| Page Range | 11395-11632 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 11631 - Regarding the Proposed Takeover of Qualcomm Incorporated by Broadcom Limited | |
| 83 FR 11625 - Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States | |
| 83 FR 11619 - Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States | |
| 83 FR 11565 - Sunshine Act Meetings; Notice of a Matter To Be Added to the Agenda for Consideration at an Agency Meeting | |
| 83 FR 11562 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 11413 - Vinyl Chloride | |
| 83 FR 11580 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment; Qualified Lessee Construction Allowances for Short-Term Leases | |
| 83 FR 11581 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment; Rules Relating to Registration | |
| 83 FR 11557 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Closeout Instruction for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program | |
| 83 FR 11556 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan & Annual Performance Report | |
| 83 FR 11554 - 60 Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Urban County Qualification/New York Towns Qualification/Requalification Processes | |
| 83 FR 11532 - Final Revised Vaccine Information Materials for MMR (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella) and MMRV (Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella) Vaccines | |
| 83 FR 11536 - Final Revised Vaccine Information Materials for Varicella Vaccine | |
| 83 FR 11415 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, Beach Thorofare, Margate City, NJ | |
| 83 FR 11538 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 11570 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Rules, ICC Risk Management Model Description Document, ICC Risk Management Framework, ICC Stress Testing Framework, and ICC Liquidity Risk Management Framework | |
| 83 FR 11416 - Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; City of Philadelphia; Control of Emissions From Existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator Units | |
| 83 FR 11418 - Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; City of Philadelphia; Control of Emissions From Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units | |
| 83 FR 11513 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for Pyroxasulfone New Uses | |
| 83 FR 11448 - Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Pyroxasulfone in or on Various Commodities | |
| 83 FR 11514 - Access to Confidential Business Information by Accelera Solutions, Inc | |
| 83 FR 11580 - Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway Corp.-Trackage Rights Renewal Exemption-Tazewell & Peoria Railroad, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 11428 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; 2018 River Herring and Shad Catch Cap Reached for Midwater Trawl Vessels in the Mid-Atlantic/Southern New England Catch Cap Area | |
| 83 FR 11514 - Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee; Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 11516 - Proposed CERCLA Cost Recovery Settlement Regarding the Universal Oil Products Superfund Site, East Rutherford, New Jersey | |
| 83 FR 11420 - Trinexapac-ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances | |
| 83 FR 11515 - FY2018 Supplemental Funding for Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grantees | |
| 83 FR 11563 - Steel Wire Garment Hangers From Taiwan and Vietnam; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews | |
| 83 FR 11489 - Privacy Act of 1974; New System of Records | |
| 83 FR 11542 - Health Center Program | |
| 83 FR 11543 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria | |
| 83 FR 11535 - Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees From the De Soto Avenue Facility in Los Angeles County, California, To Be Included in the Special Exposure Cohort | |
| 83 FR 11538 - Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort | |
| 83 FR 11569 - Proposal Review Panel for International Science and Engineering; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 11564 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 11559 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and a Possible Land Use Plan Amendment for the Proposed Crescent Peak Wind Project, West of Searchlight in Clark County, Nevada; and a Notice of Public Lands Segregation | |
| 83 FR 11507 - Market Risk Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 11493 - Low Pathogenicity Avian Influenza Program; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 11493 - National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council | |
| 83 FR 11562 - Honey From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year Review | |
| 83 FR 11395 - Importation of Campanula spp. Plants for Planting in Approved Growing Media From Denmark Into the United States | |
| 83 FR 11520 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 11501 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 52-Suffolk County, New York; Authorization of Production Activity; Advanced Optowave Corporation; (Diode Pumped Solid State Laser Systems); Ronkonkoma, New York | |
| 83 FR 11501 - Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, Rescission of Review, in Part, and Intent To Rescind, in Part; 2016 | |
| 83 FR 11492 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Control of Chronic Wasting Disease | |
| 83 FR 11567 - Request for Recommendations for Membership on Directorate and Office Advisory Committees | |
| 83 FR 11567 - Committee Management; Renewals | |
| 83 FR 11566 - Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 11568 - Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 11510 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Impact Evaluation of Departmentalized Instruction in Elementary Schools | |
| 83 FR 11505 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish | |
| 83 FR 11537 - Draft-National Occupational Research Agenda for Respiratory Health | |
| 83 FR 11521 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB | |
| 83 FR 11519 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 11529 - Oregon Lithoprint, Inc.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment | |
| 83 FR 11527 - Air Medical Group Holdings, Inc., KKR North America Fund XI (AMG) LLC, and AMR Holdco, Inc.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment | |
| 83 FR 11488 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 11523 - Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules | |
| 83 FR 11525 - Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules | |
| 83 FR 11564 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act | |
| 83 FR 11509 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Holden Beach East End Shore Protection Project With Installation of a Terminal Groin Structure at the Eastern End of Holden Beach, Extending Into the Atlantic Ocean, West of Lockwoods Folly Inlet (Brunswick County, NC) | |
| 83 FR 11532 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 83 FR 11535 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 83 FR 11579 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the Territory of American Samoa | |
| 83 FR 11561 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Requirements for Permits for Special Categories of Mining | |
| 83 FR 11561 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Requirements for Coal Exploration | |
| 83 FR 11539 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Health Care Professional Survey of Professional Prescription Drug Promotion | |
| 83 FR 11499 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Alaska Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 11512 - Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Petition for Partial Waiver | |
| 83 FR 11511 - Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 83 FR 11511 - Review of Cost Submittals by Other Federal Agencies for Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act; Notice of Technical Conference | |
| 83 FR 11512 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 11569 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 11570 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 11544 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 11545 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 11544 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 11546 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 11545 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 11547 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 11500 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Maryland Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 11548 - Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program; Fire Prevention and Safety Grants | |
| 83 FR 11499 - Notice of 109th Commission Meeting | |
| 83 FR 11578 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 11429 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 610 in the Gulf of Alaska | |
| 83 FR 11573 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 915 | |
| 83 FR 11576 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 5.3-O | |
| 83 FR 11508 - Notice of Availability: Guidance on the Application of Human Factors to Consumer Products | |
| 83 FR 11546 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 11553 - Extension of Employment Authorization for Syrian F-1 Nonimmigrant Students Experiencing Severe Economic Hardship as a Direct Result of Civil Unrest in Syria Since March 2011 | |
| 83 FR 11415 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Narrow Bay, Suffolk County, NY | |
| 83 FR 11517 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 11518 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 83 FR 11452 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding | |
| 83 FR 11422 - Modernization of Payphone Compensation Rules | |
| 83 FR 11494 - Announcement of Grant Application Deadlines and Funding Levels | |
| 83 FR 11413 - Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and Paying Benefits | |
| 83 FR 11445 - Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace; Appleton, WI | |
| 83 FR 11474 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Framework Adjustment 29 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan | |
| 83 FR 11558 - Notice of Availability; Florida Trustee Implementation Group Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Final Phase V.2 Restoration Plan and Supplemental Environmental Assessment; Florida Coastal Access Project | |
| 83 FR 11453 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina (San Fernando Valley Spineflower) | |
| 83 FR 11446 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Altoona, PA | |
| 83 FR 11409 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Twin Falls, ID | |
| 83 FR 11411 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Lewiston, ID | |
| 83 FR 11408 - Establishment of Class E Airspace, Yuma, CO | |
| 83 FR 11407 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Massena, NY | |
| 83 FR 11443 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mesquite, NV | |
| 83 FR 11449 - Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System | |
| 83 FR 11450 - Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System | |
| 83 FR 11404 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 11399 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 11397 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 11584 - Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; Amendments to the National Minimum Criteria (Phase One); Proposed Rule | |
| 83 FR 11488 - Notice of Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for Review | |
| 83 FR 11565 - Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request, Proposed Collection: IMLS Collections Assessment for Preservation Program | |
| 83 FR 11580 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Northeast Philadelphia Airport (PNE), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Correction | |
| 83 FR 11431 - Collection of Checks and Other Items by Federal Reserve Banks and Funds Transfers Through Fedwire |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Rural Utilities Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Federal Aviation 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.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the regulations governing the importation of plants for planting by authorizing the importation of
Effective April 16, 2018.
