particular existing market rules apply to resources participating under the electric storage resource participation model.
67. CAISO supports the NOPR proposal.
68. To implement the new requirement in section 35.28(g)(9)(i) of the Commission's regulations for a participation model for electric storage resources, in this Final Rule, we adopt the NOPR proposal to require each RTO/ISO to propose any necessary additions or modifications to its existing tariff provisions to specify: (1) Whether resources that qualify to use the participation model for electric storage resources will participate in the RTO/ISO markets through existing or new market participation agreements and (2) whether particular existing market rules apply to resources participating under the electric storage resource participation model. We find that these requirements are necessary to provide certainty to resources using the electric storage resource participation model about the market rules that will govern their participation in each RTO/ISO market, thus removing barriers to their participation.
69. With respect to ISO-NE's concern that the RTOs/ISOs should not be precluded from using a single market participation agreement for all market participants, we clarify that this Final Rule allows the use of one or more existing agreements so long as the agreement(s) complies with the terms of this Final Rule.
70. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require each RTO/ISO to modify its tariff to establish a participation model consisting of market rules for electric storage resources under which a participating resource is eligible to provide any capacity, energy, and ancillary service that it is technically capable of providing in the RTO/ISO markets.
71. Many commenters generally support the NOPR proposal.
72. Several of the RTOs/ISOs explain their ongoing efforts to improve the opportunities for electric storage resources to participate in their markets.
73. CAISO points out that electric storage resources participating in CAISO's market have the opportunity to provide energy and ancillary services, including those that CAISO may procure outside of its market processes, if they meet the technical criteria to do so. Likewise, SPP notes that electric storage resources may provide non-market based services such as blackstart service and reactive power service if they meet the relevant technical requirements.
74. While ISO-NE states that it will revise its market rules in compliance with a final rule in this proceeding to eliminate barriers to the participation of electric storage resources in their markets, and SPP states that, prior to the issuance of the NOPR, it was planning to do so,
75. Energy Storage Association contends that it is imperative that RTOs/ISOs establish a process for resources to demonstrate that they are technically capable of providing a specific service.
76. In this Final Rule, we adopt the NOPR proposal and add section 35.28(g)(9)(i)(A) to the Commission's regulations to require each RTO/ISO to establish market rules so that a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources is eligible to provide all capacity, energy, and ancillary services that it is technically capable of providing, including services that the RTOs/ISOs do not procure through an organized market. To provide clarity, we add the phrase “technically capable of providing” to the regulatory text we proposed in the NOPR. To be eligible to provide capacity, energy, and ancillary services, a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources will still need to meet the technical requirements for any of the services that it wants to provide. We recognize that the RTOs/ISOs have ongoing efforts to enhance opportunities for electric storage resources to participate in their markets and encourage each RTO/ISO to build upon these efforts when developing tariff revisions to comply with this Final Rule.
77. In response to ISO-NE, we clarify that each RTO/ISO is required to revise its tariff to allow a resource using the electric storage resource participation model to be eligible to provide a service only if that resource is technically capable of doing so. To the extent that an RTO/ISO has developed a standard set of technical requirements that all resources must meet to provide a given service, those requirements would also apply to a resource using the electric storage resource participation model if it wants to provide that service.
78. In response to ISO-NE and SPP, we clarify that “technically capable” of providing a service means that a resource can meet all of the technical, operational, and/or performance requirements that are necessary to reliably provide that service. For example, these requirements may include a minimum run-time to provide energy or the ability to respond to automatic generation control to provide frequency regulation. While we are clarifying the definition of “technically capable” here, we note that we are not considering in this proceeding the requirements that determine whether resources are technically capable of providing individual wholesale services.
79. We decline to adopt APPA/NRECA's suggestion that the Commission give each RTO/ISO flexibility to demonstrate on compliance the extent to which an electric storage resource may not be technically capable of providing a given service reliably, efficiently, and cost-effectively. Each individual electric storage resource must still meet the technical requirements of providing any specific service, which would be determined by the RTO/ISO on a case-by-case basis.
80. As part of the requirement that each RTO/ISO develop a participation model for electric storage resources that allows electric storage resources to be eligible to provide services in all of its capacity, energy, and ancillary service markets, we also require that such participation model allow electric storage resources to be eligible to provide services that the RTOs/ISOs do not procure through an organized market mechanism (such as blackstart service, primary frequency response service, and reactive power service) if they are technically capable of providing those services. As noted above, we are not requiring each RTO/ISO to revise or revisit the technical requirements or compensation provisions of those markets.
81. We will not require the RTOs/ISOs to establish new processes through which a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources can demonstrate that it is technically
82. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to clarify that an electric storage resource may de-rate its capacity to meet minimum run-time requirements to provide capacity or other services.
83. Many commenters generally support the proposal to require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to clarify that an electric storage resource may de-rate its capacity to meet minimum run-time requirements to provide capacity or other services.
84. Multiple commenters raised issues surrounding performance requirements for electric storage resources in the RTO/ISO markets.
85. Some entities raise issues about the interaction of the Commission's de-rating proposal with resource obligations.
86. Energy Storage Association raises concerns regarding the Commission's proposal that the de-rated capacity value for an electric storage resource should be consistent with the quantity of energy that must be offered into the day-ahead energy market for resources with capacity obligations.
87. Several other commenters consider the interaction between the Commission's de-rating proposal and market power issues.
88. Other commenters consider whether electric storage resources need to de-rate in all circumstances.
89. EPRI raises concerns about the effectiveness of the Commission's proposal. EPRI asserts that the Commission's de-rating proposal is potentially an improved approximation of an electric storage resource's capacity value.
90. Several commenters consider whether reforms beyond the Commission's proposal are needed. For example, some commenters argue for either exempting electric storage resources from minimum run-time requirements in some circumstances or developing new capacity products with shorter minimum run-time requirements.
91. NextEra asserts that, in most RTOs/ISOs, reserve product commitment requirements systematically discriminate against electric storage resources by restricting their ability to offer their full capacity into the market and that de-rating capacity to meet existing requirements diminishes the value of electric storage resources and arbitrarily restricts competition.
92. A few commenters address the must-offer requirements that are often associated with a resource's capacity supply obligation.
93. AES Companies claim that it may be necessary to modify RTO/ISO must-offer requirements to allow electric storage resources to participate in capacity markets while also providing non-dispatched services (such as primary frequency response and voltage control). AES Companies add that most must-offer requirements apply to a capacity resource during all dispatch intervals, even though specific services may only be needed for a set number of hours in a day.
94. To implement section 35.28(g)(9)(i)(A) of the Commission's regulations, in this Final Rule, we adopt the NOPR proposal, as modified and clarified below, to require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to allow electric storage resources to de-rate their capacity to meet minimum run-time requirements. We find that allowing resources using the participation model for electric storage resources to de-rate their capacity to meet minimum run-time requirements to provide capacity or other services will help to ensure that electric storage resources are eligible to provide all services that they are technically capable of providing by taking into account their physical and operational characteristics, while still maintaining the quality and reliability of services they seek to provide. For example, this requirement would allow a 10MW/20MWh electric storage resource to offer 5MW of capacity into a capacity market with a 4-hour minimum run-time because that is the maximum output that the resource can sustain for the duration of the minimum run-time. Absent the opportunity to de-rate its capacity, the 10MW/20MWh electric storage resource would not be able to participate in that capacity market, despite its ability to reliably provide 5MW of capacity for the duration of the minimum run-time.
95. We also clarify several aspects of the NOPR proposal in response to commenters. In response to NRG, we clarify that this Final Rule does not exempt electric storage resources that participate in RTO/ISO capacity markets from meeting the performance metrics and criteria that apply to all other resources that participate in those markets. In fact, along with other requirements in this Final Rule that require an RTO's/ISO's participation model for electric storage resources to account for the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources,
96. In response to SPP, we clarify that an electric storage resource de-rating its capacity to provide capacity or other services is not engaging in physical withholding if it is de-rating to meet minimum run-time requirements. In the case of an electric storage resource that de-rates its capacity to meet minimum run-time requirements, this resource would be de-rating its capacity for true and verifiable technical reasons pertaining to the market rules for providing various services. However, as the Commission has previously explained, physical withholding may include a market participant declaring that an electric facility has been de-rated, forced out of service, or otherwise been made unavailable for technical reasons that are unrelated to physical or legitimate commercial issues or that cannot be verified.
97. Additionally, while commenters do not specifically describe any market power concerns outside the context of physical withholding, to the extent that market power concerns arise as a result of electric storage resources de-rating capacity to provide capacity or other services, each RTO/ISO may consider whether it is appropriate to update and/or apply existing market power mitigation processes to electric storage resources to alleviate market power concerns.
98. In response to California Energy Storage Alliance, we agree that electric storage resources may provide services in the RTO/ISO markets without de-rating so long as they meet the requirements to provide the particular service that they seek to provide. We also clarify that this Final Rule does not require any specific outage rules for electric storage resources.
99. Further, upon consideration of the comments, we clarify the part of the NOPR proposal stating that the de-rated capacity value for electric storage resources should be consistent with the quantity of energy that must be offered into the day-ahead energy market for resources with capacity obligations. Several commenters suggest that there may be reasons why the de-rated capacity value for electric storage resources might not be consistent with the quantity of energy that must be offered into the day-ahead energy market. For example, an electric storage resource may choose to de-rate to reflect its capacity interconnection rights; to reserve capacity for providing retail services; or because system operators may need the full capacity of electric storage resources based on real-time system conditions.
100. In response to those commenters suggesting that the RTO/ISO resource adequacy constructs provide accommodations for electric storage resources, we will not require the RTOs/ISOs to make specific changes to minimum run-time or must-offer requirements associated with providing capacity. While we agree with commenters that some of the requirements to participate in the resource adequacy constructs of the RTOs/ISOs may limit the ability of electric storage resources to participate, there is significant variation in how each RTO/ISO approaches resource adequacy. Thus, we do not believe it is appropriate to establish one standard approach to this issue in the RTO/ISO markets. However, we do find that it is important for electric storage resources that can provide value in those resource adequacy constructs to be eligible to participate. Therefore, in the interest of preserving flexibility for the RTOs/ISOs to address this issue given their unique resource adequacy constructs, we require each RTO/ISO to demonstrate on compliance with this Final Rule that its existing market rules provide a means for electric storage resources to provide capacity. If an RTO/ISO does not have existing tariff provisions that enable electric storage resources to provide capacity, such as the RTO/ISO tariff provisions described below, we require the RTO/ISO to propose such rules on compliance with this Final Rule.
101. To provide guidance for this requirement, we note that several of the RTOs/ISOs already have developed rules that allow energy-limited resources to provide capacity. Some of these market rules explicitly facilitate the participation of electric storage resources. For example, NYISO has an Energy Limited Resource model that facilitates the participation of electric storage resources in the capacity market by limiting their commitments to one four-hour interval per day, while CAISO requires that flexible resource adequacy resources be available only during peak hours. Other RTOs/ISOs rely on opportunity costs in incremental energy offer reference levels, allowing for a resource to reflect its energy-limited nature through high offers in the energy market that make it unlikely to be dispatched. For example, ISO-NE's tariff allows opportunity costs included in an incremental energy reference level based on costs associated with complying with emissions limits, water storage limits, and other operating permits that limit production of energy.
102. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that electric storage resources tend to be capable of faster start-up times and higher ramp rates than traditional synchronous generators and are therefore able to provide ramping, spinning, and regulating reserve services without already being online and running.
103. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on whether dispatch and pricing of energy and ancillary services would be internally consistent if a resource were not required to offer to provide energy in order to offer to provide ancillary services. Further, the Commission sought comment on whether the capability of resources to provide an ancillary service absent an energy schedule can be determined in the regular performance tests that the RTO/ISO conducts and whether a resource's start-up time and ramp capability are generally represented in bidding parameters and would adequately guarantee the resource's ability to provide other services absent energy market participation. Finally, the Commission sought comment on the extent of software changes necessary to factor the elimination of such an energy schedule requirement into the RTO/ISO co-optimization models.
104. A number of commenters agree that the RTOs/ISOs should base a market participant's eligibility to provide a particular ancillary service on its ability to provide services when called upon, rather than whether it is online and synchronized to the grid.
105. A few commenters address the benefits of removing any requirement to have an energy schedule to provide ancillary services.
106. Energy Storage Association and Research Scientists opine that it is feasible for RTOs/ISOs to remove any requirement to have an energy schedule to provide ancillary services.
107. In contrast, EPSA/PJM Power Providers and NRG contend that, if the Commission requires each RTO/ISO to remove any requirement that a resource have an energy schedule to provide ancillary services, the Commission should require each resource that seeks to provide ancillary services to provide economic offers into the energy market.
108. While not opining on whether the Commission should require each RTO/ISO to remove any requirement to have an energy schedule to provide ancillary services from its tariff, MISO Transmission Owners comment on the ability of resources to provide ancillary services without an energy schedule.
109. While Xcel Energy Services agrees that resources do not necessarily need to be synchronized to the grid to provide ancillary services, it argues that RTOs/ISOs must establish response time requirements to ensure that all resources provide those services within an adequate timeframe.
110. MISO, PJM, and SPP do not opine on whether the Commission should require each RTO/ISO to remove any requirement that a resource have an energy schedule to provide ancillary services, although MISO and SPP present considerations for the Commission to evaluate should it move forward on this issue, each discuss the feasibility of removing any such requirement for some services.
111. While MISO agrees that electric storage resources that can start rapidly should not be required to be online and synchronized to provide ancillary services, it contends that an RTO must review and address its system limitations to ensure that it can handle such resources' fast start and ramp capabilities before removing any such requirement. According to MISO, reflecting an electric storage resource's start-up time and ramp capabilities in the clearing engine is feasible but would require extensive system and software changes. For an electric storage resource that is managing its own state of charge, MISO states that it would need the resource's energy schedule and dispatch range to ensure that it dispatches the resource to provide ancillary services within that resource's physical limits. MISO further contends, however, that if it were managing an electric storage resource's state of charge, it would need to receive offers for all ancillary services that the resource seeks to provide and that, absent an energy offer, the optimization model would need to assume that the resource is a price taker in the energy market if that maximizes its profit from providing ancillary services.
112. SPP asserts that any change to an energy schedule requirement for providing spinning reserve needs to involve the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) because NERC defines spinning reserves as a resource that is synchronized and spinning.
113. AES Companies argue that, rather than adopting any prescriptive requirement in a final rule, the Commission should allow each RTO/ISO to determine whether it can remove or modify any tariff provision or business practice that requires a resource to have an energy offer or schedule to provide a specific ancillary service, given their differing operational characteristics and needs.
114. R Street Institute asserts that, unless they have a must-offer energy obligation, electric storage resources should not have to submit an energy schedule to participate in ancillary service markets.
115. CAISO, ISO-NE, and NYISO state that the Commission should not require each RTO/ISO to remove any requirement that a resource have an energy offer or schedule to provide ancillary services.
116. In terms of the technical difficulties of removing the requirement that a resource have an energy schedule to provide ancillary services, EPRI notes that some RTOs/ISOs require zero-cost offers for certain ancillary services in the real-time market.
117. Guannan He argues that there is no need for the Commission to require each RTO/ISO to remove any requirement that a resource have an energy schedule to provide ancillary services if electric storage resources specify through their energy schedules when they are online or offline.
118. While Advanced Energy Economy and Electric Vehicle R&D Group argue that the Commission should require each RTO/ISO to remove any requirement that an electric storage resource have an energy schedule to provide ancillary services, they state that, if the Commission decides to retain the requirement, the Commission should make certain clarifications in the final rule or require each RTO/ISO to revise its existing market rules with respect to the provision of ancillary
119. Upon consideration of the comments, we will not require each RTO/ISO to modify rules requiring resources to have an energy schedule to participate in the ancillary service markets. While some electric storage resources may be technically capable of providing ancillary services without an energy schedule and could represent those capabilities in their bidding parameters and performance tests, we are persuaded by commenters that requiring the RTOs/ISOs to adjust the requirement to have an energy schedule to provide ancillary services could result in less efficient dispatch, potentially increasing costs. Moreover, we recognize the importance of co-optimization in clearing and dispatch software and appreciate that the RTOs/ISOs have developed different, individual approaches to co-optimizing their energy and ancillary service markets. Upon consideration of the comments, we do not find, on a generic basis, that a requirement to have an energy schedule to participate in the ancillary service markets is necessarily an unreasonable requirement for the participation of electric storage resources in those markets because such a requirement may be necessary to support economically efficient dispatch within a particular RTO/ISO market.
120. However, we agree with commenters that some fast-responding electric storage resources are technically capable of providing ancillary services without an energy schedule. We also acknowledge that some RTO/ISO market rules already allow resources to provide some ancillary services, namely regulation, without the requirement to participate in the energy market. Such opportunities for participation in certain ancillary service markets without an energy schedule suggest that there may be instances (
121. In the NOPR, the Commission noted that it appears that some of the Glossary of Terms definitions used in NERC reliability standards were created for synchronous generation.
122. Several commenters argue that the NERC reliability standards and regional reliability requirements do not present a barrier to electric storage resources participating in wholesale electric markets.
123. Other commenters contend that it may be appropriate to revise the NERC Glossary of Terms to ensure that the definitions reflect the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources and other non-synchronous technologies.