Dr. Narasimha Samboju, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Plants for Planting Policy, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2038.
The regulations in 7 CFR part 319 prohibit or restrict the importation of certain plants and plant products into the United States to prevent the introduction of quarantine plant pests. The regulations contained in “Subpart—Plants for Planting,” §§ 319.37 through 319.37-14 (referred to below as the regulations), prohibit or restrict, among other things, the importation of living plants, plant parts, and seeds for propagation or planting.
The regulations differentiate between prohibited articles and restricted articles. Prohibited articles are plants for planting whose importation into the United States is not authorized due to the risk the articles present of introducing or disseminating plant pests. Restricted articles are articles that may be imported into the United States, provided that the articles are subject to measures to address the associated risks.
Conditions for the importation into the United States of restricted articles in growing media are found in § 319.37-8. In § 319.37-8, the introductory text in paragraph (e) lists taxa of restricted articles that may be imported into the United States in approved growing media, subject to the provisions of a systems approach. Paragraph (e)(1) lists the approved growing media, while paragraph (e)(2) contains the provisions of the systems approach. Within paragraph (e)(2), paragraphs (i) through (viii) contain provisions that are generally applicable to all the taxa listed in the introductory text of paragraph (e), while paragraphs (ix) through (xiii) contain additional, taxon-specific provisions.
In response to a request from the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Denmark, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) in order to analyze the plant pest risks associated with the importation of
Accordingly, on June 20, 2017, we published in the
We solicited comment concerning our proposal for 60 days ending August 21, 2017. We received two comments by that date. They were from a private citizen and a State department of agriculture. One commenter was generally opposed to the importation of
One commenter stated that, although the approved growing media effectively mitigates the movement of arthropods occurring with the soil, it does not address the potential movement of the other quarantine plants pests identified in the PRA: The leafminers,
As explained in the RMD (Appendix 1), the pests specifically referenced by the commenter will be mitigated by the systems approach. Inspections will be
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, because this rule is not significant, it is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have performed a final regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is amending the regulations in 7 CFR 319.37-8 to allow the importation of
In 2014, U.S. production of potted
The NPPO of Denmark estimates that shipments of
Although the rule could theoretically enable Denmark-based exporters to bypass U.S. growers altogether and provide finished plants directly to retailers, it is less likely because flowering potted plants tend to be more sensitive to shipping conditions. Consequently, it is more likely that the Danish growers will continue to export immature plants to U.S. growers who will then grow them out for sale as finished plants, but with a higher success rate and shorter market delay than under current regulations. U.S. growers who import
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared for this final rule. The environmental assessment provides a basis for the conclusion that the importation of
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact were prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact may be viewed on the
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the EGovernment 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. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450 and 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
The revision reads as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the side panel-to-frame attachments and frames of the aft cargo compartment are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires an inspection of the side panel-to-frame attachments and frames to verify that certain modifications have been done, and applicable on-condition actions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 19, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 19, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Peter Jarzomb, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5234; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing and United Airlines agreed with the content of the NPRM.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.
We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01518SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
FedEx Express asked that instructions to address previously repaired areas on which the modification has not been incorporated be added to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0012, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2017, before issuing the proposed AD.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. To wait for Boeing to update the service bulletin, as requested, would delay the issuance of the final rule. However, to delay this action would be inappropriate since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that the actions required by this AD must be done to ensure continued safety. If a previously repaired area does not incorporate the modification required by this AD, and the modification cannot be done on the previously repaired area, operators must request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) using the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. We have made no change to this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0012, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2017. The service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection of the side panel-to-frame attachments and frames to verify that certain modifications have been done. The service information also describes procedures for on-condition actions, which include repetitive inspections for cracking, repairs, and modifications. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that are required. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective April 19, 2018.
None.
(1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0012, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2017.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the side panel-to-frame attachments and frames of the aft cargo compartment are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking at the attachment points of the side panel-to-frame attachments of the aft cargo compartment, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the body frames, and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0012, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0012, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2017.
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0012, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2017, uses the phrase “the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0012, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2017, specifies contacting Boeing, and specifies that action as RC: This AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Accomplishment of a modification in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0012, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2017, terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the modified location only.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Peter Jarzomb, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5234; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0012, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-18-16, which applied to certain Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. AD 2009-18-16 required an inspection for cracking of certain fastener holes on certain frames, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary; and modification of certain fastener holes. This new AD reduces the compliance times. This AD was prompted by the identification of a structural modification that falls within the scope of the work related to the extension of the service life of the affected airplanes and widespread fatigue damage evaluations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 19, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 19, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3225.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2009-18-16, Amendment 39-16012 (74 FR 46342, September 9, 2009) (“AD 2009-18-16”). AD 2009-18-16 applied to certain Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0197, dated October 5, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), for all Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. EASA AD 2016-0197 supersedes EASA AD 2008-0212, dated December 4, 2008. EASA AD 2008-0212 was the MCAI referred to in FAA AD 2009-18-16. The new MCAI states:
Within the scope of work related to the extension of the service life of A310 design and widespread fatigue damage evaluations, DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD F-2005-078 (EASA approval 2005-3957) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2006-02-06, Amendment 39-14458 (71 FR 3214, January 20, 2006)] to require a structural modification, as defined in Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A310-53-2124 (Airbus modification 13023), to increase the service life of junctions of center box upper frame bases to upper fuselage arches.
The threshold timescales for accomplishment of the tasks as defined in SB A310-53-2124 were refined and reduced. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2007-0238 to require compliance with Revision 01 of SB A310-53-2124 at the reduced compliance times, superseding (the requirements of) DGAC France AD F-2005-078. Subsequently, Airbus identified reference material that was erroneously introduced into Airbus SB A310-53-2124 Revision 01. As a result, the SB instructions could not be accomplished properly. Operators that tried to apply SB A310-53-2124 at Revision 01 had to contact Airbus; see also Airbus SBIT [service bulletin information telex] ref. 914.0135/08, dated 03 March 2008.