124. Tesla/SolarCity suggest that (1) NERC should modify the definitions of ancillary services in its Glossary of Terms to eliminate any apparent requirement that ancillary service providers must be “generation” or “synchronized;” (2) in its compliance filing, each RTO/ISO should identify any reliability standards that prevent it from making Commission-directed tariff changes to accommodate electric storage resource participation; and (3) the Commission should make clear in the final rule that reliability standards that were developed for or favor conventional generators without technical justification must be changed to allow the participation of all resources unless there are technical limitations.
125. EPRI discusses the following potential revision to the NERC Glossary of Terms. While EPRI notes that the NERC definition of Operating Reserve-Spinning includes the phrase “generation synchronized to the system,” according to EPRI, resources providing spinning/synchronized reserves do not necessarily need to be synchronous resources but rather must be able to respond as soon as they are directed to do so. EPRI states that it would be useful to discuss this clarification with NERC and industry. SPP also notes that a spinning reserve
126. Upon consideration of the comments, we find that the Commission-approved NERC reliability standards, the associated Glossary of Terms, and regional reliability standards do not create barriers to the participation of electric storage resources or other non-synchronous technologies in the RTO/ISO markets. We find persuasive NERC's argument that its reliability standards are technology neutral and provide electric storage resources with flexibility to meet their performance-based requirements. Moreover, no commenter has demonstrated that the NERC Glossary of Terms and associated reliability standards or regional reliability requirements preclude electric storage resources or other non-synchronous technologies from providing the services that they are technically capable of providing in the RTO/ISO markets.
127. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to ensure that electric storage resources can be dispatched and can set the wholesale market clearing price as both a wholesale seller and wholesale buyer, consistent with existing rules that govern when a resource can set the wholesale price.
128. Finally, the Commission sought comment on whether any existing RTO/ISO rules may unnecessarily limit the ability of resources using the participation model for electric storage resources to set prices in the RTO/ISO markets.
129. Numerous commenters agree with the Commission's proposal to require each RTO/ISO to permit electric storage resources to be able to be dispatched as both supply and demand and to set wholesale market clearing prices as both a wholesale seller and wholesale buyer.
130. Tesla/SolarCity add that, as more variable energy resources come online, the value of having dispatchable loads capable of setting market prices will become greater and this feature of the market will become increasingly valuable.
131. Several RTOs/ISOs, including CAISO, ISO-NE, NYISO, and SPP, also express general support for the Commission's proposals.
132. MISO Transmission Owners caution that state laws may affect an electric storage resource's status as a seller or buyer, arguing that states and distribution utilities should retain authority to manage this aspect of electric storage resources in their areas.
133. While Open Access Technology conditionally supports the NOPR proposal, it requests that the Commission clarify whether a storage resource in charging mode is considered as negative demand response (
134. Several commenters state that electric storage resources should have the same ability as other resources to self-schedule within the requirements of the RTO/ISO and participate in the
135. Dominion asserts that, in order to improve price transparency, the Commission should consider allowing a pumped-hydro resource to submit its dispatch cost to the RTO while preserving its right to self-schedule in the real-time market.
136. Some commenters support the Commission's proposal that an electric storage resource must be available to the RTO/ISO as a dispatchable resource to set prices in the RTO/ISO markets.
137. SPP states that, while any resource type may set the price for any product that the resource is qualified to provide and offers to provide in the market, the resource must be dispatchable and must have available range to provide the system's marginal MW.
138. Generally, the RTOs/ISOs do not believe that their rules limit the ability of an electric storage resource to set prices.
139. SoCal Edison and Xcel Energy Services state that they are not aware of any RTO/ISO rules that would unnecessarily limit the ability of storage resources to set market prices, except in some cases where RTO market software does not allow a resource at minimum output to set price.
140. Some commenters argue that electric storage resources should be allowed to set prices if they meet certain requirements, including the minimum requirements for each service.
141. AES Companies assert that the individual RTOs/ISOs and their stakeholders should decide whether and how electric storage resources may set prices in the capacity markets because the capacity constructs in each differ.
142. In this Final Rule, we adopt the NOPR proposal and add section 35.28(g)(9)(i)(B) to the Commission's regulations to require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to ensure that a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources can be dispatched as supply and demand and can set the wholesale market clearing price as both a wholesale seller and wholesale buyer, consistent with rules that govern the conditions under which a resource can set the wholesale price. Consistent with the NOPR proposal, we find that, for a resource using the proposed participation model for electric storage resources to be able to set prices in the RTO/ISO markets as either a wholesale seller or a wholesale buyer, it must be available to the RTO/ISO as a dispatchable resource. Also, consistent with the NOPR, we require that (1) resources using the participation model for electric storage resources be able to set the price in the capacity markets, where applicable; (2) RTOs/ISOs must accept wholesale bids from resources using the participation model for electric storage resources to buy energy; and (3) resources using the
143. Improving electric storage resources' opportunity to participate as both wholesale sellers of services and wholesale buyers of energy will improve market efficiency and, in turn, competition, by allowing the RTO/ISO to dispatch these resources in accordance with their most economically efficient use (
144. We reject AES Companies' assertion that an RTO/ISO must decide whether to allow electric storage resources to be price takers. None of the RTOs/ISOs have indicated that this need exists. We also find that AES Companies have not provided support for their assertion that the decision to self-schedule may have unintended consequences and could skew market results. To ensure consistent treatment in the RTO/ISO markets, we find that electric storage resources must maintain the same ability to self-schedule their resource as other market participants.
145. In response to EEI's, MISO Transmission Owners', and Xcel Energy Services' jurisdictional concerns, we find that the Commission has authority to require the RTOs/ISOs to permit any resource using the participation model for electric storage resources participating in the RTO/ISO markets to buy energy from those markets, consistent with the rules related to wholesale purchasers of energy in each RTO/ISO. As discussed in the Price for Charging Energy section below,
146. We disagree with SPP that there is a need to clarify in this Final Rule the effects on scarcity pricing when an electric storage resource moves its capacity instantly from charging to discharging. Scarcity pricing rules vary between RTOs/ISOs and we do not have information on the record to consider a generic clarification for all RTOs/ISOs, nor do we find clarification is necessary to ensure that the reforms in this Final Rule are just and reasonable and can be implemented. In response to Avangrid, we find that it is not appropriate to require stricter penalties for electric storage resources during capacity emergencies. Avangrid has not shown why electric storage resources should be subject to stricter penalties than other resources. While we are not establishing a requirement for resources using the participation model for electric storage resources to pay stricter penalties during capacity emergencies, we note that each RTO/ISO is free to evaluate the potential impacts of electric storage resources during scarcity events and propose in a separate FPA section 205 filing
147. We also reject MISO's recommendation to study in more detail the basic participation model(s) for electric storage resources before identifying any necessary adjustments to an RTO/ISO market's price-setting rules. We believe that the flexibility that we provide each RTO/ISO to implement this Final Rule renders moot MISO's assertion that more study is necessary.
148. In response to Energy Storage Association's recommendation that the option to self-schedule should apply to electric storage resources both as buyers and as sellers, we clarify that the ability of electric storage resources to participate as price takers will not be limited to their participation as load. Electric storage resources should also be able to self-schedule when they participate in the RTO/ISO markets as a supply resource consistent with rules governing how other resources self-schedule. This requirement helps to ensure that electric storage resources are treated consistently with the ability of self-scheduled load resources and traditional generation resources to participate in the RTO/ISO markets.
149. Additionally, in response to Dominion's concerns regarding the ability of electric storage resources to set prices in the energy market, particularly as it relates to pumped-hydro resources and the preservation of existing rules related to their optimization, we clarify that we are not requiring the RTOs/ISOs to change their participation models for pumped-hydro resources in response to this Final Rule. However, we require each RTO/ISO to establish means by which all electric storage resources, including pumped-hydro resources, can participate as wholesale sellers and wholesale buyers in the RTO/ISO markets using a participation model for electric storage resources. This requirement ensures that the RTO/ISO markets value the participation of all electric storage resources as both supply and demand.
150. Additionally, in response to Open Access Technology, we clarify that we do not consider electric storage resources in charging mode to be negative demand response. This Final Rule requires an electric storage resource to be eligible to participate in the RTO/ISO markets as a wholesale buyer and for each RTO/ISO to be able to dispatch them as such. Such a mechanism would entail participation in the energy markets, not the provision of a new service, recognizing that electric storage resources may also be dispatched to consume electricity when they are providing certain ancillary services (such as frequency regulation).
151. In the NOPR, the Commission preliminarily concluded that the proposed requirement to participate as a supply and demand resource simultaneously (
152. Regarding the issue of preventing conflicting dispatch signals, AES Companies, Efficient Holdings, and PJM Market Monitor agree with the Commission that a resource using the electric storage resource participation model would be able to prevent any conflicting dispatch signals itself through a bidding strategy and fuel management plan.
153. In contrast, Bonneville, Imperial Irrigation District, and NRG argue that the Commission should not rely on an electric storage resource's bidding strategy to prevent conflicting dispatch signals to itself and argue that a screening mechanism in RTO/ISO software would be a more robust approach than relying on rational bids and offers coming from the same resource.
154. Avangrid, Imperial Irrigation District, and SoCal Edison agree with the Commission that the RTOs/ISOs should not allow an electric storage resource to submit a buy bid that is higher than its sell offer in the same market interval because there is no economic reason to do so.
155. CAISO states that its Non-Generator Resource participation model, which was designed with electric storage resources in mind, allows Non-Generator Resources to submit an economic bid that spans a negative to positive capacity range.
156. SPP agrees that the coordination of a single asset as both load and generation is important, stating that both the mechanism utilized and the rules should ensure that the offers for use as load and generation would be monotonically increasing.
157. Consistent with the single bid curve approach suggested by some RTOs/ISOs, Energy Storage Association, and NextEra request that the Commission direct RTOs/ISOs to permit electric storage resources to enter an energy bid curve with price/quantity pairs for providing and withdrawing energy (bidding different quantities of positive or negative MW for different energy prices) in both day-ahead and real-time markets.
158. Ohio Commission recommends that the market monitors review all buy bids and sell offers to confirm that a resource is appropriately providing a marginal cost-based bid and not exercising market power.
159. Efficient Holdings, Energy Storage Association, and NYPA support requiring electric storage resources to participate simultaneously as generation and load to maximize the value they can provide and provide the RTO/ISO with more flexibility to operate its system.
160. While Energy Storage Association argues that electric storage resources should be permitted to participate in the RTO/ISO markets simultaneously as generation and load, it argues that they should not have to register as, or be modeled as, two separate resources (
161. In contrast, AES Companies argue that there is no reason to restrict an electric storage resource from both buying and selling in the same market interval because some electric storage technologies allow the resource owner to operate separate nodes independently.
162. While we find that simultaneous participation of resources using the participation model for electric storage resources as supply and demand may enable more efficient use of those resources, we also find that each RTO/ISO must have in place market rules that prevent conflicting dispatch signals in the same market interval in order to avoid any operational uncertainties or reliability concerns that could arise. In addition, while we agree with commenters that conflicting dispatch instructions will be prevented if market participants accurately represent their economic preferences in their bids, we find that relying on the expected behavior of market participants is not sufficient to alleviate the related operational concerns. Therefore, to mitigate the potential occurrence of conflicting dispatch instructions and to implement the new requirement in section 35.28(g)(9)(i)(B) of the Commission's regulations, on compliance to this Final Rule, we require each RTO/ISO to either (1) demonstrate that its market design will not allow for conflicting supply offers and demand bids from the same resource for the same market interval or (2) modify its market rules to prevent conflicting supply offers and demand bids from the same resource for the same market interval.
163. Several approaches could address conflicting dispatch. We agree with commenters that allowing electric storage resources to represent their full economic range (both charging and discharging) in a single bid could avoid concerns with conflicting dispatch signals and give electric storage resources the flexibility to participate as supply, demand, or both through one bid. However, while we agree this approach could be effective at mitigating conflicting dispatch signals, there may be other reasonable approaches compatible with existing market designs in other RTOs/ISOs to prevent conflicting dispatch. For example, we agree with Bonneville, Imperial Irrigation District, and NRG that a screening mechanism in RTO/ISO software could also prevent conflicting dispatch. We also agree with NYISO that a cost construct that ensures that the price of offers to sell are not lower than the price for bids to buy may be reasonable. Therefore, we will not require a specific approach in this Final Rule but require that the approach chosen by each RTO/ISO mitigates the possibility of conflicting dispatch instructions. However, we disagree with the Ohio Commission that it could be the responsibility of the market monitors to review bids to address conflicting dispatch and clarify that the RTO/ISO is responsible for preventing conflicting dispatch.
164. In response to the comment suggesting resources using the participation model for electric storage resources should be able to enter an energy bid curve providing and withdrawing energy in both day-ahead and real-time markets, we clarify that resources using the participation model for electric storage resources should be able to submit offers to sell and bids to buy energy consistent with the opportunities available to other market participants in both the day-ahead and real-time markets. We also find a technical conference, as recommended by EEI, is unnecessary at this time given the existence of viable solutions to this issue identified by other commenters and given the flexibility that we provide each RTO/ISO and other market participants to address this issue.
165. Lastly, we clarify that, while each RTO/ISO should allow resources using the participation model for electric storage resources to participate as supply and demand simultaneously (
166. In the NOPR, the Commission noted that a resource using the proposed participation model for electric storage resources that elects to submit an economic bid as a wholesale buyer and participate as a dispatchable demand resource would still be able to self-schedule its charging and be a price taker.
167. Several commenters support allowing make-whole payments when an electric storage resource is dispatched as load and the price of energy is higher than the resource's bid price.
168. Several commenters suggest that the Commission should not set specific requirements for make-whole payments in this final rule but should provide the RTOs/ISOs flexibility to establish rules for make-whole payments, if appropriate.
169. Several commenters raise concerns about the complexity of requiring make-whole payments.
170. Some commenters assert that make-whole payments are not necessary in certain circumstances.
171. Similar to how self-committed resources may not be able to receive make-whole payments for start-up costs, EPRI cautions that each RTO/ISO should consider whether certain costs should be eligible for make-whole payments when an electric storage resource self-manages its state-of-charge.
172. Other commenters believe that the Commission should not require the RTO/ISO to provide make-whole payments to electric storage resources because they should be able to self-manage in a way that eliminates the need for make-whole payments and achieves better price formation.
173. Given that PJM does not dispatch load increases, it explains that, before engaging in this practice, it would need to consult with stakeholders to analyze whether the benefits would justify the costs.
174. Given the unique capability of electric storage resources to serve as both a supply of, and demand for, energy and to implement the new requirement in section 35.28(g)(9)(i)(B) of the Commission's regulations that resources using the participation model for electric storage resources be able to be dispatched and set the wholesale market clearing price as both a wholesale seller and wholesale buyer, we find that the participation model for electric storage resources must allow make-whole payments when a resource is dispatched as load and the wholesale price is higher than the resource's bid price and when it is dispatched as supply and the wholesale price is lower than the resource's offer price. Therefore, as part of this Final Rule, we require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to ensure that resources available for manual dispatch as a wholesale buyer and wholesale seller under the participation model for electric storage resources are held harmless for manual dispatch by being eligible for make-whole payments. Any such make-whole payments must be consistent with the rules for make-whole payments for other dispatchable resources. This requirement is necessary to ensure that electric storage resources are treated like dispatchable resources that participate in the RTO/ISO markets. Because the rules for make-whole payments vary by RTO/ISO and there are inherent complexities in implementing this requirement, we will not require a specific method of make-whole payments. Instead, each RTO/ISO will have the flexibility to establish a methodology under which resources using the participation model for electric storage resources can receive make-whole payments.
175. Recognizing that comprehensive market design changes could be necessary to implement this requirement, we believe that the compliance deadline and implementation schedule set forth in the Compliance Requirements section
176. We disagree with commenters who suggest that make-whole payments are not necessary because electric storage resources should bear the risk of uneconomic dispatch. Modeling, software, and certain other limitations are inherent in the complexity of the electric system and the tools available to maintain reliable operations. Uplift, or make-whole, payments may be needed to ensure that resources committed and dispatched out-of-market are able to recover their operating costs. Electric storage resources participating in the RTO/ISO markets are subject to the same system conditions as other resources that may cause them to be dispatched out-of-market and unable to recover their operating costs. Therefore, resources using the electric storage resource participation model should be able to receive the same make-whole payments that other resources receive to remedy the problem. Not offering make-whole payments to resources using the electric storage resource participation model could create a barrier to their participation in the RTO/ISO markets and be inconsistent with the treatment of other market participants.
177. Additionally, while the NOPR did not propose a requirement regarding make-whole payments for resources using the participation model for electric storage resources that are manually dispatched as supply, we agree with commenters' concerns that, if a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources is available to be used by the RTO/ISO as both a supply and demand resource, then the RTO/ISO should provide make-whole payments for the resource in both directions. Therefore, we require each RTO/ISO to modify its tariff to allow a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources to be eligible for make-whole payments when acting as a supply resource consistent with the rules governing the eligibility of other supply resources to receive make-whole payments. This requirement will further ensure that resources using the participation model for electric storage resources are treated like other dispatchable resources in the RTO/ISO markets and help make resources using the participation model for electric storage resources available to grid operators to address any reliability concerns through manual dispatch. As for NYPA's suggestion to make electric storage resources whole when they are withheld from generating when their energy offer is infra-marginal, we find that such payments should only be provided to resources using the participation model for electric storage resources to the extent that such payments are already provided to other market participants.
178. Regarding state-of-charge management, we agree with commenters that, if the market participant is controlling its resource, and it has not been dispatched uneconomically by the RTO/ISO, then it would not be appropriate for the resource using the participation model for electric storage resources to receive make-whole payments. Similar to other market participants, make-whole payments should only be available to resources using the electric storage resource participation model if the system operator dispatches that resource in a way that is inconsistent with its bids to buy and offers to sell energy. We agree with commenters that self-management could be a means to minimize make-whole payments. As discussed in the State of Charge Management section,
179. In response to NYISO and PJM, we note that one of the requirements of this Final Rule is that each RTO/ISO have the ability to dispatch electric storage resources as load.
180. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to include a participation model for electric storage resources that incorporates bidding parameters that reflect and account for the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources.
181. Several commenters support the NOPR proposal to require each RTO/ISO to establish bidding parameters that reflect and account for the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources because they assert it will support efficient procurement of resources in the RTO/ISO markets and reduce system costs.
182. Other commenters support the NOPR proposal, subject to clarification.
183. Several commenters do not necessarily oppose the NOPR proposal that each RTO/ISO incorporate certain bidding parameters into its participation model for electric storage resources but request that the Commission grant each RTO/ISO flexibility on compliance with respect to the bidding parameters that it ultimately adopts.
184. APPA/NRECA also argue for flexibility, stating that the Commission should allow each RTO/ISO to demonstrate on compliance that the proposed minimum bidding requirements would harm the participation of electric storage resources in its markets and to propose a superior alternative.
185. Some commenters argue that certain of the physical and operational characteristics that the Commission proposed as bidding parameters in the NOPR are better represented through other means.
186. A few commenters oppose any requirement that each RTO/ISO incorporate bidding parameters into its participation model for electric storage resources.
187. In addition, DER/Storage Developers contend that bidding parameters should be flexible and differ for different services.
188. A few commenters opine on the ability of resources using the electric storage resource participation model to update their bidding parameters as those values change.
189. Upon consideration of the comments, we will modify the NOPR proposal in this Final Rule to provide greater flexibility for each RTO/ISO to demonstrate that its participation model for electric storage resources accounts for the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources. As the Commission stated in the NOPR, requiring each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to include a participation model for electric storage resources that incorporates bidding parameters that account for the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources will allow such resources to provide all of the services that they are technically capable of providing and allow the RTOs/ISOs to procure these services more efficiently.
190. We are persuaded, however, by commenters' arguments that there may be other means of accounting for the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources than bidding parameters. For example, some of the bidding parameters that the Commission proposed in the NOPR may account for physical characteristics that do not change over time, such that an electric storage resource could report that information when registering as a market participant in an RTO/ISO without updating that information continually through its bidding parameters. However, we note that it may only be possible to represent some of the physical and operational characteristics (such as a forecasted State of Charge) through bidding parameters. Furthermore, we agree with commenters that greater regional flexibility than the Commission proposed in the NOPR is appropriate; different RTOs/ISOs may be able to more effectively account for the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources through different mechanisms given their unique market designs.
191. Therefore, we add section 35.28(g)(9)(i)(C) to the Commission's regulations to require each RTO/ISO to have tariff provisions providing a participation model for electric storage resources that accounts for the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources through bidding parameters or other means. In its compliance filing, each RTO/ISO must demonstrate how its proposed or existing tariff provisions account for the specific physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources described below. We find that this requirement will improve the ability of electric storage resources to provide all of the services that they are technically capable of providing and allow the RTOs/ISOs to procure these services more efficiently, which will enhance competition and, in turn, help to ensure that the RTO/ISO markets produce just and reasonable rates.
192. Additionally, as discussed in further detail below, we will not require the RTOs/ISOs to make the submission of any information by the resource owner/operator mandatory. Instead, we provide flexibility to each RTO/ISO to determine whether it is mandatory for resources using the participation model for electric storage resources to submit information regarding their physical and operational characteristics, or whether resources using the participation model for electric storage resources should be allowed to submit such information at their discretion. This flexibility will allow each RTO/ISO to accept information from resources using the participation model for electric storage resources consistent with how it accepts information from other market participants. It also may help prevent resources using the participation model for electric storage resources from having to submit information that is not applicable given their physical, operational, or commercial circumstances.
193. With respect to commenters' request that the RTOs/ISOs should allow electric storage resources to update their bidding parameters, we find that, to the extent that an RTO/ISO adopts bidding parameters to account for the physical and operational characteristics set forth in this Final Rule, it must permit a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources to submit those bidding parameters in both the day-ahead and the real-time markets. To efficiently dispatch its system, an RTO/ISO must have accurate information about the physical and operational characteristics of the resources participating in its markets. Allowing a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources to provide updated information through any applicable bidding parameters, consistent with the opportunities that other market participants have to do so, will help to ensure that each RTO/ISO has the information necessary to efficiently dispatch its system, fully accounting for the physical and operational capabilities of the resources using the participation model for electric storage resources participating in its markets.
194. In the following subsections, we set forth the physical and operational characteristics for which each RTO's/ISO's participation model for electric storage resources must account, whether through bidding parameters or other means. We discuss these physical and operational characteristics in terms of the bidding parameters proposed in the NOPR, making clarifications as necessary. First, we discuss the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources associated with the bidding parameters that the Commission proposed a resource using an electric storage resource participation model must submit to the RTO/ISO, which were identified as the mandatory bidding parameters, including state of charge, upper and lower charge limits, and maximum charge and discharge rates. Second, we discuss the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources associated with the bidding parameters that the Commission proposed a resource using an electric storage resource participation model could submit to the RTO/ISO at the resource's discretion, which were identified as the optional bidding parameters, including maximum and minimum charge time and maximum and minimum run time. Finally, we address the physical and operational characteristics for which each RTO's/ISO's participation model for electric storage resources must account that are not associated with any bidding parameter proposed in the NOPR but instead were suggested by commenters and we believe are appropriate to adopt here.
195. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that each RTO/ISO establish the following bidding parameters for the participation model for electric storage resources that participating resources must submit, as applicable: State of charge, upper charge limit, lower charge limit, maximum energy charge rate, and maximum energy discharge rate.
196. The Commission received a number of comments on the NOPR proposal requiring each RTO/ISO to establish state of charge, upper and lower charge limit, and maximum
197. Several commenters support the proposed requirement that each RTO/ISO adopt a state-of-charge bidding parameter.
198. Other commenters argue that the Commission should modify the NOPR proposal so that a resource using the electric storage resource participation model is not required to submit information for the state-of-charge bidding parameter to the RTO/ISO, at least under certain circumstances.
199. While stating that it supports the NOPR proposal directing RTOs/ISOs to institute new electric storage resource-related bidding parameters, Energy Storage Association also explains that requiring electric storage resources that provide both retail and wholesale services to use the proposed bidding parameters could adversely affect their capability to provide retail service.
200. Pacific Gas & Electric supports the inclusion of a bidding parameter that a resource using the electric storage resource participation model can use in the day-ahead markets to indicate its state of charge at the beginning of the operating day.
201. ISO-NE opposes the NOPR proposal for a State of Charge bidding parameter and argues that it is a misnomer to characterize state of charge as a bidding parameter because it is a physical characteristic that constantly changes in real time.
202. AES Companies explain that, for certain electric storage technologies, dispatching the resource based on a state-of-charge or upper or lower charge limit bidding parameter could lead to its under-utilization.
203. Research Scientists explain that, to make use of the full flexibility of electric storage resources, a fixed state-of-charge target may not be ideal because it limits the dispatch flexibility in real-time operations.
204. In addition, a few commenters, including those that support the NOPR proposal, take issue with the Commission's statement that the state-of-charge bidding parameter will allow resources using the participation model for electric storage resources to identify their forecasted state of charge at the end of a market interval.
205. Energy Storage Association clarifies that CAISO's tariff allows electric storage resources to submit a forecasted starting state-of-charge value
206. Finally, several commenters opine on the Commission's statement in the NOPR that, when the RTO/ISO is managing the state of charge, it expects that the state of charge would be telemetered in real time.
207. In contrast, Energy Storage Association also contends that the Commission should require each RTO/ISO to institute a capability to continually monitor an electric storage resource's state of charge but should only perform such monitoring when an electric storage resource submits its state of charge as a bidding parameter.
208. ISO-NE, Massachusetts State Entities, and NESCOE support the proposed requirement that each RTO/ISO establish upper charge limit and lower charge limit as bidding parameters for resources using the electric storage resource participation model.
209. Several commenters support the proposed requirement that each RTO/ISO establish maximum energy charge rate and maximum energy discharge rate as bidding parameters for the participation model for electric storage resources.
210. Finally, EPRI requests clarification of the Commission's definitions for maximum energy charge and discharge rate.
211. To implement the new requirement in section 35.28(g)(9)(i)(C) of the Commission's regulations, in this Final Rule, we adopt the NOPR proposal, with the modifications discussed below, to require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to include a participation model for electric storage resources that accounts for the following physical and operational characteristics of such resources: State of Charge, Minimum State of Charge, Maximum State of Charge, Minimum Charge Limit and Maximum Charge Limit. As discussed above in the Requirement to Incorporate Bidding Parameters as Part of the Electric Storage Resource Participation Model section,
212. Upon consideration of the comments, however, we will modify the proposed requirement that a resource using an RTO's/ISO's participation model for electric storage resources must submit information concerning these physical and operational characteristics to the RTO/ISO. As commenters state, not all of these physical and operational characteristics are applicable to all electric storage resources, particularly when a resource is managing its own state of charge and when the resource is providing multiple services. We agree that the physical and operational characteristics adopted in this Final Rule may need to acknowledge commercial obligations in addition to physical and operational limitations. Thus, we find that an RTO/ISO should have flexibility in how a resource using a participation model for electric storage resources will be allowed to represent its physical, operational, and commercial circumstances. This flexibility will
213. In addition, we clarify the meaning of these proposed physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources, as commenters request. First, we clarify that State of Charge represents the amount of energy stored in proportion to the limit on the amount of energy that can be stored, typically expressed as a percentage. Moreover, we agree with EPRI and other commenters that the State of Charge as a bidding parameter is the level of energy that an electric storage resource is anticipated to have available at the
214. Additionally, while the NOPR indicated the Commission's expectation that the state of charge of a resource using the electric storage resource participation model would be telemetered in real time when the RTO/ISO manages that resource's state of charge, as discussed further below, we provide each RTO/ISO the flexibility to propose telemetry requirements for such resources in their compliance filings. This flexibility will allow the RTOs/ISOs to implement the requirements of this Final Rule consistent with the telemetry requirements for different services and other market participants in each RTO/ISO. For example, telemetry may be necessary if an electric storage resource is participating exclusively in the frequency regulation market but less important if that resource is providing capacity or energy to the RTOs/ISOs.
215. Second, we clarify that the upper and lower charge limits discussed in the NOPR represent the minimum and maximum state of charge of an electric storage resource. Because they are state of charge values, we will refer to these values in this Final Rule as the Maximum and Minimum State of Charge. More specifically, the Maximum State of Charge represents the state of charge that should not be exceeded (
216. Finally, we clarify that the maximum charge and discharge rates discussed in the NOPR represent the operating limits of an electric storage resource. As such, we refer to them in this Final Rule as Maximum Charge Limit and Maximum Discharge Limit. Specifically, we clarify that the Maximum Charge Limit for a resource using the electric storage resource participation model is the maximum MW quantity of electric energy that it can receive from the grid, and the Maximum Discharge Limit is the maximum MW quantity that the resource can inject onto the grid. The Maximum Discharge Limit is analogous to, and could potentially be represented by, the economic maximum that traditional generation resources can generally submit with their offers. Having both a Maximum Charge Limit and Maximum Discharge Limit ensures that RTO/ISO modeling and dispatch can account for the capabilities of resources using the participation model for electric storage resources to both receive and inject electric energy in accordance with their maximum physical capabilities in both directions.
217. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require that each RTO/ISO include in its participation model for electric storage resources the following bidding parameters that market participants may submit, at their discretion, for their resource based on its physical constraints or desired operation: minimum charge time, maximum charge time, minimum run time, and maximum run time.
218. Energy Storage Association, NESCOE, Open Access Technology, and SPP support the NOPR proposal.
219. CAISO and ISO-NE oppose the NOPR proposal.
220. To implement the new requirement in section 35.28(g)(9)(i)(C) of the Commission's regulations, in this Final Rule, we modify the NOPR proposal, with the clarification provided below, to require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to include a participation model for electric storage resources that accounts for the following physical and operational characteristics of such resources: Minimum Charge Time, Maximum Charge Time, Minimum Run Time, and Maximum Run Time. As discussed above in the Requirement to Incorporate Bidding Parameters as Part of the Electric Storage Resource Participation Model section,
221. We find that it is necessary for a resource using an RTO's/ISO's participation model for electric storage resources to be able to provide information concerning these physical and operational characteristics to the RTO/ISO because, like traditional generation resources, it may only be economic for the resource to operate if it is guaranteed to do so for minimum amount of time. Additionally, unlike traditional generation resources, it is physically impossible for an electric storage resource to charge or discharge energy for longer than their state of charge would allow.
222. However, we clarify the NOPR proposal, further explaining the meaning of these physical and operational characteristics. First, we clarify that Minimum Charge Time represents the shortest duration that a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources is able to be dispatched by the RTO/ISO to receive electric energy from the grid. For example, it may only be possible for resources with slower transition speeds (such as pumped-hydro resources) to receive electric energy from the grid if it can do so for some minimum period of time (
223. We further clarify that Maximum Charge Time represents the maximum duration that a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources is able to be dispatched by the RTO/ISO to receive electric energy from the grid (
224. Finally, we clarify that Minimum Run Time and Maximum Run Time are the minimum and maximum amounts of time that a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources is able to discharge electric energy. Maximum Run Time reflects the maximum amount of time that a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources is able to inject electric energy to the grid due to physical or operational constraints, such as its state of charge or potential obligations to provide other services. Similarly, Minimum Run Time allows the resource to identify the minimum amount of time the resource is physically able to discharge electric energy onto the grid. Minimum Run Time already exists in the RTOs/ISOs to prevent excessive wear and tear on traditional generation resources due to starting and stopping a resource too frequently and to ensure they are able to recover the costs of starting. To the extent that an RTO/ISO already accounts for this characteristic of the participation model for electric storage resources through its existing bidding parameters or other means, it must demonstrate in its compliance filing how its existing market rules do so.
225. In addition to the bidding parameters that the Commission proposed in the NOPR, a number of commenters identify physical and operational characteristics that they argue the Commission should also require each RTO/ISO to incorporate into its participation model for electric storage resources.
226. Several commenters support the concept of a bidding parameter(s) that reflects the time that an electric storage resource needs to transition from charging to discharging and from discharging to charging. NYPA asserts that an electric storage resource may also need a bidding parameter that reflects any ramp rate for those transitions. Relatedly, EPRI explains that energy storage resources that cannot transition from charging to discharging (and vice versa) instantaneously may require minimum charge level as a bidding parameter. EPRI further explains that software models may also require that the values for maximum energy charge and discharge rates (ramp rates) bidding parameters to be the same for these resources.
227. Some commenters propose bidding parameters to reflect any limits on an electric storage resource's
228. Other commenters propose various additional bidding parameters, including charge and discharge price, maximum consumption for dispatch asset-related demand, minimum time between discharge cycles for demand response resources,
229. Upon consideration of the comments, and to implement the new requirement in section 35.28(g)(9)(i)(C) of the Commission's regulations, we require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to incorporate a participation model for electric storage resources that accounts for the following physical and operational characteristics that were not proposed in the NOPR: Minimum Discharge Limit, Minimum Charge Limit, Discharge Ramp Rate, and Charge Ramp Rate. Each RTO's/ISO's participation model for electric storage resources must account for these physical and operational characteristics, whether through bidding parameters or other means. Consistent with the discussion above, we provide flexibility to each RTO/ISO to determine, consistent with how it treats other resources, whether it is mandatory for resources using the participation model for electric storage resources to submit information regarding these physical and operational characteristics, or whether resources using the participation model for electric storage resources should be allowed to submit this information at their discretion. To the extent that an RTO/ISO proposes to comply with this requirement through its existing bidding parameters or other existing market mechanisms, it must demonstrate in its compliance filing how its existing market rules account for these characteristics of electric storage resources.
230. We find that requiring each RTO's/ISO's electric storage resource participation model to account for these physical and operational characteristics is necessary to improve the ability of electric storage resources to provide all of the services that they are technically capable of providing and to allow the RTOs/ISOs to procure these services more efficiently, which will enhance competition and, in turn, help to ensure that the RTO/ISO markets produce just and reasonable rates.
231. First, we are persuaded by EPRI's suggestion that some electric storage resources may need to identify their minimum operating limits when they are charging or discharging. Specifically, an electric storage resource may need to identify its Minimum Discharge Limit, which represents the minimum MW output level that the resource can inject onto the grid, and its Minimum Charge Limit, which represents the minimum MW level that the resource can receive from the grid.
232. Like traditional generation resources, some electric storage resources may not be able to inject energy onto the grid below a minimum MW output level due to the physical capabilities of individual turbines or the power electronic of the system. Also like traditional generators, we find that resources using the participation model for electric storage resources should be able to represent such a minimum value in the RTO/ISO markets. Because electric storage resources are also able to receive electric energy from the grid, there may be a Minimum Charge Limit in MWs that they are able to receive from the grid as well due to similar physical constraints of the resource or its power electronics.