Consequently, [EASA] AD 2007-0238 was revised to exclude reference to Airbus SB A310-53-2124 Revision 01 and to require accomplishment of the task(s) as described in the original SB A310-53-2124 instead, although retaining the reduced compliance times introduced by [EASA] AD 2007-0238 at original issue.
EASA AD 2008-0212, superseding [EASA] AD 2007-0238R1, was published to refer to Airbus SB A310 53-2124 Revision 02, the corrected version that was used to meet the requirements of this [EASA] AD.
Since [EASA] AD 2008-0212 was issued, new investigations in the frame of the Widespread Fatigue Damage campaign induced thresholds reduction, and Airbus issued SB A310-53-2124 Revision 03.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2008-0212, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of modification(s) within reduced compliance time, as published in Airbus SB A310-53-2124 Revision 03.
Required actions include a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) rotating probe inspection for cracking of certain fastener holes on certain frames, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary; and modification of certain fastener holes. Related investigative actions include an additional HFEC rotating probe inspection for cracking of fastener holes and a check to determine the edge distance of certain holes. Corrective actions include ream out of cracks and repair.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.
FedEx stated that repairs would cost an additional $10,000 per airplane. The commenter noted that 66% of its past accomplishments required additional efforts to incorporate the modification with supplementary repair activities. The commenter suggested that the average cost of compliance would approach $30,000 per airplane. We infer that the commenter is requesting a revision to the costs of compliance in the NPRM. We agree with commenter's request to revise the costs of compliance in this final rule. We have revised the Costs of Compliance section in this final rule accordingly.
We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described previously, and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, Revision 03, dated December 22, 2014. This service information describes procedures for a rotating probe inspection for cracking between frame (FR) 43 through FR 46 on the center box, and the cold expansion (modification) of the most fatigue sensitive fastener holes. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate that it will take about 41 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $20,180 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
Although we have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions (
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective April 19, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2009-18-16, Amendment 39-16012 (74 FR 46342, September 9, 2009) (“AD 2009-18-16”).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324 and -325 airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the junctions of center box upper frame bases to the upper fuselage arches are subject to widespread fatigue damage and that the compliance threshold for the modification in AD 2009-18-16 should be reduced. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the frame foot run-outs, which could lead to rupture of the frame foot and cracking in adjacent frames and skin, and which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except for airplanes modified before the effective date of this AD using the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124: At the times specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD but no later than the times specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) rotating probe inspection for cracking of fastener holes H1 through H29 on frames 43 through 46, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, Revision 03, dated December 22, 2014, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. If no cracking is found and the edge distance of the fastener hole is equal to or greater than the distance specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, Revision 03, dated December 22, 2014, before further flight, do the modification (cold expansion) of the affected fastener holes, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, Revision 03, dated December 22, 2014. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
(1) Inspect at the applicable time specified in table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. To establish the average flight time (AFT), take the accumulated flight time (counted from the take-off up to the landing) and divide by the number of accumulated flight cycles. This gives the AFT per flight cycle. Although the thresholds for Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes are optimized to airplane utilization, an operator can choose to use the thresholds for the other AFT.
(2) Inspect at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) At the applicable time indicated in table 2 to paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD. Airbus Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes with an AFT equal to or less than 3.16 flight hours are short range airplanes. Airbus Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes with an AFT exceeding 3.16 flight hours are long range airplanes. For this paragraph, to establish the average flight time, take the accumulated flight time (counted from the take-off up to the landing) and divide by the number of accumulated flight cycles. This gives the AFT per flight cycle.
(ii) Within 500 flight cycles or 800 flight hours after October 14, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-18-16), whichever occurs first.
Where Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, Revision 03, dated December 22, 2014, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (required for compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD.
For airplanes modified before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, Revision 01, dated May 3, 2007: Unless already accomplished, before further flight, do applicable corrective actions using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
Except as provided by paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable: At the applicable thresholds specified in table 3 to the introductory text of paragraph (j) of this AD, contact the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA for additional inspection and modification instructions. Accomplish those instructions within the compliance times approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(1) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes: No additional inspection is required if the inspection and modification specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124 was done after the accumulation of 29,500 flight cycles and 70,900 flight hours since the first flight of the airplane.
(2) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes: No additional inspection is required if the inspection and modification specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124 was done after the accumulation of 22,600 flight cycles and 69,400 flight hours since the first flight of the airplane.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, dated April 4, 2005; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, Revision 02, dated May 22, 2008.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0197, dated October 5, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone: 206-231-3225.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, Revision 03, dated December 22, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of in-flight uncommanded rudder movements on airplanes with an installation similar to the installation on certain Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. This AD requires modification of the wiring harness for the yaw damper control system. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 19, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 19, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-38, effective December 12, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. The MCAI states:
The [Canadian] AD CF-2013-22 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-16-06, Amendment 39-17930 (79 FR 48972, August 19, 2014)] was issued on 12 August 2013 to mandate the introduction of an emergency procedure to the Aeroplane Flight Manual to address the uncommanded rudder movement.
Since the original issue of [Canadian] AD CF-2013-22, Bombardier Aerospace has developed a wiring modification for the yaw damper control system to prevent uncommanded movement of the rudder.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of Service Bulletins (SB) 604-22-007 and 605-22-002 * * * *.
This AD requires modification of the wiring for the yaw damper control system. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.
Bombardier, Inc., requested that the Reason section (paragraph (e) of the proposed AD) be revised to clarify that the in-flight uncommanded rudder movements occurred on airplanes with an installation similar to the installation on certain Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes and did not occur on Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes. Bombardier, Inc., stated that it is not aware of any in-flight uncommanded rudder movements that were experienced by operators of Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes, but as written, the Reason section of the NPRM implied that these events occurred on Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes.
For the reason provided by the commenter, we agree to revise the
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Bombardier, Inc., issued Service Bulletin 604-22-007, Revision 01, dated July 25, 2016; and Service Bulletin 605-22-002, Revision 01, dated July 25, 2016. This service information describes procedures for modifying the wiring harness for the yaw damper control system. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business
We estimate that this AD affects 120 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective April 19, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 5301 through 5665 inclusive, 5701 through 5911 inclusive, 5913, and 5914.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22, Autopilot System.
This AD was prompted by reports of in-flight uncommanded rudder movements on airplanes with an installation similar to the installation on certain Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight uncommanded rudder movements, which could lead to structural failure and subsequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the wiring harness for the yaw damper control system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes having serial numbers (S/Ns) 5301 through 5665 inclusive: Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-22-007, Revision 01, dated July 25, 2016.
(2) For airplanes having S/Ns 5701 through 5911 inclusive, 5913, and 5914: Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-22-002, Revision 01, dated July 25, 2016.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a yaw damper actuator having part number 622-9968-002, unless the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD has been accomplished.