233. Therefore, while the Commission did not propose in the NOPR to require each RTO's/ISO's electric storage resource participation model to account for the Minimum Charge Limit or Minimum Discharge Limit of a resource using the electric storage resource participation model, in this Final Rule, we require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to account for these physical characteristics as part of its participation model for electric storage resources.
234. In addition, we agree with EPRI that the speed at which electric storage resources can move from zero output to full output, or its Maximum Discharge Limit, is the same as the current ramp rates provided by traditional generation resources. However, we find that it is important to ensure that electric storage resources are able to represent this physical characteristic consistent with how other market participants are able to do so. Therefore, for purposes of this Final Rule, we refer to this parameter as the Discharge Ramp Rate and require each RTO/ISO to account for this physical characteristic in its participation model for electric storage resources by either making existing ramp rate parameters available to resources using the participation model for electric storage resources or by other means. The unique consideration for electric storage resources is their ability to both charge and discharge energy and to transition from one operational state to the other. Therefore, in addition to a Discharge Ramp Rate, we require each RTO/ISO to account for a Charge Ramp Rate in its participation models for electric storage resources. The Charge Ramp Rate represents the speed at which an electric storage resource can move from zero output to fully charging, or the resource's Maximum Charge Limit. While electric storage resources are often designed to charge and discharge at the same speeds, that is not always the case, and there may be other physical or operational reasons that resources using the participation model for electric storage resources need to differentiate their Charge Ramp Rate from the Discharge Ramp Rate. Therefore, in this Final Rule, we require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to account for these characteristics as part of its participation model for electric storage resources.
235. We do not find it necessary to require each RTO/ISO to account for the other physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources that commenters suggest in its participation model for electric storage
236. For ease of reference, the following chart summarizes the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources for which each RTO's/ISO's participation model for electric storage resources must account:
237. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require each RTO/ISO to allow electric storage resources to self-manage their state of charge and upper and lower charge limits.
238. Numerous commenters support the NOPR proposal to require each RTO/ISO to allow electric storage resources to self-manage their state of charge and upper and lower charge limits.
239. Several commenters, however, urge the Commission to go farther than the NOPR proposal, stating that an electric storage resource should always, or almost always, be responsible for managing its own state of charge. Most RTOs/ISOs, PJM Market Monitor, and Xcel Energy Services argue that the RTO/ISO should not be responsible for managing an electric storage resource's
240. Other commenters argue that, to the extent the Commission permits an RTO/ISO to manage an electric storage resource's state of charge, that RTO/ISO should be required to meet certain conditions.
241. Imperial Irrigation District asserts that the RTO/ISO should manage an electric storage resource's state of charge only if the resource owner agrees.
242. Other commenters suggest that there are certain circumstances when RTO/ISO state of charge management is beneficial and that each RTO/ISO should be permitted to manage an electric storage resource's state of charge in certain circumstances.
243. EPRI states that it may be appropriate for the RTO/ISO to manage a storage resource's state of charge to ensure that sufficient regulating capability is available from the resource, noting that this has already occurred in some RTOs/ISOs. EPRI adds that RTO/ISO management of state of charge could lead to more efficient and more reliable operations and better mitigation of day-ahead forecast uncertainty because the RTO/ISO has better knowledge of system conditions. Research Scientists argue that, while it may be technically challenging to achieve, in principle, the RTO/ISO is in the best position to manage energy storage scheduling and state of charge in order to minimize system costs.
244. EEI and Exelon assert that, if an electric storage resource is used to address reliability-related transmission needs or relieve congestion as a transmission asset, the RTO/ISO must have functional control over dispatch, including the timing and amount of energy that may be injected into or withdrawn from the transmission system and the amount of energy that must be made available for injection or withdrawal at the direction of the RTO/ISO to fulfill the resource's transmission function.
245. EEI and Xcel Energy Services suggest that, given the lack of clarity about the proposal for state of charge management, a technical conference may be warranted to better explain the state of charge management concept and better ascertain the issues that need to be evaluated in determining how state of charge should be managed.
246. Altametric and Bonneville assert that an RTO/ISO may need to directly manage the state of charge and upper and lower charge limits of electric storage resources during an abnormal
247. Some commenters argue that the Commission should require each RTO/ISO to offer state-of-charge management to electric storage resources.
248. To enable them to provide their full capabilities to the market in a continual manner, Energy Storage Association asks the Commission require each RTO/ISO to allow an electric storage resource to opt to have the RTO/ISO manage its state of charge.
249. Xcel Energy Services contends that issues associated with managing state of charge may impact opportunity costs included in offers and raise concerns regarding economic withholding of resources from the market and market monitors may need to develop new monitoring tools and exhibit flexibility in evaluating offer opportunity costs when evaluating behavior of storage resources in the market.
250. With respect to the Commission's statement in the NOPR that an electric storage resource that self-manages its state of charge is subject to any penalties for deviating from a dispatch schedule to the extent the resource manages its state of charge by doing so, several commenters agree that, if an electric storage resource self-manages its state of charge and does not perform when obligated to do so, the resource should incur non-performance penalties.
251. Upon consideration of the comments, we agree with commenters that resource owners/operators using the participation model for electric storage resources must be able to manage the state of charge of their resources. Consistent with the NOPR, we find that each RTO/ISO must permit electric storage resources to manage their state of charge because it allows these resources to optimize their operations to provide all of the wholesale services that they are technically capable of providing, similar to the operational flexibility that traditional generation resources have to manage the wholesale services that they offer. We find that, while the RTOs/ISOs may be in a better position to effectively manage the state of charge for a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources that, for example, exclusively provides frequency regulation service, some electric storage resources may be able to provide multiple services or services to another entity outside of the RTO/ISO markets.
252. We therefore agree with commenters that resources using the participation model for electric storage resources must have the ability to self-manage their state of charge and it is often desirable to allow them to do so. Providing this flexibility will allow resource owners/operators to ensure their own Minimum and Maximum States of Charge are not violated,
253. Therefore, we require each RTO/ISO to allow resources using the participation model for electric storage resources to self-manage their state of
254. Additionally, we clarify that the RTOs/ISOs are not required as part of this Final Rule to manage the state of charge for resources using the participation model for electric storage resources.
255. In response to the concerns about the ability of the RTOs/ISOs to use electric storage resources to address any reliability challenges and to know that the resources have an adequate state of charge to perform the service to which they have committed, we note that the RTO/ISO should be able to dispatch a resources using the participation model for electric storage resources in the same manner as any other market participant. Nothing in this Final Rule precludes an RTO/ISO from establishing telemetry or other communication requirements necessary to determine the capabilities of the electric storage resource in real time. We believe that this flexibility will ensure sufficient visibility of a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources to safeguard operational reliability and market integrity. We reiterate that self-managing electric storage resources, just like all market participants, are subject to any non-performance penalties in the RTO/ISO tariff, thus incentivizing them to ensure that they have sufficient energy available to meet their obligations.
256. As for commenters' concerns about economic and physical withholding, we agree that the energy limitations of electric storage resources will need to be factored into their market offers and that misrepresenting those limitations could constitute manipulation if an electric storage resource has an obligation to participate in an RTO/ISO market. However, as discussed in the Ability to De-Rate Capacity to Meet Minimum Run-Time Requirements section above, in this Final Rule, we require each RTO/ISO to demonstrate how its existing market rules provide a means for energy-limited resources, including electric storage resources, to provide capacity.
257. However, there may still be concerns that electric storage resources managing their own state of charge could be doing so inconsistent with the physical and operational characteristics of the resource, which may create a need to ensure those resources are not withholding services or otherwise violating its dispatch in a way inconsistent with its physical capabilities. Therefore, we note that, as with other resources, market monitors have the ability to review the bids from electric storage resources to detect economic or physical withholding. Additionally, if an RTO/ISO determines that additional rules are needed to ensure electric storage resources are not managing their state of charge in a way that could manipulate market outcomes through withholding, then the RTO/ISO could propose such rules in response to this Final Rule or through a separate FPA section 205 filing.
258. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to include a participation model for electric storage resources that establishes a minimum size requirement for participation in the RTO/ISO markets that does not exceed 100 kW.
259. Several commenters agree with the proposed 100 kW minimum size requirement for electric storage resources.
260. Energy Storage Association asserts that electric storage resources less than 1 MW in size can provide the same services and the same flexibility,
261. Other commenters support the concept of a minimum size requirement but have reservations about the 100 kW value that the Commission proposed in the NOPR.
262. Other commenters oppose the NOPR proposal.
263. ISO-NE argues that imposing a 100 kW minimum size requirement could force it to change the minimum size requirement for all resources in its markets due to its product-based market design. ISO-NE asks the Commission to permit ISO-NE to work with transmission organizations and utility distribution companies in the regions to set minimum size requirements. ISO-NE contends that it must assess whether such an outcome would increase the costs or time needed for implementation. ISO-NE asserts that the proposed 100 kW minimum size requirement might increase costs and the time needed for implementation for the region's transmission organizations and distribution utilities because smaller resources are more likely to be interconnected to the distribution system and these transmission organizations and distribution utilities would have to install metering and adopt accounting procedures to measure the consumption and output of these resources.
264. AES Companies, EEI, MISO Transmission Owners, Pacific Gas & Electric, and SoCal Edison argue that the Commission should allow each RTO/ISO to establish its own minimum size requirements for electric storage resources based on its unique circumstances.
265. AES Companies, EEI, MISO Transmission Owners, and Pacific Gas & Electric contend that the minimum size requirement for an electric storage resource to participate in an RTO/ISO market should take into account the point at which electric storage resources will interconnect to the system (
266. Alternatively, MISO Transmission Owners state that a one MW minimum size requirement is more practical and appropriate due to administrative and settlement burdens on the RTOs/ISOs, while a 500 kW minimum size requirement may be appropriate for supporting innovation in immature technologies and markets through pilot projects.
267. A few commenters raise the potential impact of the NOPR proposal on the software that RTOs/ISOs use to clear their markets.
268. MISO Transmission Owners claim that any new rule would effectively direct investment in software and/or infrastructure upgrades over other priorities that have been established based on customer need and that the Commission must balance prioritization of electric storage resource participation against other important system improvements and maintenance.
269. Finally, Open Access Technology recommends that the Commission clarify the minimum size of a price-quantity pair that an electric storage resource can include in its offer because RTO/ISO market rules generally allow for an offer curve that consists of up to ten price-quantity pairs (
270. In this Final Rule, we adopt the NOPR proposal and add section 35.28(g)(9)(i)(D) to the Commission's regulations to require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to include a participation model for electric storage resources that establishes a minimum size requirement for participation in the RTO/ISO markets that does not exceed 100 kW. This minimum size requirement includes all minimum capacity requirements, minimum offer to sell requirements, and minimum bid to buy requirements for resources participating in these markets under the participation model for electric storage resources.
271. Electric storage resources are generally smaller than traditional generation resources and are often in the 100 kW to 1 MW range.
272. While some commenters argue that RTO/ISO modeling and dispatch software may be unable to accommodate a large number of smaller resources, the record shows that all RTOs/ISOs are already accommodating the participation of smaller resources in their markets. For example, the record shows that all RTOs/ISOs already have the modeling and dispatch software capabilities to accommodate the participation of resources that are as small as 100 kW. Specifically, both PJM and SPP have a minimum size requirement of 100 kW for all resources, and all of the RTOs/ISOs have at least one participation model that allows resources as small as 100 kW to participate in their markets.
273. Further, we are not persuaded by commenters who argue that different minimum size requirements may be needed based on the service being provided, the location and concentration of electric storage resources, or where the electric storage resources are interconnected. Commenters have failed to demonstrate how minimum size requirements should be varied based on the manner in which electric storage resources are operated or based on the location of these resources. Additionally, in response to
274. Moreover, in response to concerns about potential impacts on the distribution systems and related costs, we note that numerous 100 kW minimum size requirements already exist, and there are resources located on the distribution system that are already participating in the RTO/ISO markets. Establishing a standard minimum size requirement for resources using the participation model for electric storage resources may potentially result in more resources on the distribution systems participating in the RTO/ISO markets. However, it does not change the responsibilities of the RTOs/ISOs or the distribution utilities, and it does not change the ability of distribution utilities to allocate any costs that they incur in operating and maintaining their respective power systems.
275. With respect to CAISO's and MISO's concern that they may need to upgrade their software to manage the potentially large number of resources using the participation model for electric storage resources under the proposed minimum size requirement, as discussed in the Compliance Requirements section,
276. In response to Open Access Technology's request for clarification of the number of allowed price-quantity bid segments for a 100 kW resource using the participation model for electric storage resources, we reiterate our requirement that the minimum size requirement applies to all minimum capacity requirements, minimum offer to sell requirements, and minimum bid to buy requirements. We note that, under this requirement, an RTO/ISO could allow offer and/or bid quantities smaller than 100 kW, as CAISO indicates it does.
277. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that it has found that the sale of energy from the grid that is used to charge electric storage resources for later resale into the energy or ancillary service markets constitutes a sale for resale in interstate commerce.
278. Many commenters support the NOPR proposal that the sale of energy from the RTO/ISO markets to an electric storage resource that the resource then resells back to those markets must be at the wholesale LMP.
279. A few commenters support the NOPR proposal in principle but condition their support.
280. Other commenters assert that certain electric storage resources should not be permitted to purchase charging energy at LMP unless they meet certain
281. Similarly, Xcel Energy Services goes farther, contending that, given the practical impossibility of determining what charging energy will be used to provide wholesale services and what charging energy will be used to provide retail services, the default rate for distributed electric storage resources should be the retail rate.
282. APPA/NRECA, FirstLight, and TAPS argue that, instead of requiring RTOs/ISOs and distribution utilities to develop and administer elaborate metering and accounting schemes, which some argue may not be possible, storage resources must elect to participate in either wholesale or retail markets, but not in both.
283. Some commenters ask the Commission to clarify that the Commission's regulations will not require an electric storage resource that is participating in an RTO/ISO market to pay the wholesale LMP for the charging energy that it uses to provide wholesale services.
284. While Stem contends that all charging energy that an electric storage resource located in front of a retail meter is a sale for resale, it asserts that the only charging energy for a behind-the-meter electric storage resource that is a sale for resale is charging energy that it used to net inject energy back onto the grid.
285. In contrast, APPA/NRECA ask that the Commission require that electric storage resources pay wholesale LMP for all charging energy used to provide wholesale services.
286. Several commenters raise jurisdictional concerns with respect to the application of the NOPR proposal's requirement that the sale of energy from the RTO/ISO markets to an electric storage resource that the resource then resells back to those markets must be at the wholesale LMP to electric storage resources interconnected to the distribution system or located behind a retail customer's meter. Specifically, commenters argue that applying the NOPR proposal to such resources raises issues related to regulatory oversight and may interfere with the exclusive right of state regulators to set retail rates and terms of service.
287. MISO Transmission Owners further contend that electric storage resources located behind the meter should pay any retail rate applicable to them under state law for charging energy.
288. Microgrid Resources Coalition believes that LMP rates are the more economically efficient result for charging behind-the-meter resources but agrees that “retail rates are legally appropriate.”
289. Several commenters address specific components of gross load for electric storage resources.
290. Other commenters disagree that electric storage resources should pay wholesale LMP for these energy uses.
291. Several commenters are concerned about the NOPR proposal's potential financial impacts on distribution utilities.
292. As a separate issue, Energy Storage Association and NextEra suggest that energy stored for re-delivery to the grid should not be subject to the transmission charges that apply to load.
293. In contrast, Open Access Technology argues that, if the NOPR assumes that both consumption (when charging) and generation (when discharging) from an electric storage resource are measured at the wholesale pricing node upstream of the physical location of the storage resource in the distribution feeder, then the Commission should make this assumption explicit given the effect of distribution system losses on these measurements.
294. In this Final Rule, we adopt the NOPR proposal and add section 35.28(g)(9)(ii) to the Commission's regulations to require that the sale of electric energy from the RTO/ISO markets to an electric storage resource that the resource then resells back to those markets be at the wholesale LMP. The Commission is modifying this provision to apply regardless of whether the electric storage resource is using the participation model for electric storage resources or another participation model to participate in the RTO/ISO markets, as long as the resource meets the definition of an electric storage resource set forth in this Final Rule. The Commission has found that the sale of energy from the grid that is used to charge electric storage resources for later resale into the energy or ancillary service markets constitutes a sale for resale in interstate commerce.
295. In response to Alevo's concerns that the requirement may not be appropriate for electric storage resources that are participating in ancillary service markets, we reiterate that the sale of electric energy from the grid that is used to charge an electric storage resource for later resale into ancillary service markets constitutes a sale for resale in interstate commerce and therefore the just and reasonable rate is the wholesale LMP. Electric storage resources that are participating in RTO/ISO frequency regulation markets are already settled at wholesale LMP for their net energy at the end of a market interval, consistent with our requirements for charging energy here.
296. Additionally, in response to NRG's concern, we clarify that an electric storage resource's wholesale energy purchases should take place at the applicable nodal LMP, and not the zonal price. Using the applicable nodal LMP will prevent any potential arbitrage between nodal and zonal prices and allows for consistent evaluation of a resource's impacts on the energy, congestion, and loss components of LMP when it is both receiving and injecting energy.
297. We disagree with Energy Storage Association and NextEra that transmission charges that apply to load should not apply to electric storage resources. When an electric storage resource is charging to resell energy at a later time, then its behavior is similar to other load-serving entities, and we find that applicable transmission charges should apply. However, it may be possible for different transmission charges to apply to load resources located at a single node (such as pumped-hydro resources) that are paying a nodal price for energy and load resources that are located across multiple nodes (such as load-serving entities) that are paying a zonal price for energy. Therefore, to the extent that load resources located at a single node pay different transmission charges than load resources located across multiple nodes, then we require each RTO/ISO to apply those transmission charges for single-node resources to electric storage resources that are located at a single pricing node, as long as, as discussed in the next paragraph, they are not being dispatched to provide an ancillary service by an RTO/ISO.
298. In response to the concern that transmission charges should not apply when an electric storage resources is dispatched by an RTO/ISO, we find that electric storage resources that are dispatched to consume electricity to provide a service in the RTO/ISO markets (such as frequency regulation or a downward ramping service) should not pay the same transmission charges as load during the provision of that service. We find that this would be consistent with the treatment afforded traditional generation resources that provide ancillary services, because they are not charged for their impacts on the transmission system when they reduce their output to provide a service such as frequency regulation down. Therefore, we find that electric storage resources should not be charged transmission charges when they are dispatched by an RTO/ISO to provide a service because (1) their physical impacts on the bulk power system are comparable to traditional generators providing the same service and (2) assessing transmission charges when they are dispatched to provide a service would create a disincentive for them to provide the service.
299. In response to concerns about an electric storage resources being compelled to purchase all of its energy for future use from the RTO/ISO markets, we clarify that we impose no such requirement. Our finding regarding charging energy does not address payment of the retail rate for energy or charging a device off of co-located generation resources, as suggested by commenters. Also, while this finding requires each RTO/ISO to allow electric storage resources to be able to pay the wholesale LMP for their charging energy, it does not address whether they can pay some other rate, such as a retail rate or charging off of co-located generation. Finally, like other market participants that purchase energy from the RTO/ISO markets, an electric storage resource that pays the wholesale LMP for charging energy may enter into bilateral financial transactions to hedge the purchase of that energy.
300. We disagree with commenters who argue that the requirement to pay LMP for charging energy should only apply to electric storage resources that are interconnected to the transmission system. As discussed above, this Final Rule applies to electric storage resources that are capable of receiving electric energy from the grid and storing it for later injection of electric energy back to the grid, irrespective of where the resource is interconnected. The sale of charging energy to an electric storage resource that the resource then resells into the RTO/ISO markets is a sale for resale in interstate commerce and thus subject to the Commission's jurisdiction.
301. With respect to concerns about electric storage resources' use of the distribution system, we note that, in
302. With respect to efficiency losses, consistent with
303. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comment on whether metering and accounting practices designed to delineate between wholesale and retail activities would need to be established in the RTO/ISO tariffs to facilitate compliance with the proposed requirement that the sale of energy from the RTO/ISO markets to an electric storage resource that the resource then resells back to those markets must be at the wholesale LMP or whether it is possible to determine the end use for energy used to charge an electric storage resource under existing requirements.
304. As discussed above, commenters agree that electric storage resources providing retail services should not charge at the wholesale rate and discharge to serve a retail customer,
305. Some commenters encourage the Commission to provide flexibility to the RTOs/ISOs with respect to metering and accounting practices to distinguish wholesale and retail activities.
306. Minnesota Energy Storage Alliance contends that the Commission should not adopt explicit metering arrangements but instead should set forth requirements that metering solutions must meet to adequately delineate between wholesale and retail activities and allow the industry to develop those solutions at the lowest cost possible.
307. Many commenters are concerned, however, that requiring the establishment of metering and accounting practices designed to delineate between wholesale and retail activities raises jurisdictional issues.
308. PJM believes that it is important for the Commission, working with the states, to provide guidance in the final rule on issues including, but not limited to, the rate treatment for energy used to charge behind-the-meter electric storage resources and for front-of-the meter electric storage resources that occasionally serve retail load through a separate connection to a retail customer and the ability of RTOs/ISOs to develop requirements associated with metering, visibility, and dispatchability of distributed electric storage resources. With respect to the issue of how to account for the energy used to charge an electric storage resource that is located in front of the retail meter but occasionally provides retail services, PJM recommends that the RTO/ISO track what energy is used for retail services (
309. Massachusetts State Entities question whether the NOPR appropriately addresses states' concerns regarding the ability of behind-the-meter storage resources to charge at a wholesale rate and discharge to serve a retail customer to avoid paying a retail rate.
310. A few commenters emphasize the importance of distribution utilities to the successful implementation of any metering and accounting practices.
311. Some commenters are concerned that there may not be a feasible or practical way to delineate between wholesale and retail activities, especially when there are multiple devices and retail load behind the same meter.
312. Likewise, TAPS contends that for distribution-interconnected electric storage resources, even revenue-quality metering, might be insufficient to distinguish between the wholesale and retail activities of an electric storage resource behind the same meter as distributed generation and/or load.
313. SoCal Edison asserts that current net metering configurations and accounting practices cannot separate which generation is used by the customer and which is offered for wholesale use and that it is insufficient to have a policy that prevents mixing wholesale and retail with instruction to RTOs/ISOs to develop the provisions as necessary.
314. According to AES Companies, whether existing metering and accounting practices will allow an RTO/ISO to distinguish between wholesale and retail transactions depends on the RTO/ISO, the electric storage technology in question, and the state jurisdiction.
315. In contrast, several commenters suggest that metering and accounting practices can be developed to discern between wholesale and retail activities.
316. CAISO explains its existing metering and accounting practices can distinguish between wholesale and retail activities.
317. ISO-NE argues that the Commission should require individual customers or resources that are directly settled in the wholesale market either as a load or a generator (or both as in the case of electric storage resource) to directly install revenue-quality interval metering; otherwise, it will be unclear what energy the rest of the customers or resources in that meter domain (
318. ISO-NE contends that an alternative approach to direct metering is allowing a customer with an electric storage resource or other distributed energy resource to participate directly in the wholesale market and be charged or credited at wholesale prices for its entire net load as measured from its retail delivery point. ISO-NE argues that the advantage of this approach is that only one meter, located at the customer's delivery point, is needed to measure net consumption; no sub-metering would be required. However, ISO-NE notes that, if this approach resulted in greater participation of distributed electric storage resources, it could require advanced metering infrastructure and software to manage settlement.
319. Other commenters state that direct metering is necessary to allow an RTO/ISO to distinguish between wholesale and retail services.
320. Some commenters comment on technical aspects of developing metering and accounting practices to distinguish between wholesale and retail activities.
321. Duke Energy believes that the Commission should encourage RTOs/ISOs to develop measurement and verification requirements to examine a resource's performance against its scheduled output.
322. Upon consideration of the comments, and to help implement the new requirement in section 35.28(g)(9)(ii) of the Commission's regulations, we require each RTO/ISO to implement metering and accounting practices as needed to address the complexities of implementing the requirement that the sale of electric energy from the RTO/ISO markets to an electric storage resource that the resource then resells back to those markets be at the wholesale LMP. To help accomplish this, we require each RTO/ISO to directly meter electric storage resources, so all the energy entering and exiting the resources is measured by that meter. However, we recognize some electric storage resources (such as those located on a distribution system or behind a customer meter) may be subject to other metering requirements that could be used in lieu of a direct metering requirement by an RTO/ISO. Therefore, the Commission will consider, in the individual RTO/ISO compliance filings, alternative proposals that may not entail direct metering but nonetheless address the complexities of implementing the requirement that the sale of electric energy from the RTO/ISO markets to a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources that the resource then resells back to those markets be at the wholesale LMP.
323. We are not persuaded by commenters who argue that developing metering practices that distinguish between wholesale and retail activity is impractically complex. CAISO provides two examples of how it has achieved market rules that accurately account for wholesale and retail activities by using direct metering. Additionally, retail metering infrastructure, which is subject to state jurisdiction, may be able to work in concert with the RTO/ISO requirements to lower the overall metering costs for electric storage resources. Therefore, we provide each RTO/ISO with the flexibility to propose in its compliance filing other reasonable metering solutions that may help reduce costs for developers.
324. Developing new accounting practices for electric storage resources in response to this requirement will be complex, but we nonetheless find that they are feasible to develop. We recognize that it may be beneficial for each RTO/ISO to coordinate accounting requirements in cooperation with the distribution utilities and relevant electric retail regulatory authorities in its footprint to help identify workable accounting solutions for distribution-interconnected or behind-the-meter electric storage resources to participate in the RTO/ISO markets. While the data obtained from directly metering a resource may be adequate to establish the necessary accounting practices, there may also be other reasonable approaches to address these concerns depending on local retail regulatory requirements, such as allowing the customer to be a direct wholesale market participant as suggested by ISO-NE. We also find that metering and accounting rules may need to differ based on whether the resource is located on the transmission system, the distribution system, or behind the meter. These unique considerations underscore the need to provide the RTOs/ISOs flexibility to comply with this requirement.
325. We are not persuaded by APPA/NRECA's and TAPS' suggestion that electric storage resources must choose to participate in either wholesale or retail markets due to the complexity of the metering and accounting practices. It is possible for electric storage resources that are selling retail services also to be technically capable of providing wholesale services, and it would adversely affect competition in the RTO/ISO markets if these technically capable resources were excluded from participation.
326. With respect to Stem's concerns regarding double payment for the same charging energy, we find that resources using the participation model for electric storage resources should not be required to pay both the wholesale and retail price for the same charging energy because it would create market inefficiencies due to the double payment. Therefore, we require each RTO/ISO to prevent resources using the participation model for electric storage resources from paying twice for the same charging energy. To the extent that the host distribution utility is unable—due to a lack of the necessary metering infrastructure and accounting practices—or unwilling to net out any energy purchases associated with a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources' wholesale charging activities from the host customer's retail bill, the RTO/ISO would be prevented from charging that resource using the participation model for electric storage resources electric wholesale rates for the charging energy for which it is already paying retail rates.
327. We decline Stem's request to clarify that metering and accounting practices established by the RTO/ISO for behind-the-meter electric storage resources that inject energy onto the grid would be for the sole purpose of proper settlement of wholesale sale of energy to electric storage resources without implications for a host customer's retail bill. We also decline Stem's request that metering and accounting practices established by the RTOs/ISOs be for the sole purpose of proper settlement of wholesale sale of energy. We recognize that each RTO/ISO may need to coordinate these metering and accounting practices with the distribution utilities and relevant electric retail regulatory authorities. Therefore, we will not place limitations on the extent to which the hardware being used to collect information or the information itself can be shared as this may help reduce costs for the electric storage resources and burdens on RTOs/ISOs, distribution utilities, or relevant electric retail regulatory authorities.
328. With respect to Minnesota Energy Storage Alliance's request to modify the Uniform System of Accounts, we are not persuaded that it is necessary to address costs associated with charging energy used for retail-level services when those resources are also participating in the RTO/ISO markets. Account 555.1 Power Purchased for Storage Operations, which was created in Order No. 784,
329. Some commenters raise issues that were not addressed in the NOPR. Many raised issues with respect to compensation or cost recovery under a Policy Statement that the Commission issued in January 2017.
330. Commenters also raise issues related to the reform of existing wholesale services to change their technical requirements and product definitions;
331. We find that the NOPR did not propose reforms related to these issues raised by commenters. Therefore, these issues are outside the scope of this proceeding and will not be addressed here.
332. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require each RTO/ISO to submit a compliance filing to demonstrate that it satisfies the proposed requirements set forth in the Final Rule within six months of the date the Final Rule in this proceeding is published in the
333. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comment from the RTOs/ISOs on the changes that would be required to implement the proposed participation model for electric storage resources and the associated costs as well as how those costs could be minimized.
334. The Commission stated that, to the extent that any RTO/ISO believes that it already complies with any of the requirements adopted in a Final Rule in this proceeding, the RTO/ISO would be required to demonstrate how it complies in the filing due within six months of the date any Final Rule in this proceeding is published in the
335. A few commenters support the timeline proposed in the NOPR.
336. Other commenters, such as the RTOs/ISOs, generally express concerns about the feasibility of the Commission's proposed timelines.
337. PJM and ISO-NE state that the timeline depends upon the magnitude of the required changes. PJM states that it can implement the necessary system changes in approximately 12 months at a cost of under $1 million if (1) the final rule is limited to changes in PJM's real-time energy market and to offers to sell energy and (2) if PJM does not need to manage electric storage resources' state of charge. However, PJM asserts that, if more extensive system changes are necessary to comply, the cost could be significantly higher and will likely take more time to implement. PJM also states that, given the timing of PJM's upcoming implementations of 5-minute settlements and hourly offers, it could not realistically begin working on the necessary system changes until at least early 2018. ISO-NE states that the changes contemplated in the NOPR are substantial but that the time and resources needed to comply with the final rule depend on the specific final provisions. ISO-NE argues that, if the Commission accepts ISO-NE's suggestions to (1) only require implementation of state of charge in real time as an information communication requirement (for example, via telemetered information), (2) not require implementation of the proposed voluntary bidding parameters, and (3) require participants to manage their own bidding parameters (except when reliability needs dictate otherwise), then the implementation effort will be substantially shorter and easier.
338. Some commenters also point out that, in order to comply with the rule, the RTOs/ISOs will need to change more than just their market rules. For example, AES Companies, Energy Storage Association, and EPRI note that the RTOs/ISOs will need to make changes to their software.
339. Multiple commenters argue that the Commission should take a phased approach to its proposed compliance and implementation timelines.
340. MISO suggests that the Commission allow RTOs/ISOs to integrate electric storage resources using a phased approach. MISO explains that electric storage resources can be accommodated in the short term through the RTO's/ISO's existing system or with relatively manageable modifications but argues that, in the long-term, the further integration of electric storage resources should be pursued through joint study of an RTO's/ISO's market design and system enhancements. FirstLight also argues that, because the proposal includes changes to RTO/ISO bidding, dispatch, pricing and settlement software, the Commission should allow each RTO/ISO to address the phasing of market development and implementation efforts related to any final rule.
341. Several other commenters argue that the Commission should allow the RTOs/ISOs to develop their own implementation schedules.
342. NYISO Indicated Transmission Owners state that the Commission should not set unrealistic goals for the participation of distributed energy resource aggregations in wholesale markets before the grid has the needed technological capabilities.
343. Xcel Energy Services also expresses concerns that the implementation timeline is too aggressive, stating that that Commission should further evaluate whether the technological capability exists to fully implement the NOPR requirements and, if not, what timeline is needed to ensure that such functionality can be developed.
344. In contrast to other commenters, Advanced Microgrid Solutions argues that the proposed compliance and implementation timeline will take 18 months and therefore not promptly end unduly discriminatory rules and practices and will impose on-going burdens on the storage industry.
345. Multiple entities discuss the proposed bidding parameters, including state of charge, in relation to the proposed timeline for compliance.
346. AES Companies similarly explain that time, resources, and capital costs can be minimized if all energy storage resources managed their own state of charge. EPRI notes that, assuming that the Commission does not require the RTOs/ISOs to manage state-of-charge of electric storage resources (which some already do), there would only be minimal changes to the bidding interface, market clearing, or settlement software. EPRI states that the large change absent RTOs/ISOs having to manage state of charge will be allowing electric storage resources to offer as an injector and withdrawer of energy in the same market interval but for the market clearing software to only allow acceptance of one or the other. Tesla/SolarCity state that bidding parameters should reflect storage resources state of charge and be included in the unit commitment and economic dispatch optimization algorithms of each RTO/ISO. Tesla/SolarCity believe that storage resources should manage their own state of charge or have the choice between relying on RTO/ISO estimates or self-managing. In contrast to other commenters, Tesla/SolarCity assert that the time and resources necessary to incorporate these bidding parameters into the dispatch software should be minimal and are justified given the increased efficiency of markets and operations.
347. NEPOOL raises regional issues.
348. Upon consideration of the comments, we find that it is reasonable
349. We find that, given the modifications and clarifications to the NOPR we make in this Final Rule and the record in this proceeding in support of the reforms we finalize here, our implementation schedule is reasonable. Commenters highlight that managing state of charge will complicate or delay implementation, and we note that we are not requiring the RTOs/ISOs to manage state of charge. Further, some commenters also provide feedback on the implementation of the entire NOPR and indicate that implementing only the storage components would expedite compliance and implementation. We are not establishing any requirements for distributed energy resource aggregations as part of this Final Rule. Given the additional time we are providing for each RTO/ISO to file proposed tariff revisions to comply with this Final Rule, we believe that the compliance and implementation schedule that we establish in this Final Rule is appropriate. As a consequence, we are not persuaded that more than 365 days after the RTOs/ISOs are required to submit their proposed tariff revisions will be necessary to implement the reforms in this Final Rule; therefore, we decline to adopt commenters' other proposed recommendations, such as allowing the RTO/ISOs to develop their own implementation schedules. We disagree with Xcel Energy Services' argument that the Commission needs to further evaluate whether the technological capability exists to fully implement the NOPR requirements, especially as we are not finalizing in this Final Rule the distributed energy resource aggregation reforms proposed in the NOPR.
350. Additionally, we note that many of the RTOs/ISOs already have rules in place to enable the participation of electric storage resources in their markets. To the extent that an RTO/ISO proposes to comply with certain requirements of this Final Rule using existing market rules, it must demonstrate on compliance how its existing market rules meet the requirements of this Final Rule. We expect that the additional time that we are providing for the RTOs/ISOs to make their compliance filings, along with the ability of the RTOs/ISOs to use existing tariff provisions to demonstrate compliance with aspects of the Final Rule, will mean that the RTOs/ISOs can meet the deadlines that we are establishing here. Finally, we also note that, throughout this Final Rule, we are allowing regional flexibility to the extent possible. We believe that this flexibility will assist the RTOs/ISOs in meeting the compliance and implementation deadlines.