This paragraph provides credit for the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if the modification was performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information identified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.
(1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-22-007, dated June 23, 2015.
(2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-22-002, dated June 23, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2016-38, effective December 12, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier, Inc., Service Bulletin 604-22-007, Revision 01, dated July 25, 2016.
(ii) Bombardier, Inc., Service Bulletin 605-22-002, Revision 01, dated July 25, 2016.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E surface airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Massena, NY, as the Massena collocated VHF omnidirectional range tactical air navigation system (VORTAC) has been decommissioned, requiring airspace reconfiguration at Massena International-Richards Field Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of this airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, May 24, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, 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.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Massena International-Richards Field Airport., Massena, NY, to support IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
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
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E surface airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Massena International-Richards Field Airport, Massena, NY. The segment within 1.8 miles each side of the Massena VORTAC 286° radial extending from the 4-mile radius to the VORTAC is removed in Class E surface airspace; and the segment within 2.7 miles each side of the Massena VORTAC 106° radial extending from the 7.4-mile radius to 7 miles east of the VORTAC is removed in Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, due to the decommissioning of the Massena VORTAC, and cancelation of associated approaches. This action enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database
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. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979) and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Within a 4-mile radius of the Massena International-Richards Field Airport, excluding the airspace within Canada.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.4-mile radius of Massena International-Richards Field Airport, excluding the airspace within Canada.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Yuma Municipal Airport, Yuma, CO, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) procedures at the airport. This action is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.
Effective 0901 UTC, May 24, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200 S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-2253.
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.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 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.
This document amends 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 amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Yuma Municipal Airport, Yuma, CO. This airspace is necessary to accommodate the development of RNAV (IFR) operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Yuma Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace designated as an extension, and modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Joslin Field-Magic Valley Regional Airport, Twin Falls, ID. Also, the part-time Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) status is removed from Class E airspace designated as an extension. Additionally, an editorial change is made to the Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace, and Class E extension airspace legal descriptions replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement.” Also, this action removes the words “Twin Falls” from the airport name in the airspace designations for Class D and E airspace. These actions are necessary to accommodate airspace redesign for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.
Effective 0901 UTC, May 24, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, 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.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200 S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-2253.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class D and E airspace at Joslin Field-Magic Valley Regional Airport, Twin Falls, ID, in support of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA published in the
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends 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 amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Joslin Field-Magic Valley Regional Airport, Twin Falls, ID.
Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area is reduced to a 5-mile wide segment (from 8.6-miles wide) extending to 7 miles (from 9.2 miles) east, and a 5-mile wide segment (from 8.6 miles wide) extending to 7.1 miles (from 9.2 miles) west of the airport. Also, the part-time Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) status is removed from Class E airspace designated as an extension, as this airspace is continuous.
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is reduced to a 12-mile wide segment (from a 16.5-mile segment) extending to 21.9 miles (from 26.1 miles) east, and 16 miles (from 20 miles) west of the airport. Also, the small extension to 8.2 miles southeast of the airport is removed.
Finally, this action replaces the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement” in the Class D, and Class E surface airspace legal descriptions, and removes the words “Twin Falls” from the airport name in the airspace designations for Class D and E airspace noted in this action.
These modifications are necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 6,700 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Joslin Field-Magic Valley Regional Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a
That airspace within a 4.3-mile radius of Joslin Field-Magic Valley Regional Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.5 miles each side of the 087° bearing from Joslin Field-Magic Valley Regional Airport extending from the 4.3 mile radius of the airport to 7 miles east of the airport, and within 2.5 miles each side of the airport 274° bearing extending from the airport 4.3-mile radius to 7.1 miles west of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 4.3 miles south and 8 miles north of the 091° bearing from Joslin Field-Magic Valley Regional Airport extending from the airport to 22 miles east of the airport, and within 4.3 miles south and 8 miles north of the airport 275° bearing extending from the airport to 16 miles west of the airport. That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 43°22′00″ N, long. 115°08′00″ W; to lat. 43°09′00″ N, long. 114°03′00″ W; to lat. 42°33′00″ N, long. 114°03′00″ W; to lat. 42°18′00″ N, long. 114°06′00″ W; to lat. 41°48′00″ N, long. 115°00′00″ W; to lat. 43°01′00″ N, long. 115°20′00″ W, thence to the point of beginning.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This actions amends controlled airspace at Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID, by enlarging Class D airspace, and Class E surface airspace, and reducing Class E airspace designated as an extension, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. Also, this action removes the part-time Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) status from Class E airspace designated as an extension. Additionally, an editorial change is made to the legal descriptions replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement”. This action enhances safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, May 24, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, 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.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200 S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-2253.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class D and E airspace at Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID, in support of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA published in the
The commenter objected to the expansion of Class D airspace based on a belief that the FAA erred in calculating the Class D area radius as described in FAA Order 7400.2K, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, Chapter 17, Figure 17-2-1, specifically by enlarging the Class D area from a 4.1-mile radius to a 4.3-mile radius. After a second review, the FAA agrees a 4.1-mile radius for some areas of the Class D is sufficient. The proposed enlargement of Class D airspace to a 4.3-mile radius was not based on Figure 17-2-1, but instead was intended to contain all IFR circling aircraft utilizing an expanded circling approach maneuvering airspace radius. After a second review the FAA has determined the proposed Class D airspace east, southeast, and west would adequately contain the circling aircraft. The FAA will therefore preserve Class D airspace within a 4.1-mile radius of the airport where additional airspace is not required.
The commenter also objected to the proposed expansion of Class D airspace greater than 2 miles beyond the 4.1-mile radius based on FAA Order 7400.2K paragraph 17-2-7 (d) ARRIVAL EXTENSIONS, stating all extensions should be Class E. The FAA does not agree. The proposed expansion areas of Class D airspace east, southeast, and west are not arrival extensions, but are designed to contain the specific departure procedures for the airport in accordance with paragraph 17-2-6 DEPARTURES. The expanded areas are therefore a part of the Class D and should not be Class E extensions.
The commenter also states that “Class D should be a basic round circle”. The FAA does not agree. Paragraph 17-2-1 CONFIGURATION states that the Class D size and shape may vary to allow for safe and efficient handling of operations, and must be sized to contain the intended operations. Use of a basic circle of Class D airspace would result in an excessive degree of airspace restriction. The shape of the proposed Class D airspace area is designed to contain the existing IFR operations at the airport with a minimum of airspace restriction, thereby protecting the public's right to freedom of transit.
Lastly, the commenter suggests the FAA has not complied with paragraph 17-1-2, REGIONAL/SERVICE AREA OFFICE EVALUATION, by failing to follow the policies and procedures within FAA Order 7400.2L. The FAA does not agree. The proposed airspace modifications were designed based on the requirements contained within FAA Order 7400.2L. This action by its very nature is intended to ensure the airspace configuration at Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID is in compliance with FAA policies and guidelines.
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends 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 amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as a surface area, Class E airspace designated as an extension, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID. This airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules operations at the airport.
Class D and Class E surface area airspace are amended to within a 4.1-mile radius of the airport (no change) from the airport 290° bearing clockwise to the airport 066° bearing; and within a 5.1-mile radius of the airport (from the 4.1-mile radius) from the airport 066° bearing clockwise to the airport 115° bearing; and within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport (from the 4.1-mile radius) from the airport 115° bearing clockwise to the airport 164° bearing; and within a 4.3-mile radius of the airport (from the 4.1-mile radius) from the airport 164° bearing clockwise to the airport 230° bearing; and within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport (from the 4.1-mile radius) from the airport 230° bearing clockwise to the airport 290° bearing. Also, the class D airspace extending upward from the surface is reduced to up to and including 2,700 feet MSL (from 3,900 feet).
Class E airspace designated as an extension is modified to within 1.0 mile each side of the 100° bearing from the airport extending from the 5.1-mile radius of the airport to 7.9 miles east of the airport (from 2.7 miles each side of the Lewiston-Nez Perce ILS localizer course extending from the 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 14 miles east), and within 1.0 mile each side of the 313° bearing from the airport extending from the airport 4.1-mile radius to 6.1 miles northwest of the airport (from 3.5 miles each side of the Nez Perce VOR/DME 266° radial extending from the 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 13.1 miles west of the airport). Also, the part-time Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) status is removed.
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is modified to within a 6.3-mile radius of the airport, and within 8.5 miles north and 4.3 miles south of the airport 099° and 279° bearings extending to 27.8 miles east and 22.5 miles west of the airport (from an irregularly shaped polygon generally extending to 19 miles northeast, 24 miles east, 19 miles southeast, and 25 miles west).
Additionally, this action replaces the term “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement” in the Class D and Class E surface airspace.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,700 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius from Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport clockwise from the airport 290° bearing to the 066° bearing, and within a 5.1-mile radius of the airport from the 066° bearing to the airport 115° bearing and within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport from the 115° bearing to the airport 164° bearing, and within a 4.1-mile radius of the airport from the airport 164° bearing to the airport 230° bearing, and within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport from the 230° bearing to the airport 290° bearing. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.1-mile radius from the Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport clockwise from the airport 290° bearing to the 066° bearing, and within a 5.1-mile radius of the airport from the 066° bearing to the airport 115° bearing and within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport from the 115° bearing to the airport 164° bearing, and within a 4.1-mile radius of the airport from the airport 164° bearing to the airport 230° bearing, and within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport from the 230° bearing to the airport 290° bearing. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace within one mile each side of the 100° bearing from the Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport extending from the airport 5.1-mile radius to 7.9 miles east of the airport, and within 1.0 mile each side of the 313° bearing from the airport extending from the airport 4.1-mile radius to 6.1 miles northwest of the airport.
That airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, and within 8.5 miles north and 4.3 miles south of the airport 099° and 279° bearings extending to 27.8 miles east and 22.5 miles west of the airport; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 62-mile radius of the Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, and within 24 miles each side of the 056° bearing from the airport extending from the 62-mile radius to 92 miles northeast of the airport.
(n) The employer must, within 15 working days after the receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section, notify each affected employee of these results and the steps being taken to reduce exposures within the permissible exposure limit either individually in writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is accessible to affected employees.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulations on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation for valuation dates in April 2018 and interest assumptions under the asset allocation regulation for valuation dates in the second quarter of 2018. The interest assumptions are used for valuing and paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.
Effective April 1, 2018.
Hilary Duke (
PBGC's regulations on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) and Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulations are also published on PBGC's website (
The interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4044 are used to value benefits for allocation purposes under ERISA section 4044. PBGC uses the interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.
The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the asset allocation regulation are updated quarterly; assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for April 2018 and
The second quarter 2018 interest assumptions under the allocation regulation will be 2.27 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 2.59 percent thereafter. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for the first quarter of 2018, these interest assumptions represent no change in the select period (the period during which the select rate (the initial rate) applies), a decrease of 0.12 percent in the select rate, and a decrease of 0.01 percent in the ultimate rate (the final rate).
The April 2018 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 1.00 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for March 2018, these interest assumptions represent a 0.25 percent increase in the immediate rate and no changes in i1, i2, or i3.
PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during April 2018, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication. PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR parts 4022 and 4044 are amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Smith Point Bridge across Narrow Bay, mile 6.1, at Suffolk County, New York. This deviation is necessary in order to facilitate a Triathlon Event and allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for two hours.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. on August 5, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0108, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Stephanie Lopez, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4335, email
Event Power requested and the bridge owner, Suffolk County DPW, concurred with this temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a Triathlon Event.
The Smith Point Bridge across Narrow Bay, mile 6.1, has a vertical clearance of 18 feet at mean high water and 19 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulation is listed at 33 CFR 117.799(d).
The temporary deviation will allow the Smith Point Bridge to remain closed from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. on August 5, 2018. Narrow Bay is transited by seasonal recreational vessels. Coordination with Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound has indicated no mariner objections to the proposed short-term closure of the draw.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.
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 drawbridge must return to its 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; modification.
The Coast Guard has modified a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Margate Boulevard/Margate Bridge, which carries Margate Boulevard across the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, Beach Thorofare, mile 74.0, at Margate City, NJ. This modified deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge maintenance.
This modified deviation is effective without actual notice from March 15, 2018 through 7 p.m. on March 26, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 7:01 p.m. on March 12, 2018 until March 15, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0033] is available at
If you have questions on this modified temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael R. Thorogood, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6557, email
On February 1, 2018, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, Beach Thorofare, Margate City, NJ” in the
The Beach Thorofare is used by a variety of vessels including recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternative route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. 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 transit
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its 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.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is taking final action to reaffirm and reapprove a negative declaration for existing hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator (HMIWI) units within the City of Philadelphia. This negative declaration certifies that existing HMIWI units subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) do not exist within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Philadelphia Air Management Service (AMS). EPA is accepting the negative declaration in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
This rule is effective on April 16, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0453. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Mike Gordon, (215) 814-2039, or by email at
Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA require states to submit plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing solid waste combustor facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same type, and EPA has established emission guidelines (EG) for such existing sources. CAA section 129 directs EPA to establish standards of performance for new sources and emissions guidelines for existing sources for each category of solid waste incineration unit. CAA section 129(a) and (b). EPA also must specify numerical emissions limitations for particulate matter (total and fine), opacity (as appropriate), sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans. CAA section 129(a)(4).
On September 15, 1997 (62 FR 48348), EPA first promulgated HMIWI unit new source performance standards, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, and emission guidelines for existing facilities, subpart Ce. These regulations were then amended on October 6, 2009 (74 FR 51368) and on April 4, 2011 (76 FR 18407).