351. The collection of information contained in this Final Rule is being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
352. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director] Email:
353. Comments concerning the collection of information and the associated burden estimate(s) may also be sent to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
354. Due to security concerns, comments should be sent electronically to the following email address:
355. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
356. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
357. Under the SBA classification, the six RTOs/ISOs would be considered electric bulk power transmission and control, for which the small business size threshold is 500 or fewer employees.
358. Furthermore, because of their pivotal roles in wholesale electric power markets in their regions, none of the RTOs/ISOs meet the last criterion of the two-part RFA definition of a small entity: “Not dominant in its field of operation.”
359. The estimated cost related to this Final Rule includes: (a) Preparing and making a one-time tariff filing ($115,500 per entity, as detailed in the Information Collection section above), and (b) updating the economic dispatch software. Revisions to the economic dispatch software are due to be implemented within 365 days after the due date of the tariff filing. We estimate the one-time software work will take 1,500 hours with an approximate cost of $114,000 per entity.
We estimate a total of 1,500 hours per entity to develop and implement the software changes, so the related cost is estimated to be $114,000 per entity ($76/hour × 1,500 hours). The one-time industry-wide cost is $684,000.
360. As a result, we certify that the reforms required by this Final Rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and therefore no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
361. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
362. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number of this document, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field.
363. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
364. This Final Rule will become effective on June 4, 2018. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This Final Rule is being submitted to the Senate, House, and Government Accountability Office.
Electric power rates, Electric utilities.
By the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 35 Chapter 1, Title 18 of the
16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
(b) * * *
(9)
(g) * * *
(9)
(i) Each Commission-approved independent system operator and regional transmission organization must have tariff provisions providing a participation model for electric storage resources that:
(A) Ensures that a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources in an independent system operator or regional transmission organization market is eligible to provide all capacity, energy, and ancillary services that it is technically capable of providing;
(B) Ensures that a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources can be dispatched and can set the wholesale market clearing price as both a wholesale seller and wholesale buyer consistent with rules that govern the conditions under which a resource can set the wholesale price;
(C) Accounts for the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources through bidding parameters or other means; and
(D) Establishes a minimum size requirement for resources using the participation model for electric storage resources that does not exceed 100 kW.
(ii) The sale of electric energy from an independent system operator or regional transmission organization market to an electric storage resource that the resource then resells back to that market must be at the wholesale locational marginal price.
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
The following table contains the abbreviated names of the commenters that are used in this Final Rule.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Final action.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is modifying the
This final action will become effective May 15, 2018.
1. In this final action, the Commission modifies the
2. These requirements apply to newly interconnecting generation facilities that execute, or request the unexecuted filing of, an LGIA or SGIA on or after the effective date of this final action. These requirements also apply to existing large and small generating facilities that take any action that requires the submission of a new interconnection request that results in the filing of an executed or unexecuted interconnection agreement on or after the effective date of this final action. These requirements do not apply to existing generating facilities,
3. The modifications address the Commission's concerns that the existing
4. Reliable operation of an Interconnection
5. Mitigation of frequency deviations after the sudden loss of generation or load is driven by three primary factors: inertial response, primary frequency response, and secondary frequency response.
6. Frequency response is a measure of an Interconnection's ability to arrest and stabilize frequency deviations following the sudden loss of generation or load, and is affected by the collective responses of generation and load throughout the Interconnection. When considered in aggregate, the primary frequency response provided by generators within an Interconnection has a significant impact on the overall frequency response. Reliability Standard BAL-003-1.1 defines the amount of frequency response needed from balancing authorities
7. Unless otherwise required by tariffs or interconnection agreements, generator owners and operators can independently decide whether to configure their generating facilities to provide primary frequency response.
8. Declining frequency response performance has been an industry concern for many years. NERC, in conjunction with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), initiated its first examination of declining frequency response and governor response in 1991.
9. In Order Nos. 2003
10. On February 18, 2016, the Commission issued the NOI to explore issues regarding essential reliability services and the evolving Bulk-Power System.
11. In the NOI, the Commission also explained that these developments and their potential impacts could challenge system operators in maintaining system frequency within acceptable bounds following system disturbances.
12. Accordingly, the Commission requested comments on three main sets of issues. First, the Commission sought comment on whether amendments to the
13. On November 17, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed to revise the
14. The Commission sought comment on the proposed: (1) Requirements for new large and small generating facilities to install, maintain, and operate a governor or equivalent controls; (2) requirements for droop and deadband settings of 5 percent and ±0.036 Hz, respectively; (3) requirements for timely and sustained response, and in particular whether the proposed requirements will be sufficient to prevent plant-level controls from inhibiting primary frequency response; (4) requirement for droop parameters to be based on nameplate capability with a linear operating range of 59 to 61 Hz; and (5) exemptions for new nuclear units. The Commission also sought comment on its proposal to not impose a generic headroom requirement or mandate compensation related to the proposed reforms.
15. Twenty-eight entities submitted comments in response to the NOPR and are listed in Appendix A to this final action.
16. On August 18, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Request for Supplemental Comments (Supplemental Notice) to augment the record on the potential impacts of the NOPR proposals on electric storage resources
17. In addition, the Commission stated that the NOPR proposed that small generating facilities be subject to new primary frequency response requirements in the
18. Twenty entities submitted comments in response to the notice of
19. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission adopts the NOPR proposal and will require newly interconnecting large and small generating facilities that interconnect pursuant to the
20. We find that the current requirements for governor controls in the
21. First, Article 9.6.2.1 of the
22. Second, existing Article 9.6.2.1 of the
23. Investigation by various NERC task forces and subcommittees has led to a voluntary NERC Primary Frequency Control Guideline that includes recommended droop and deadband settings for generating facilities within all three U.S. Interconnections.
24. We also find that revisions to the
25. Further, the limited references to primary frequency response in the Commission's requirements apply only to large generating facilities. Based on the absence of a technical or economic basis for the different requirements imposed on small and large generating facilities, and the significant technological advancements that manufacturers have made in developing primary frequency response capability for VERs, we find that the absence of any similar provisions in the current
26. The Commission has previously acted under FPA section 206 to remove inconsistencies between the
27. Accordingly, we find that revising the
28. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to revise the
29. The proposed requirement for new generating facilities to install the necessary equipment for primary frequency response capability as a condition of interconnection received broad support from commenters.
30. NERC states that it has determined that increasing levels of non-synchronous generating facilities installed without controls that enable frequency response capability, coupled with retirement of conventional generating facilities that have traditionally provided primary frequency response, has contributed to the decline in primary frequency response.
31. On the other hand, some commenters do not support a requirement for new generating facilities to install, maintain, and operate primary frequency response capability as a condition of interconnection.
32. In addition, some of these commenters request that the Commission reconsider its proposal to mandate the installation of specific equipment on all new generating facilities (or the operation of such equipment as proposed in the NOPR) as a condition of interconnection, and to instead direct market-based or cost-based approaches to ensure adequate levels of primary frequency response.
33. We adopt the NOPR proposal to revise the
34. We adopt the NOPR proposal to define “functioning governor or equivalent controls” as the required hardware and/or software that provides frequency responsive real power control with the ability to sense changes in system frequency and autonomously adjust the generating facility's real power output in accordance with maximum droop and deadband parameters and in the direction needed to correct frequency deviations.
35. The proposal to require new generating facilities to install equipment capable of providing primary frequency response received broad support from commenters.
36. We acknowledge that some commenters do not support a requirement for all newly interconnecting generating facilities to install, maintain, and operate governors or equivalent controls.
37. Rather than uniform requirements in the
38. Finally, some commenters assert that the Commission should: (1) Consider a size threshold; (2) establish penetration level thresholds for primary frequency response requirements; (3) allow for a waiver process; and (4) establish primary frequency response pools. These comments are addressed below in Sections II.H and II.J.
39. Accordingly, as a result of this final action, new large and small generating facilities, will be required to install, maintain, and operate a functioning governor or equivalent controls with certain exemptions or accommodations for nuclear generating facilities, electric storage facilities, and combined heat and power facilities as discussed below.
40. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to include
41. The Commission also proposed to require the droop parameter to be based on the nameplate capability of the generating facility and linear in operating range between 59 and 61 Hz.
42. The Commission also proposed that if the interconnection customer
43. Several commenters support the NOPR proposal to include operating requirements (
44. Among those supporting the proposed operating requirements, NERC asserts that the “proposed minimum operating conditions should help ensure that frequency response capability is installed as well as available and ready to respond, regardless of the mix of resources in the dispatch,” and “should lead to tighter control and frequency stability.”
45. While it disagrees with a general mandate for primary frequency response capability, in the event the Commission proceeds with a requirement for new generating facilities to install primary frequency response capability, NRECA supports the specific proposed operating requirements.
46. Some commenters express concern that uniform, specific governor control settings in the
47. MISO TOs object to “rigid standards that do not allow for changes in technology or in the applicable NERC standards or guidelines.”
48. While it generally agrees with the specific proposed droop and deadband settings, NRECA supports allowing flexibility in the requirements “to the extent new generating facilities have differing operating, technical or other characteristics which make compliance with these standardized requirements unduly burdensome or impossible.”
49. Some commenters that oppose including the proposed operating requirements in the
50. ISO-RTO Council asserts that revisions to the
51. Some commenters question the NOPR proposal to base a generating facility's droop parameter on its nameplate capacity. EEI asserts that the proposal is problematic because the mandated response from generating facilities is based on MW and Reactive Curves, and not mega volt-ampere (MVA) nameplate ratings.
52. While it supports the NOPR proposal for the droop parameter to be linear in the operating range between 59 to 61 Hz, WIRAB recommends that the Commission allow generating facilities to use faster, non-linear settings over the proposed linear operating range.
53. Regarding deadband parameters, NERC suggests that the Commission consider replacing the proposed requirements with the NERC Primary Frequency Control Guideline's recommendation
54. NERC recommends that the Commission require the interconnection customer to provide the status and settings of the governor or equivalent controls and plant level controls not only to the transmission provider (or its designated system operator) but also to the relevant balancing authority upon request, and notify the balancing authority when it needs to take the governor or equivalent controls and plant level controls out of service.
55. Regarding the disabling of an interconnection customer's governor or equivalent controls, Bonneville asserts that the proposed revisions to the
56. We disagree with commenters that argue the Commission should not establish minimum uniform operating requirements for primary frequency response.
57. We believe it is necessary to make these changes to the
58. Accordingly, we find that it is just and reasonable to include the proposed operating requirements of a maximum droop setting of 5 percent and deadband setting of ±0.036 Hz for primary frequency response in the
59. We disagree with the view of NRECA that this action is premature because, at present, primary frequency response at the Interconnection level may be acceptable.
60. AES Companies and MISO TOs contend that NERC “provides guidelines rather than standards because these guidelines may need to differ based on the type of resource,”
61. We find ample support in the record to support this approach. For example, in its comments on the NOPR, NERC states that “the Commission's proposed revisions to the
62. We disagree with EEI's assertion that the primary frequency response operating requirements should not be included in the
63. EEI, MISO TOs, and SoCal Edison request that the Commission not include the proposed operating requirements in the
64. While we are establishing uniform operating requirements, we also note that there is flexibility built into both the requirements themselves and the Commission's processes. First, we clarify that the requirements we adopt herein are
65. Regarding EEI's request to conduct regional conferences, we do not believe that they are necessary at this time since: (1) The Commission has determined that minimum operating requirements are appropriate to include in the
66. Comments that reference compensation in lieu of including uniform operating requirements in the
67. The Commission is persuaded by ISO-RTO Council's request to include in the
68. Accordingly, as discussed below, we are modifying the NOPR proposal to allow for the possibility of a future NERC Reliability Standard that includes equivalent or more stringent operating requirements for droop, deadband, and/or timely and sustained response that would supersede the operating requirements for droop, deadband, and timely and sustained response adopted in this final action. We believe this approach will provide for the harmonization of the reliability-related provisions of the
69. We clarify that interconnection customers that are required to comply with this final action will be required to do so until such time as the Commission approves a NERC Reliability Standard with equivalent or more stringent parameters.
70. We adopt the NOPR proposal to require newly interconnecting generating facilities to install, maintain, and operate a governor or equivalent with a maximum 5 percent droop and ±0.036 Hz deadband and for the droop characteristic to be based on the nameplate capacity.
71. As a threshold matter for this requirement, we clarify the term “nameplate capacity.” Some commenters raise concerns with the proposal to base the droop parameter on the nameplate capacity of a generating facility.
72. The droop parameter is historically based on the percent change in frequency that would cause a 100 percent change in valve or gate position. This has been translated to the percent change in frequency that would cause a 100 percent change in power output, where a 100 percent change in power output is equivalent to the generator's nameplate capacity. The droop parameter also represents the slope of the MW response in proportion to the frequency deviation.
73. By requiring the droop parameter to be based on nameplate capacity, the Commission intends for a generating facility's expected MW response to frequency deviations to be a percentage of its nameplate capacity, and proportional to the magnitude of the frequency deviation. In particular, the magnitude of a generating facility's MW response to a frequency deviation will depend both on its nameplate capacity and on the magnitude of the frequency deviation. Generating facilities with larger nameplate capacities will provide more MW of primary frequency response per Hz of Interconnection frequency error compared to generating facilities with an equivalent percent droop parameter that have lower nameplate capacities. Accordingly, nameplate capacity is the “basis” of the droop parameter since this value will be used to calculate the expected proportional MW response to frequency deviations.
74. ISO-RTO Council points out that the nameplate capacity of a generating facility may not be consistent with its rated capacity for the purposes of obtaining interconnection service or for participation in an organized market. In addition, we recognize that during some operating conditions, the maximum steady state operating limit (
75. We clarify that this final action will not require a generating facility that responds to frequency deviations to provide and sustain a value of primary frequency response that causes its MW output to exceed its maximum steady state operating limit.
76. Similarly, over-frequency conditions would result in an automatic reduction in a generating facility's MW output. However, if the calculated value of primary frequency response would cause the facility's MW output to drop below its minimum operating MW limit, an interconnection customer will be permitted to limit the decrease in the facility's MW output such that the facility does not operate below its minimum steady state operating limit.
77. In addition, we are persuaded by NERC's suggestion to require the deadband parameter to be implemented without a step to the droop curve. We note that NERC's Primary Frequency Control Guideline references a 2013 IEEE Power & Energy Society (IEEE-PES) Technical Report stating that a droop curve (with a deadband) can be implemented in a generator governor in two possible ways: “Stepped” or “non-stepped.”
78. In consideration of this additional information, we agree with NERC and modify the NOPR proposal to require the deadband parameter to be implemented without a step. Accordingly, we are requiring the droop curve to be implemented in a manner such that as frequency transitions outside of the deadband (both for under-frequency and over-frequency conditions), the generating facility's expected MW response should start from 0 MW and increase linearly to the nameplate capacity of the generating facility, as the Interconnection's frequency error changes from 0 Hz to the generating facility's percentage droop multiplied by 60 Hz (
79. In response to EEI's concerns that: (1) The proposed frequency range of 59 to 61 Hz includes the deadband where governors do not operate; and (2) not all generating facilities respond in a linear manner, we are modifying the NOPR proposal and adopt in this final action that the droop parameter should be linear in the range of frequencies between 59 to 61 Hz that are outside of the deadband parameter. This is because the range of frequency values within the deadband do not trigger the operation of the governor or equivalent controls, and the slope of the droop curve that relates change in frequency to change in MW output should only apply to the range of frequencies outside of the deadband,
80. While we agree with WIRAB that the use of non-linear or piecewise droop parameters may lead to faster responses, we decline to adopt WIRAB's request to, on a generic basis, require prospective interconnection customers to implement non-linear or piecewise droop curves. While we require the droop curve to be linear (
81. We agree with NERC that the balancing authority should know the status and settings of the governor or equivalent controls and plant level controls in order to assess whether there is an appropriate amount of frequency reserve available.
82. Accordingly, we are modifying in this final action the NOPR proposal to require the interconnection customer to provide its relevant balancing authority with the status and settings of the
83. Regarding the process for an interconnection customer to disable its governor or equivalent controls, we share Bonneville's concern that the interconnection customer should not be allowed to operate its generating facility with its governor or equivalent controls not in service by merely notifying the transmission provider.
84. Specifically, we revise the
85. Accordingly, we will modify the
86. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to prohibit all new large and small generating facilities from taking any action that would inhibit the provision of primary frequency response, except under certain conditions, including but not limited to, ambient temperature limitations, outages of mechanical equipment, or regulatory requirements.
87. Accordingly, the Commission proposed to require new generating facilities that respond to frequency deviations to not inhibit primary frequency response, such as by coordinating plant-level control equipment with the governor or equivalent controls.
88. Several commenters support including the proposed provisions for timely and sustained response in the
89. While acknowledging the importance of timely and sustained frequency response, EEI does not believe that such requirements should be included in the
90. EEI raises an additional concern, stating that “requirements to provide timely and sustained frequency response cannot be implemented in a manner that is fair and non-discriminatory” because interconnection agreements “do not provide the necessary controls to ensure compliance . . . [or] effectively or fairly ensure compensation to those entities providing this support.”