The designated facilities to which the EG apply are existing HMIWI units that: (1) Commenced construction on or before June 20, 1996, or for which modification was commenced on or before March 16, 1998; or (2) commenced construction after June 20, 1996 but no later than December 1, 2008, or for which modification commenced after March 16, 1998 but no later than April 6, 2010, with limited exceptions as provided in paragraphs 40 CFR 60.32e(b) through (h).
Subpart B and Ce of 40 CFR part 60 establish procedures to be followed and requirements to be met in the development and submission of state plans for controlling designated pollutants from existing HMIWI facilities. Also, 40 CFR part 62 provides the procedural framework for the submission of these plans. When existing designated facilities are located in a state, the state must then develop and submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant. However, 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06 provide that if there are no existing sources of the designated pollutant in the state, the state may submit a letter of certification to that effect (
On October 12, 2017 (82 FR 47398 and 82 FR 47421), EPA simultaneously published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) and a direct final rule (DFR) for the City of Philadelphia approving a negative declaration from Philadelphia AMS that there are no existing HMIWI units subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA in its respective air pollution control jurisdiction. EPA explained that if it did not receive an adverse comment on the NPR, the DFR would take effect with no further administrative action. EPA received an adverse comment on the NPR and attempted to withdraw the DFR prior to its effective date of December 11, 2017. However, EPA inadvertently did not withdraw the DFR prior to that date and the rule prematurely became effective on December 11, 2017, revising 40 CFR part 62 to reflect the approval of the negative declaration. In the NPR, EPA had proposed to approve the negative declaration. In this final rulemaking, EPA is responding to the comment submitted on the proposed approval of the negative declaration and approving the negative declaration. This action supersedes the prior DFR which went in to effect prematurely and had an effective date of December 11, 2017.
Philadelphia AMS has determined that there are no existing HMIWI units subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA in its respective air pollution control jurisdiction. Accordingly, Philadelphia AMS submitted a negative declaration letter to EPA certifying this fact on August 2, 2011. The negative declaration letter and EPA's technical support document for this action are available in the docket for this rulemaking and online at
EPA received one adverse comment on the proposed approval of the negative declaration for existing HMIWI units submitted by Philadelphia AMS.
HMIWI units constructed in Philadelphia after the above cited dates would be considered “new,” as opposed to “existing,” and therefore would be subject to a separate rule—40 CFR 60 subpart Ec, “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources: Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators.” EPA is not aware of any new HMIWI units within the jurisdictional boundaries of Philadelphia AMS. If EPA became aware of a new HMIWI unit in Philadelphia, it would have no bearing on the approvability of this HMIWI negative declaration because it only pertains to existing sources.
At the time of Philadelphia's submission, EPA worked with Philadelphia AMS and reviewed Philadelphia's inventory of sources to ensure no existing HMIWI units existed within Philadelphia, and the commenter has not provided any information to the contrary that would cause EPA to reconsider the assessment of Philadelphia AMS's negative declaration. EPA is therefore finalizing the negative declaration for existing HMIWI units in this action.
In this final action, EPA is reaffirming and reapproving the previous amendment to part 62 to reflect receipt of the negative declaration letter from Philadelphia AMS. EPA is accepting the negative declaration in accordance with the requirements of the CAA and 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely notifies the public of EPA receipt of a negative declaration from an air pollution control agency without any existing HMIWI units in their jurisdiction. This action imposes no requirements. Accordingly, EPA certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
With regard to negative declarations for designated facilities received by EPA from states, EPA's role is to notify the public of the receipt of such negative declarations and revise 40 CFR part 62 accordingly. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to approve or disapprove a CAA section 111(d)/129 plan negative declaration submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a CAA section 111(d)/129 negative declaration, to use VCS in place of a section 111(d)/129 negative declaration that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
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
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is taking final action to notify the public that it has received a negative declaration for sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units within the City of Philadelphia. This negative declaration certifies that SSI units subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) do not exist in Pennsylvania within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Philadelphia Air Management Service (AMS). EPA is accepting the negative declaration in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
This rule is effective on April 16, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0509. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Mike Gordon, (215) 814-2039, or by email at
Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA require states to submit plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing solid waste combustor facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same type, and EPA has established emission guidelines (EG) for such existing sources. CAA section 129 directs EPA to establish standards of performance for new sources and emissions guidelines for existing sources for each category of solid waste incineration unit. CAA section 129(a) and (b). EPA also must specify numerical emissions limitations for particulate matter (total and fine), opacity (as appropriate), sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans. CAA section 129(a)(4).
On March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15372), EPA promulgated SSI unit new source performance standards, 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL, and EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM. The designated facilities to which the EG apply are existing SSI units that: (1) Commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010; (2) meet the definition of a SSI unit as defined in 40 CFR 60.5250; and (3) are not exempt under 40 CFR 60.5065.
Subpart B of 40 CFR part 60 establishes procedures to be followed and requirements to be met in the development and submission of state plans for controlling designated pollutants. Also, 40 CFR part 62 provides the procedural framework for the submission of these plans. When designated facilities are located in a state, the state must then develop and submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant. However, 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06 provide that if there are no existing sources of the designated pollutant in the state, the state may submit a letter of certification to that effect (
On October 26, 2017 (82 FR 49563 and 82 FR 49511), EPA simultaneously published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) and a direct final rule (DFR) for the City of Philadelphia approving a negative declaration from Philadelphia AMS that there are no existing SSI units subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA in its respective air pollution control jurisdiction. EPA received an adverse comment on the rulemaking and withdrew the DFR prior to the effective date on December 26, 2017 (82 FR 60872). In this final rulemaking, EPA is responding to the comment submitted on the proposed approval of the negative declaration and is approving the negative declaration.
Philadelphia AMS has determined that there are no existing SSI units subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA in its respective air pollution control jurisdiction. Accordingly, Philadelphia AMS submitted a negative declaration letter to EPA certifying this fact on March 28, 2012. The negative declaration letter and EPA's technical support document for this action are available in the docket for this rulemaking and are available online at
EPA received one adverse comment on the proposed approval of the negative declaration for SSI units submitted by Philadelphia AMS. All other comments received were either supportive of or not specific to this action and thus are not addressed here.
In this final action, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62 to reflect receipt of the negative declaration letter from Philadelphia AMS. EPA is accepting the negative declaration in accordance with the requirements of the CAA and 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely notifies the public of EPA receipt of a negative declaration from an air pollution control agency without any existing SSI units in their jurisdiction. This action imposes no requirements. Accordingly, EPA certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
With regard to negative declarations for designated facilities received by EPA from states, EPA's role is to notify the public of the receipt of such negative declarations and revise 40 CFR part 62 accordingly. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to approve or disapprove a CAA section 111(d)/129 plan negative declaration submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a CAA section 111(d)/129 negative declaration, to use VCS in place of a section 111(d)/129 negative declaration that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
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
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
Letter from the City of Philadelphia, Department of Public Health, submitted March 28, 2012, certifying that there are no existing sewage sludge incineration units within the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of trinexapac-ethyl in or on poppy, seed. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) in order to cover residues of trinexapac-ethyl in imported poppy seed commodities.