91. WIRAB and EEI recommend certain modifications to the NOPR proposal for timely and sustained response. Both recommend that the Commission explicitly prohibit in the
92. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require that the real power response of new large and small generating facilities to sustained frequency deviations outside of the deadband setting is provided without undue delay . . . until system frequency returns to a stable value within the deadband setting of the governor or equivalent controls.”
93. AWEA asks the Commission to clarify that its proposed prohibition of actions “inhibiting” response does not restrict the ability of wind and other generating facilities to adjust the speed of their response in coordination with system operators to ensure a fair and coordinated response that best meets the needs of the system as a whole.
94. We determine that it is just and reasonable to include a requirement for timely and sustained response in the
95. We are not persuaded by EEI's and AES Companies' view that timely and sustained response requirements should be part of regional solutions rather than be included in the
96. EEI comments that without a provision to “fairly ensure adequate compensation,” and a mandate that each new generating facility operate with headroom at all times, the proposed requirements for timely and sustained primary frequency response “cannot be implemented in a manner that is fair and non-discriminatory.”
97. As noted in Section II above, one of the Commission's concerns with the current lack of clear, uniform primary frequency response requirements is NERC's finding indicating that a number of generator owners/operators have implemented operating settings that have effectively removed the availability of their generating facilities from providing timely and sustained primary frequency response (
98. Further, while it is true that generating facilities that are operated with no headroom at the time of an under-frequency deviation will provide little or no response in the upward direction, they will still be available to support the reliability of the power system by responding in the downward direction during abnormal over-frequency system conditions. Since the timing of an abnormal frequency deviation outside of the deadband parameter—and when a generating facility will thus be required to respond—is unpredictable, it is possible that these generating facilities will have operating capability in the upward direction to respond to some abnormal under-frequency deviations.
99. We agree with the suggestions of EEI and WIRAB to explicitly prohibit interconnection customers from blocking or otherwise inhibiting the governor's or equivalent controls' ability to respond.
100. AWEA, ESA, and WIRAB ask the Commission to clarify the proposed timely and sustained response provisions, and their comments raise the following questions: (1) How soon should a generating facility begin to provide primary frequency response following a disturbance; and (2) how long, at a minimum, should the response be sustained?
101. Regarding how soon a generating facility should begin to provide primary frequency response following a disturbance, the Commission agrees with WIRAB that the definition of “without undue delay” should be clarified.
102. We agree with WIRAB that no grace period should be allowed that can postpone the response. Accordingly, we deny AWEA's request to coordinate response times between interconnection customers and system operators.
103. Regarding the minimum period of time that a response should be sustained, we will not establish in this final action a minimum timeframe in minutes that the response to frequency deviations should be sustained since the amount of time that Interconnection frequency remains outside of the deadband varies by event.
104. We determine that rather than using the term “stable” used in the NOPR concerning the sustained response requirement, it is preferable to require primary frequency response to be sustained until such time that system frequency returns to a value within the deadband. Therefore, we find that WIRAB's recommendation to adopt its definition of “stable value” is moot. Accordingly, we clarify that with the exception of certain operational constraints described in Section 9.6.4.2 of the
105. Comments related to electric storage resources pertaining to the timely and sustained response provisions are addressed below in Section II.H.2.
106. In the NOPR, the Commission clarified that the proposed requirements did not impose a generic headroom requirement, but sought comment on such a requirement.
107. Several commenters state that the Commission should not create a mandatory headroom requirement.
108. AWEA requests that the Commission consider expanding on the NOPR proposal by finding that it would be unjust and unreasonable for a transmission provider to impose a requirement for all generating facilities to reserve headroom to provide primary frequency response due to the large inefficiency and cost of such a requirement.
109. We will not mandate a headroom requirement at this time. We continue to believe that the reliability benefits from the proposed modifications to the
110. We decline to address AWEA's request to find it unjust and unreasonable for a transmission provider to impose a requirement for all generating facilities to reserve headroom to provide primary frequency response. Instead, in response to AWEA and ESA, we clarify that this final action does not prohibit a transmission provider from arguing to the Commission that headroom should be required as a condition of interconnection in a particular factual circumstance and proposing an associated compensation mechanism. We will evaluate any such filings on a case-by-case basis. Finally, we revise proposed Article 9.6.4 of the
111. The Commission did not propose to mandate compensation related to the new primary frequency response requirements, stating “the Commission has previously accepted changes to transmission provider tariffs that similarly required interconnection customers to install primary frequency response capability or that established specific governor settings, without requiring any accompanying compensation.”
112. Many commenters support not mandating compensation.
113. Some commenters believe that compensation issues are best decided at the regional level.
114. AWEA states that the cost of attaining primary frequency response capability for new generators is low
115. ELCON supports not mandating compensation, expressing its expectation that such costs should be low, observing that the administrative costs of a compensation scheme may outweigh the costs of providing mandated service.
116. In support of compensation, several commenters state that the proposed requirements are inefficient or uneconomic because, among other points, they require new generating facilities to install and operate a governor or equivalent controls when the necessary primary frequency response could be provided at lower cost by another generating facility (
117. Other commenters believe that generating facilities should not be required to provide primary frequency response without compensation for their costs of providing the service.
118. ESA raises concerns that, without compensation, the primary frequency response requirement for electric storage “may produce disproportionate adverse economic impacts.”
119. We will not mandate compensation for primary frequency response service in this final action. We are not persuaded by comments that assert: (1) Generating facilities should not be required to provide a service if there is not explicit compensation; (2) market-based compensation would be more efficient than the NOPR proposal; (3) inertia should be compensated in this final action; and (4) that frequency regulation compensation under Order No. 755 requires that primary frequency response be compensated. We address each of these points below.
120. Commenter assertions that the Commission is improperly requiring the provision of a service without compensation are misplaced. While we are requiring newly interconnecting generating facilities to install equipment capable of providing frequency response and adhere to specified operating requirements, we are not mandating headroom, which is a necessary component for the provision of primary frequency response service. In addition, as stated in the NOPR, “[t]he Commission has previously accepted changes to transmission provider tariffs that similarly required interconnection customers to install primary frequency response capability or that established specified governor settings, without requiring any accompanying compensation.”
121. On balance, we find that the record indicates that the cost of installing, maintaining, and operating a governor or equivalent controls is minimal.
122. With regard to requests for the Commission to mandate market-based compensation, we are not persuaded by assertions that mandatory market-based mechanisms for the procurement of primary frequency response capability are just and reasonable at this time given the record before us. While some economic efficiency may be gained from acquiring primary frequency response from the subset of generation that is most economically efficient at providing this service, we believe that the time and costs of developing a market in RTO/ISO regions or bilaterally purchasing the service in non-RTO/ISO regions should be carefully considered. ISO-RTO Council asserts, for example, that the administrative costs of developing and implementing market-based compensation of primary frequency response are likely to outweigh the incremental efficiency benefits.
123. With regard to Competitive Suppliers' view that the Commission should mandate explicit compensation for inertial response, we decline to adopt such a requirement.
124. We disagree with ESA's contention that the treatment of frequency regulation under Order No. 755 requires compensation of primary frequency response in this final action. In
125. AES and MISO TOs request that the Commission allow for the development of primary frequency response pools, self-supply of primary frequency response, and transferred primary frequency response markets.
126. Finally, nothing in this final action is meant to prohibit a public utility from filing a proposal for primary frequency response compensation under section 205 of the FPA.
127. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to apply the revisions to the
128. Most commenters addressing this issue agree with the proposed effective date and applicability, with some suggesting additional action would be helpful.
129. Other commenters, however, believe that the NOPR proposal should go further. ISO-RTO Council states that it “is unaware of any limitations that would render the Commission's proposed effective date infeasible or unduly burdensome” and therefore it supports the proposed effective date.
130. Xcel contends that the Commission's proposal does not go far enough to ensure future generating facilities are capable of providing primary frequency response.
131. SVP raises concerns that the proposed reforms could apply to existing generating facilities if interconnection customers amend their interconnection agreements for minor updates involving no material substantive changes to the interconnected facilities or to the interconnection itself.
132. With the clarifications noted below, we adopt the NOPR proposal to apply the primary frequency response requirements adopted herein to all newly interconnecting generating facilities as well as to all existing large and small generating facilities that take any action that requires the submission of a new interconnection request that results in the filing of an executed or unexecuted interconnection agreement on or after the effective date of this final action.
133. Bonneville suggests that the Commission should “explore defining what constitutes a `significant modification' ” to existing generating facilities that would subject them to the primary frequency response requirements adopted in this final action. It is unclear what Bonneville means by “significant modification.” However, we note that under the
134. Similarly, Xcel provides no support for its suggestion that a significant number of new generating facilities, covered by a prior interconnection agreement, may be built two or more years following the effective date of this final action and therefore should be subject to the primary frequency response requirements.
135. Further, the Commission believes that ISO-RTO Council's request that “the Commission expand the application of the primary frequency response requirements to both conforming and non-conforming interconnection agreements resulting from new interconnection requests by existing generators” is unnecessary.
136. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comment on the proposal to apply the proposed reforms only to newly interconnecting generating facilities. In particular, the Commission sought comment on whether additional primary frequency response performance or capability requirements for existing facilities are needed, and if so, whether the Commission should impose those requirements by: (1) Directing the development or modification of a reliability standard pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA; or (2) acting pursuant to section 206 of the FPA to require changes to the
137. Most commenters oppose applying the proposed primary frequency response requirements to existing generating facilities.
138. NERC and the NYTOs contend that it is too soon after the implementation of Reliability Standard BAL-003-1.1 to determine whether it is necessary or appropriate to impose requirements for primary frequency response on existing generating facilities.
139. On the other hand, Bonneville and ISO-RTO Council support reforms that would apply to existing generating facilities, suggesting that the Commission direct NERC to develop a Reliability Standard for frequency response. While Bonneville states that the cost to retrofit existing generators may be prohibitive, it contends that a standard similar to TRE's regional Reliability Standard BAL-001-TRE-01, which requires generator owners/operators in the Texas region to set their governors to meet performance requirements, would ensure both capability and performance.
140. Other commenters suggest that the Commission should wait to apply the proposed reforms to existing generation facilities until further research is completed. APPA et al. state that NERC's required report on the availability of generating facilities to provide frequency response,
141. In order to encourage regional flexibility and periodic updating of the proposed maximum droop and deadband settings, WIRAB recommends that the Commission direct NERC and the Regional Entities “to monitor frequency response capability in each region, revisit and revise NERC's droop and deadband setting guidelines as needed, and generated best practices” to encourage generating facilities to “appropriately tighten regional droop and deadband settings as needed to maintain system reliability.”
142. Similarly, ISO-RTO Council requests the monitoring of the need for existing generators to provide primary frequency response. ISO-RTO Council acknowledges that NERC and the industry have already taken steps to ensure sufficient primary frequency response, including the development of Reliability Standard BAL-003-1.1, publishing an operating guide for generating facilities, outreach to governor and controls manufacturers, conducting webinars, as well as outreach to the North American Generator Forum.
143. We will not impose primary frequency response requirements on existing generating facilities that do not submit new interconnection requests that result in an executed or unexecuted interconnection agreement. We conclude that applying the proposed requirements only to newly interconnecting generating facilities will adequately address the Commission's concerns regarding primary frequency response. We are persuaded by commenters that requiring existing generating facilities that have not submitted a new interconnection request to install and operate governors or equivalent controls would be overly expensive and unnecessarily burdensome.
144. We agree that NERC, the Regional Entities, and other affected industry stakeholders should continue to measure and monitor the impact of Reliability Standard BAL-003-1.1 on generating facility frequency response performance, and the amount and adequacy of primary frequency response generally. We note that Order No. 794 required NERC to file in July 2018 the results of a study on the availability of existing generating facilities to provide primary frequency response.
145. NERC's July 2018 report will afford an opportunity for all interested parties to consider WIRAB's recommendation to expand the scope of NERC's Frequency Response Annual Analysis Report and/or State of Reliability Report to “track trends, model and analyze frequency response in each of the [I]nterconnections over a 10-year time horizon, and to make recommendations regarding current and future frequency response needs.”
146. We also encourage NERC to review, and if necessary, update its Primary Frequency Control Guideline as appropriate to reflect changes in the generation resource mix, particularly as it pertains to the technical attributes of non-synchronous generating facilities.
147. In addition, NERC and the Regional Entities should also continue to monitor the operation and impact of the operating requirements for droop, deadband, and sustained response adopted in this final action, and recommend to the Commission any changes to those settings (
148. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to apply the primary frequency response capability and operating requirements to all newly interconnecting generating facilities, including CHP facilities.
149. ELCON and API contend that the special characteristics of industrial CHP generating facilities warrant an exemption or special accommodation from the proposed revisions to the
150. In particular, ELCON explains that “[g]eneration equipment that is integrated with industrial process equipment is operated to optimize the overall manufacturing process including the safe operation of critical infrastructure” and that “[r]equiring all industrial generation to provide primary frequency response without respect to the operational needs of the manufacturing process may jeopardize the reliability and safe operation of both.”
151. ELCON explains that there are a “wide variety of configurations and capacities in the universe of CHP generators that are dedicated to an industrial process,” with some CHP industrial facilities designed to generate in excess of their load having “the flexibility to provide [primary frequency response] to the extent their industrial process would not be impacted.”
152. For example, ELCON states that an increasing number of manufacturers are installing turbines at their industrial facilities to obtain lower emissions and other benefits
153. To address these concerns, ELCON states that “the proposed LGIA and SGIA language should be revised to explicitly exclude imposition of mandatory primary frequency response obligations on industrial CHP units and other similarly-situated forms of industrial behind-the-meter generation.”
154. API supports ELCON's exemption request, adding that CHP facilities bring certain benefits such as high efficiency and lowered emissions and that the proposal may present a barrier to entry for such generating facilities.
155. The Commission exempts newly interconnecting CHP facilities that are sized to serve on-site load and have no material export capability from the operating requirements of this final action. However, considering the low costs associated with governor installation, we will require all newly interconnecting CHP facilities, including those sized-to-load, to install a governor or equivalent control equipment capable of providing primary frequency response as a condition of interconnection as proposed in the NOPR.
156. We agree with ELCON and API that CHP facilities sized-to-load present
157. The NOPR proposed to apply the primary frequency response capability and operating requirements to all new generating facilities, including electric storage resources, without exception.
158. While most comments on the NOPR did not specifically request an exemption for electric storage resources, some commenters suggest changes to the proposed
159. Second, ESA claims that whereas traditional generating facilities start-up and shut-down as a part of normal operations and are not required to provide primary frequency response while offline, electric storage resources are, by contrast, “always online” even when not charging or discharging.
160. Fourth, ESA notes that unlike traditional generating facilities, electric storage is energy limited. Thus, ESA argues that the requirement to sustain output in proposed section 9.6.4.2 of the
161. ESA claims that, for these reasons, the proposal is unduly discriminatory by potentially burdening storage, and recommends that the NOPR proposal be modified to: (1) Establish a minimum set point for primary frequency response service; and (2) include inadequate state of charge as an explicit operational constraint exempting storage from maintaining sustained output.
162. AES Companies request a complete exemption from the proposed NOPR requirements for electric storage resources including but not limited to battery storage devices providing one or more ancillary services.
163. Supplemental commenters are split on whether electric storage resources should be subject to the operating requirements proposed in the NOPR. Tri-State, ISO-RTO Council, Berkshire, NERC, and WIRAB support applying the proposed requirements to electric storage resources. SoCal Edison opposes the proposed operating requirements, but explains that if the Commission adopts the proposal, it should be applicable to all newly interconnecting generating facilities on a technology neutral basis so that such requirements will be implemented in a non-discriminatory fashion.
164. However, Sunrun, AES Companies, and CESA comment that electric storage resources would bear a disproportionate impact compared to other resources due to the proposed droop and sustained response requirements, and therefore request an exemption or an accommodation from the proposed requirements. Several other commenters reiterate their initial NOPR comments that operating requirements for primary frequency response should not be included in the
165. A number of commenters reference either technical or economic challenges that would be unique to electric storage resources under the proposed requirements. Sunrun, ESA, and CESA state that electric storage resources have a finite lifecycle, and that compliance with the proposed operating requirements for timely and sustained response may limit the lifetime of an electric storage resource.
166. ESA argues that the proposed droop and sustained response requirements would impose adverse conditions on electric storage resources because they would bear a disproportionate impact on the provision of primary frequency response capability compared to other generating facilities. In particular, ESA asserts that because electric storage resources are energy-limited, it is inappropriate to require electric storage resources to provide sustained response because doing so would constrain electric storage resources from effectively managing their fuel supply (
167. ESA restates its NOPR comment that droop is calculated as a percent of nameplate capacity above a minimum set point, and because electric storage resources lack such a set point, storage resources will be required to provide proportionally greater primary frequency response service.
168. Additionally, ESA claims that since electric storage resources are always “online,” as opposed to generating facilities that start-up and shut-down (
169. Several commenters assert that there is little substantive difference between the operating constraints faced by electric storage resources and the operational characteristics that limit the capacity of other types of generating facilities to provide primary frequency response.
170. ISO-RTO Council also believes that possible accommodations or exemptions for electric storage resources and small generators are unwarranted, stating that such measures could allow such resources to avoid solving the very problem to which such resources contribute and the NOPR rules were intended to address.
171. EPRI states that the unique characteristics of electric storage resources should not directly affect the current requirements for droop settings.