This regulation is effective March 15, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 14, 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-2016-0365, 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
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-2016-0365 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 14, 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-2016-0365, 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
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
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 trinexapac-ethyl including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
In the
The Agency has determined that a new dietary exposure assessment is not needed because poppy seed is not a significant part of the diet, and residues of trinexapac-ethyl do not concentrate in poppy seed oil. Therefore, residues in poppy seed oil are not expected to have an impact on the EPA's previous findings. Therefore, EPA relies upon the findings made in the May 20, 2015,
For a detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and determination of safety for these tolerances please refer to the May 20, 2015,
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 trinexapac-ethyl.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of trinexapac-ethyl, ethyl 4-(cyclopropylhydroxymethylene)-3,5-dioxocyclohexanecarboxylate expressed as its primary metabolite trinexpac, 4-(cyclopropylhydroxymethylene)-3,5-dioxocyclohexanecarboxylic acid, in or on poppy, seed at 8 ppm.
This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 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 tolerance 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
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) * * *
Federal Communications Commission
Final rule.
In this document, a Report and Order takes a number of actions aimed at modernizing the Commission's payphone compensation procedure rules by eliminating costly requirements that are no longer necessary in light of technological and marketplace changes. These actions further the Commission's goal of regularly examining and updating its rules to keep pace with technology and the changing communications landscape, and to eliminate requirements that are no longer necessary, thereby reducing the costs and burdens of rules that have outlived their purpose. These have no impact on Completing Carriers' continuing obligations under the Commission's rules to maintain accurate call tracking systems and to fully compensate payphone service providers for the calls covered by these rules.
Effective April 16, 2018, except for the amendment to 47 CFR 64.1310(a)(3), which contains information collection requirements that have not been approved by OMB. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the
Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, Michele Berlove, at (202) 418-1477,
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in WC Docket No. 17-141, FCC 18-21, adopted and released February 22, 2018. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It is available on the Commission's website at
1. In this Report and Order, we continue our efforts to modernize our rules by eliminating costly requirements that are no longer necessary in light of technological and marketplace changes. Based on the substantial decline in payphone use and corresponding payphone compensation, we eliminate rules that are no longer needed to ensure that payphone service providers (PSPs) receive the compensation to which they are entitled. Specifically, first, we eliminate all payphone call tracking system audit and associated reporting requirements. Second, we revise our rules to permit a company official other than the chief financial officer (CFO) to certify that a Completing Carrier's quarterly compensation payments to PSPs are accurate and complete. A Completing Carrier is “a long distance carrier or switch-based long distance reseller that completes a coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call or a local exchange carrier that completes a local, coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call.” Our rules require that “a Completing Carrier that completes a coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call from a switch that the Completing Carrier either owns or leases shall compensate the payphone service provider for that call at a rate agreed upon by the parties by contract.” Finally, we eliminate expired interim and intermediate per-payphone compensation rules that no longer apply to any entity. The actions we take today further our goal of regularly examining and updating our rules to keep pace with technology and the changing communications landscape, and to eliminate requirements that are no longer necessary, thereby reducing the costs and burdens of rules that have outlived their purpose.
2. Section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, directs the Commission to ensure that PSPs are fairly compensated for all completed calls using their payphones. In 2003, the Commission revised its rules to require Completing Carriers to establish effective call tracking systems, undergo initial and annual audits verifying the accuracy of those tracking systems, and file associated audit reports with the Commission.
3. On June 22, 2017, the Commission adopted a
4. Today, we eliminate both the initial and annual audit and all associated requirements contained in our payphone compensation compliance rules. The record strongly supports these actions, and no commenter opposes them.
5. We identify several reasons why the audit requirements are no longer necessary. First, the steady and steep decline over more than a decade of the number of payphones in service demonstrates that they no longer play as critical a role in society's communications as they once did, as would-be users rely instead on mobile subscriptions. At the peak of payphone usage in 1999, over 2.1 million payphones were in service across the United States. By 2013, due to the rapid growth of mobile service subscribership, that number had dropped by more than 90 percent, and subsequently dropped again by almost half over the following three years, with fewer than 100,000 payphones remaining in service at the end of 2016. In contrast, mobile voice subscriptions have consistently grown each year since 1999, when approximately 79.1 million mobile voice subscriptions were reported, to approximately 310.7 million in 2013, and approximately 341 million mobile voice subscriptions in the United States as of the end of 2016. Until 2005, however, carriers with under 10,000 subscribers in a state were not required to report Form 477 data, so not all mobile voice subscriptions were reflected in reported data. Moreover, the data show that, as of November 2016, over 90 percent of households and between 92 percent and 95 percent of adults in the United States own a mobile phone. The Pew Center's demographic findings regarding mobile phone ownership indicate that 100% of adults ages 18-29, 99% of adults ages 30-49, and 97% of adults ages 50-64 own mobile phones.
6. The decline in the number of payphones reflects a concomitant decline in the number of payphone calls completed, and together these trends have led to a massive decrease in the amount of compensation paid by Completing Carriers to PSPs. CenturyLink and Verizon each maintain that the amount of payphone compensation paid each year has declined by over 90 percent in the last 10 years and 98.5 percent in the last 12 years, respectively. And Sprint asserts that since its peak in 2005, the amount of payphone compensation it pays each year has declined by 99.3 percent. In light of the foregoing data, we agree with commenters that there is no reason to expect the declining trend of payphone use to change.
7. Additionally, the record indicates that audit requirements are no longer needed as safeguards to ensure that PSPs receive the compensation they are due. No commenter refutes this fact. No formal or informal payphone compensation-related complaints have been filed with the Commission in recent years, and there is no evidence of looming disputes likely to lead to such complaints in the near future. Many Completing Carriers use clearinghouse vendors to calculate and distribute the compensation due to PSPs. These clearinghouses act as intermediaries between PSPs and Completing Carriers, and they have dispute resolution procedures in place in the event a disagreement regarding the accuracy of compensation should arise. According to National Payphone Clearinghouse, its services include: (1) “electronically accept[ing] claims of payphone ownership from Payphone Service Providers (PSPs) and ownership verification data from the Local Exchange Carriers (LECs)”; (2) “validat[ing] the PSP claims against the LEC reported data to ensure that the correct payphone ownership has been established”; (3) us[ing] direct deposit to make quarterly compensation payments to the industry on behalf of the IXCs”; (4) serv[ing] its Clients as a control point to facilitate communication with all PSPs and Aggregators”; (5) “utiliz[ing] a 3rd party auditor to audit all processes in an effort to aide their Clients with the FCC Audit/Attestation requirements”; (6) “provid[ing] a central site for the sharing of CFO certifications and audit/attestation reports to the industry”; and (7) “produc[ing] valuable and detailed End of Quarter reports to the NPC Clients and to the industry to aid in compensation reconciliation.” And, the Commission retains the authority to investigate any payphone compensation compliance issues of which it becomes aware, as today's actions have no impact on Completing Carriers' continuing obligations under our rules to maintain an accurate call tracking system and to fully compensate PSPs for the calls covered by these rules. The requirement that Completing Carriers compensate PSPs for 100 percent of all completed calls originating from the PSPs' payphones remains in place, as does the requirement that Completing Carriers maintain call tracking systems that “accurately track[] coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone calls to completion.” There have been no formal or informal complaints filed with the Commission in recent years.