172. While ESA supports an exemption for electric storage resources, it suggests several accommodations to the proposed requirements to mitigate the potentially adverse impact of the proposed requirements on electric storage resources. ESA asserts that electric storage resources should have a means to effectively “go offline,” similar to generating facilities on shut down, and that the language “whenever the Large Generating Facility is operated in parallel with the Transmission System” in Section 9.6.2.1 should be interpreted to mean providing services to the grid and should exclude simply being idle.
173. ESA also suggests that electric storage resources should be exempt from requirements for providing sustained primary frequency response when such a resource does not have enough energy stored to provide sustained frequency response at required capacity when a frequency deviation occurs (
174. ESA states that, in lieu of other mechanisms to accommodate electric storage resources, operators of electric storage resources could specify an operating range outside of which electric storage resources would not be required to provide and/or sustain primary frequency response.
175. SDG&E believes that markets for primary frequency response have the potential to eliminate nearly all the issues addressed by the questions in the Commission's Request for Supplemental Comments.
176. In consideration of the unique physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources, we will require transmission providers to include in their
177. Specifically, as discussed in further detail below, this includes the identification of an operating range within which electric storage resources will be required to provide primary frequency response, the identification of particular operating circumstances when electric storage resources will not be required to provide primary frequency response, and the inclusion of energy limitations in the list of exemptions from the requirement to provide primary frequency response.
178. We disagree with SoCal Edison, ISO-RTO Council, and WIRAB that suggest electric storage resources should be subject to the same requirements for primary frequency response as all other resources.
179. We are persuaded by ESA's comment that allowing operators of electric storage resources to specify an operating range “would prevent the excessive wear and tear impacts on electric storage as well as potentially mitigate inadequate state of charge for sustained response.”
180. Specifically, we will require electric storage resources to identify in their interconnection request an operating range for the basis of the provision of primary frequency response. This operating range will represent the minimum and maximum states of charge between which an electric storage resource will be required to provide primary frequency response. The operating range for each electric storage resource will need to be agreed to by the interconnection customer and transmission provider, in consultation with the applicable balancing authority or any other relevant parties as appropriate, consider the system needs for primary frequency response, and the physical limitations of the electric storage resource as identified by the developer and any relevant manufacturer specifications, and be established in Appendix C of the
181. However, we do not agree with ESA that electric storage resources should not be required to specify the details of an inadequate state of charge parameter in their interconnection agreements.
182. Because the requirements for primary frequency response may change over time, the Commission is persuaded by commenters that it is appropriate to provide transmission providers with flexibility to determine whether the operating ranges established in the interconnection agreements for electric storage resources are static or dynamic values.
183. Additionally, we agree with comments that suggest certain electric storage technologies are always online and capable of providing primary frequency response, and that without any accommodation, those resources could be required to provide sustained primary frequency response more frequently than other generating facilities that start up and shut down (
184. We also agree with WIRAB that electric storage resources and some other resources could face physical limitations that would make them unable to provide primary frequency response, and believe that accommodations for such limitations are appropriate.
185. Moreover, we find that including this exemption in the
186. We find that ESA's comments that suggest a minimum set point should be used in the determination of the droop response are misplaced. A generating facility's minimum set point is not used in the calculation of the MW droop response. We clarify that for all generating facilities, the calculation of the MW droop response is based on a generating facility's nameplate capacity (
187. ESA contends that “[i]f a storage resource is charging when called to provide [primary frequency response], the switch to discharging means that the storage [resource] will provide both the injected energy and the removal of an effective `load,' creating a response significantly greater than contemplated in the proposed droop settings.”
188. Regarding AES Companies' contention that a five percent droop setting ignores the majority of the primary frequency response capacity that an electric storage resource was designed to deliver,
189. Finally, we are not persuaded by Berkshire that a technical conference is needed at this time because there is sufficient evidence in the record to make a finding on this issue, as discussed in this final action.
190. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to apply the primary frequency response capability and operating requirements to all newly interconnecting generating facilities interconnecting through an LGIA or SGIA.
191. Several commenters assert that the final action should include special considerations for generating facilities connecting at the distribution level. Public Interest Organizations state that, in the NOI, SolarCity Corporation raised concerns that already-installed behind-the-meter generation and DERs could become subject to the
192. Xcel argues that dynamic frequency response at the distribution level can interfere with anti-islanding
193. The requirements of this final action will apply to newly interconnecting DERs that execute, or request the unexecuted filing of, an LGIA or SGIA on or after the effective date of this final action. We find Public Interest Organizations' request that the Commission clarify the circumstances in which DER participation in wholesale energy markets would trigger requirements in the
194. Xcel is concerned that dynamic frequency response at the distribution level can interfere with anti-islanding protection methods. The sustained response provisions adopted herein would require a generating facility, only to the extent that it is allowed to remain online and ride through a disturbance and has operating capability in the direction needed to counteract the frequency deviation, to provide and sustain its response.
195. The Commission in Order No. 828 provided flexibility to address anti-islanding concerns by finding that, if a transmission provider believes a particular facility has a higher risk of unintentional islanding due to specific conditions at that facility, the transmission provider may coordinate with the small generating facility to set ride through settings appropriate for those conditions, in accordance with Good Utility Practice and the appropriate technical standards.
196. We clarify that the sustained response provisions in the revisions to the
197. Accordingly, the obligations imposed for primary frequency response apply only to generating facilities allowed to ride through and, because the ride through settings will be coordinated between the interconnection customer and the transmission provider, we believe this should adequately address Xcel's anti-islanding concerns.
198. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to exempt generating facilities regulated by the NRC due to their unique operating characteristics and regulatory requirements.
199. Several commenters support the exemption for nuclear generating facilities.
200. On the other hand, other commenters believe that the Commission should not automatically exempt new nuclear generating facilities. WIRAB asserts that the Commission should require new nuclear generating facilities to seek individual exemptions, as needed, based on legitimate safety requirements in their NRC operating license.
201. Similarly, ISO-RTO Council believes that the Commission should not “anticipate” exemption requirements. Instead, “any
202. We adopt the NOPR proposal to exempt nuclear generating facilities from the final action requirements, due to the unique regulatory and technical requirements of nuclear generating facilities. As explained in the NOPR, nuclear generating facilities have separate licensing requirements under the NRC, which often restrict or severely limit nuclear generating facilities from providing primary frequency response.
203. We disagree with WIRAB's and ISO-RTO Council's view that an entire class of generating facilities should not be exempted from the
204. In the NOPR, the Commission did not propose to exempt new wind generating facilities from the new primary frequency response requirements. The Commission observed that while primary frequency response functionality has not been a standard feature on non-synchronous generating facilities, recent technological advancements have equipped wind generating facilities with this capability. The Commission further noted that wind generating facilities typically operate at their maximum operating output, and generally lack excess capacity (or headroom) to provide primary frequency response during under-frequency conditions.
205. AWEA states that the Commission's proposed addition of a primary frequency response requirement to the
206. However, Sunflower and Mid-Kansas contend that, given current adequate frequency response performance and a lack of sufficient data in the record on the extent to which primary frequency response is needed from wind generating facilities, the Commission should not adopt a blanket requirement that includes wind generating facilities at this time. Sunflower and Mid-Kansas assert that the Commission should instead proceed with further analysis first, as contemplated by NERC, or at least allow for flexibility in the requirements.
207. We are not persuaded by Sunflower and Mid-Kansas to exempt wind generating facilities from the primary frequency response
208. In the NOPR, the Commission did not propose any provisions related to surplus interconnection service.
209. ESA states that the Commission recently issued a NOPR which proposes to make available the use of surplus interconnection service, which is intended to maximize the use of existing interconnection service capacity and concerns generating facilities that are existing interconnection customers.
210. We find that ESA's request that surplus interconnection service should not be considered “new interconnection” for purposes of this final action is premature, because the Commission has yet to issue any final action that addresses surplus interconnection service.
211. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to apply the proposed requirements to newly interconnecting small generating facilities. The Commission stated that the record suggests that small generating facilities are capable of installing and enabling governors at low cost in a manner comparable to large generating facilities.
212. Most commenters who generally supported the NOPR's proposal did not differentiate between small and large generators. APPA et al. contends applying the primary frequency response requirement to all generators is important, particularly given that non-synchronous generators and small generators are making up a growing share of the changing generation resource mix.
213. Some commenters,
214. Other commenters request the Commission adopt a size limitation for applying the NOPR requirements. For example, TVA requests an exemption for generating facilities under 5 MVA as long as they do not aggregate with facilities greater than 75 MVA or connect to the grid at 100 kV or above.
215. NAGF, Tri-State, ISO-RTO Council, SoCal Edison, and WIRAB support applying the proposed requirements to small generating facilities.
216. Further, ISO-RTO Council asserts that “providing an exemption or variation to the NOPR requirements for small generators and electric storage resources could allow such resources to avoid solving the very problem to which such resources contribute and the NOPR rules were meant to address.”
217. EEI adds that as the market penetration of small generating facilities increases, there will be a growing need for primary frequency response from these non-traditional generating facilities.
218. APS suggests that all generating facilities should contribute to primary frequency response and opposes a blanket exemption for small generating facilities. Rather, APS suggests that determining whether and how small generating facilities contribute to primary frequency response should be a collaborative effort among the balancing authority, transmission provider, and interconnection customer.
219. While AES Companies oppose the NOPR, they state that the size of any particular generating facility should not impact the solution implemented.
220. Finally, Sunrun states that even inverters certified to UL 1741 SA
221. In response to the Commission's question about whether the costs for small generating facilities to install, maintain, and operate governors or equivalent controls are proportionally comparable to the costs for large generating facilities, NRECA states that a size threshold is necessary so that small generators will not be forced to forego interconnection because the cost of including primary frequency response capability outweighs the benefit of interconnection.
222. In response to the Commission's question about whether PJM's recent modifications to its interconnection agreements address concerns regarding possible disproportionate costs resulting from applying the NOPR to all small generating facilities, ISO-RTO Council states that PJM has not experienced any decrease in the number of interconnection requests of small non-synchronous generators since requiring non-synchronous generating facilities to install enhanced inverters that include primary frequency response capability.
223. We will not exempt small generating facilities from the requirements. The Commission has previously acted under FPA section 206 to remove inconsistencies between the
224. In particular, we are persuaded by commenter assertions that that small generating facilities are making up a growing percentage of the generation resource mix,
225. In the NOPR, the Commission did not propose any waiver procedures.
226. NRECA requests that the Commission consider permitting transmission providers to establish “penetration level thresholds” for primary frequency response because “[g]enerators can differ in their impact on the transmission grid based on factors such as size and technology.”
227. Both NRECA and AES Companies express concern about the potential impact of the proposed requirements on new technologies and innovation. AES Companies assert that the proposed requirements for new generating facilities to install primary frequency response capability as well operate with specified droop and deadband settings will “stymie the use of more efficient technology solutions as they become available and impose unnecessary costs on load.”
228. NRECA contends that the Commission should adopt “a waiver process whereby if a new interconnecting generating facility is neither needed for primary frequency response capability, nor causes any harm to the reliability of the grid in this regard, primary frequency response capability would not be a condition of interconnection.”
229. We decline to adopt a waiver process for new generating facilities. Considering the dynamic and evolving nature of primary frequency response, we are not persuaded by NRECA's suggestion that the current specific needs of individual balancing authority areas within each Interconnection should determine whether to adopt minimum uniform primary frequency response requirements as a condition of interconnection. While the level of primary frequency response capability may be adequate in certain individual areas, NERC assessments indicate that the Bulk-Power System as a whole has experienced a decline in primary frequency response. In this regard, we reject NRECA's suggestion that “an imminent reliability threat” must exist to justify new primary frequency requirements such as those we adopt in this final action.
230. In addition, we disagree with NRECA and AES Companies that this
231. Finally, we find NRECA's and AES Companies' assertions regarding the potential adverse impact of the new primary frequency requirements adopted in this final action on technology and innovation to be speculative and unsupported. In this regard, we clarify that should the new primary frequency response requirements present obstacles to new, more efficient generating facilities that may be developed in the future, nothing in this final action prohibits prospective interconnection customers owning such facilities from seeking appropriate relief from the Commission.
232. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that public utility transmission providers must either comply with the final action, demonstrate that previously-approved variations continue to be consistent with or superior to the
233. Some commenters object to the proposal to make operating requirements uniform, contending that such uniformity fails to account for differences across regions and generating facilities—particularly those utilizing new technology and fuel sources—and the actual need for primary frequency response.
234. As explained above in Section II.B.3.a, we disagree with commenters who support a completely regional approach. We believe that the most effective approach to addressing concerns regarding primary frequency response is to establish and maintain minimum, uniform requirements for all newly interconnecting generating facilities. However, we recognize that unique circumstances or needs of some individual regions or areas may warrant different operating requirements. Therefore, we adopt the NOPR proposal and will allow transmission providers to propose variations to the operating requirements adopted in this final action. Specifically, the following methods for proposing variations adopted in Order No. 2003 will be available here: (1) Variations based on Regional Entity reliability requirements; (2) variations that are “consistent with or superior to” the final action; and (3) “independent entity variations” filed by RTOs/ISOs.
235. Finally, we clarify that the Commission will also consider requests for “regional reliability variations,” provided they are supported by references to regional Reliability Standards. In addition, in any such request, the transmission provider shall explain why these regional Reliability Standards support the requested variation, and shall include the text of the referenced Reliability Standards.
236. Xcel states that the Commission should add a new account to the FERC Uniform System of Accounts to allow the identification and tracking of cost information associated with primary frequency response. Xcel argues that a new FERC account would allow for the collection of installed cost information “so that the Commission can ensure that any rates reflect those costs and recover the costs form the appropriate customer base (
237. We deny this request. First, the costs of installing, maintaining, and operating a governor or equivalent controls is not significant and is captured by other accounts.
238. Union of Concerned Scientists asserts that while it believes that the NOPR proposal is “an important step” and the Commission should “complete this rulemaking,” the NOPR proposal “omit[s] discussion of how the utility industry may draw on the capability of loads to provide frequency response.”
239. We decline in this final action to address the need for load resources to provide primary frequency response. While we note that there are many complicated issues related to the provision of primary frequency response by load resources, we find that these issues are beyond the scope of this proceeding, which is limited to modifications to the
240. AES Companies state that NERC's Essential Reliability Services Task Force recommended that all new generating facilities should support the capability to manage frequency control, not that they should provide primary
241. We reject AES Companies' suggestions. Adopting these suggestions would add complications and create substantial uncertainty for generating facilities providing primary frequency response, which will detract from one of the Commission's goals (
242. To implement the proposed primary frequency response requirements, the Commission proposed in the NOPR to revise Sections 9.6 and 9.6.2.1 of the
243. As noted above in Sections II.B.2.a, II.B.2.b, II.B.2.c, II.C.2, II.H.1.b, and II.H.2.b of this final action, Bonneville, EEI, ELCON, NERC, ISO-RTO Council, and WIRAB request certain modifications to the proposed changes to
244. We deny AES Companies' request to modify Section 9.6 of the
245. Further, as explained in Sections II.B and II.C above, we conclude that EEI's requested modifications to the proposed revisions in the
246. In light of the above discussion, we revise the
9.6.2.1 [Governors and]
247. Similarly, the Commission modifies Section 1.8 of the
1.8 Reactive Power
248. The Commission is also modifying the
249. In particular, the Commission is modifying the following sections of the
250. Similarly, the Commission is modifying the following sections of the
251. Section 35.28(f)(1) of the Commission's regulations requires every public utility with a non-discriminatory OATT on file to also have a
252. We reiterate that the requirements of this final action apply to all newly interconnecting large and small generating facilities that execute or request the unexecuted filing of a LGIA or SGIA on or after the effective date of this final action as well as all existing large and small generating facilities that take any action that requires the submission of a new interconnection request that results in the filing of an executed or unexecuted interconnection agreement on or after the effective date of this final action. We are not requiring changes to existing interconnection agreements that were executed, or filed unexecuted, prior to the effective date of this final action.
253. We require each public utility transmission provider that has a
254. Some public utility transmission providers may have provisions in their existing
255. We find that transmission providers that are not public utilities must adopt the requirements of this final action as a condition of maintaining the status of their safe harbor tariff or otherwise satisfying the reciprocity requirement of Order No. 888.
256. The following collection of information contained in this final action is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
257. This final action revises the Commission's
258. While the Commission expects the revisions adopted in this final action will provide significant benefits, the Commission understands that implementation would entail some costs. The Commission solicited comments on the collection of information and the associated burden estimate in the NOPR. The Commission did not receive any comments concerning its burden or cost estimates.
259.
260.
261. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director], email:
262. Comments on the collection of information and the associated burden estimate in the final action should be sent to the Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission], at the following email address:
263. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
264. The Small Business Administration (SBA) revised its size
265. The Commission estimates that the total number of public utility transmission providers that would have to modify the LGIAs and SGIAs within their currently effective OATTs is 74.
266. The Commission estimates that the total annual number of new non-synchronous interconnections per year for the first few years of potential implementation under this rule would be approximately 200, representing approximately 5,000 MW of installed capacity. For this analysis, the Commission assumes that all new non-synchronous interconnections would be small entities.
267. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
268. Therefore, this final action falls within the categorical exemptions provided in the Commission's regulations, and as a result neither an Environmental Impact Statement nor an Environmental Assessment is required.
269. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
270. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number of this document, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field.
271. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
272. The final action is effective May 15, 2018. However, as noted above, the requirements of this final action will apply only to all newly interconnecting large and small generating facilities that
By the Commission.
The following appendices will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Governor controls and similar electric equipment can be recorded within the following Uniform System of Accounts account numbers by function:
| 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 |