8.
9. Moreover, the record confirms that the only option under the rules to avoid an annual audit,
10. We thus conclude that the benefits, if any, of the annual audit, which were expressly adopted “[t]o ensure the accuracy” of Completing Carriers' call tracking systems, no longer outweigh the burden imposed on Completing Carriers, and eliminating these requirements will avoid unnecessary regulatory costs while not harming PSPs. For these same reasons, we see no need to adopt a new annual self-certification obligation in lieu of the annual audit as Sprint and Cincinnati Bell proposed in their waiver petitions.
11.
12.
13. We also revise the requirement that a Completing Carrier provide a sworn statement from its chief financial officer (CFO) certifying to the accuracy and completeness of its quarterly payphone compensation to PSPs. Under our revised rule, any company official with knowledge of and responsibility for the accuracy of payphone compensation by the carrier may provide the requisite sworn statement. We agree with commenters that requiring this certification only from a senior level corporate executive such as the CFO, who necessarily must rely on assurances from company personnel responsible for payphone compensation, consumes unnecessary time and resources. We note that no commenter opposed eliminating the CFO certification. Some Completing Carrier commenters do not object to retaining the CFO sworn statement obligation.
14. We decline to eliminate the quarterly sworn statement altogether, as some commenters request. Since PSPs have no contractual relationships with Completing Carriers, the quarterly sworn statement accompanying Completing Carriers' required quarterly compensation payments remains the only assurance PSPs now have that they are being appropriately compensated for the use of their payphones. Implicit in a certification that the quarterly compensation payment “is accurate and is based on 100% of all completed calls that originated from that payphone service provider's payphones,” as required under our rules, is the fact that the carrier's payphone call tracking system is necessarily operating effectively. And though we recognize such quarterly sworn statements impose some burden on carriers, our action today eliminating the CFO requirement reduces that burden substantially. But because “most completing carriers . . . have contracted with vendors to calculate their payphone compensation,” they presumably already require and receive assurances from those vendors upon which they can rely in making their sworn statements. We also decline the suggestion that we replace the quarterly sworn statement with an annual sworn statement to the PSPs because it was raised for the first time in response to the
15. Finally, we eliminate interim and intermediate per-payphone compensation rules that, by their own terms, expired 18 and 20 years ago. Sections 64.1301(a)-(d) were adopted as interim and intermediate compensation measures to ensure that PSPs remained compensated while carriers established effective call-tracking systems. Sections 64.1301(a)-(c), which established interim default compensation for certain types of payphone calls, by its express terms applied for the period “beginning November 7, 1996, and ending October 6, 1997.” Similarly, § 64.1301(d), also applicable to certain payphone calls, established default compensation for an intermediate period “beginning October 7, 1997, and ending April 20, 1999.” No commenters opposed elimination of these rules, nor did they bring any similarly expired provisions warranting elimination to our attention.
16. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the
17. In the
18. Pursuant to these objectives, this Order adopts changes to Commission rules regarding payphone audit and associated reporting requirements and interim and intermediate rules. The Order adopts changes to the payphone rules that: (1) Eliminate the payphone call tracking system initial and annual audits, (2) eliminate the associated audit reporting requirements, (3) modify the quarterly sworn statements, allowing a company official responsible for payphone compensation for the Completing Carrier to provide quarterly sworn statements, and (4) eliminate the interim and intermediate per-phone compensation rules. The modifications to our payphone rules, which reflect the changing communications landscape, advance our goals of reducing regulatory burdens and abolishing unnecessary rule provisions.
19. The Commission did not receive comments specifically addressing the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.
20. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments.
21. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to this proceeding.
22. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and by the rule revisions on which the NPRM seeks comment, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the
23. The majority of our changes will affect obligations on carriers who complete calls originating from payphones, including incumbent LECs and, in some cases, competitive LECs.
24.
25. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of Aug 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Data from the Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) reporting on nonprofit organizations registered with the IRS was used to estimate the number of small organizations. Reports generated using the NCCS online database indicated that as of August 2016 there were 356,494 registered nonprofits with total revenues of less than $100,000. Of this number, 326,897 entities filed tax returns with 65,113 registered nonprofits reporting total revenues of $50,000 or less on the IRS Form 990-N for Small Exempt Organizations and 261,784 nonprofits reporting total revenues of $100,000 or less on some other version of the IRS Form 990 within 24 months of the August 2016 data release date.
26. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicates that there were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. The Census of Government is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for years ending with “2” and “7.” Of this number there were 37,132 General purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000. There were 2,114 county governments with populations less than 50,000. There were 18,811 municipal and 16,207 town and township governments with populations less than 50,000. There were 12,184 independent school districts with enrollment populations less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the local government category shows that the majority of these governments have populations of less than 50,000. While U.S. Census Bureau data did not provide a population breakout for special district governments, if the population of less than 50,000 for this category of local government is consistent with the other types of local governments the majority of the 38,266 special district governments have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data we estimate that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”
40. In this Order, the Commission modifies its payphone rules to reduce costs for Completing Carriers, reform quarterly sworn statements procedures, and eliminate expired interim and intermediate rules. Overall, we believe the actions in this document will reduce burdens on small carriers.
41. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
42. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) relating to this Report and Order. The FRFA is contained in section IV above.
43. The Order contains modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
44. In this document, we have assessed the effects of revising or eliminating certain payphone compensation procedural requirements, and find that doing so will serve the public interest and is unlikely to directly affect businesses with fewer than 25 employees.
45. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order, including a copy of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
In addition, the Report and Order and this final certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and will be published in the
46. For further information about this proceeding, please contact Michele Levy Berlove, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, Room 5-C313, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-1477,
47. Accordingly,
48.
49.
50.
51.
Common carriers, Communications, Telecommunications, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 202, 225, 251(e), 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 276, 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless otherwise noted.
In the absence of a negotiated agreement to pay a different amount, each entity listed in Appendix C of the
(a) * * *
(3) When payphone compensation is tendered for a quarter, a company official with the authority to bind the Completing Carrier shall submit to each payphone service provider to which compensation is tendered a sworn statement that the payment amount for that quarter is accurate and is based on 100% of all completed calls that originated from that payphone service provider's payphones. Instead of transmitting individualized statements to each payphone service provider, a Completing Carrier may provide a single, blanket sworn statement addressed to all payphone service providers to which compensation is tendered for that quarter and may notify the payphone service providers of the sworn statement through any electronic method, including transmitting the sworn statement with the § 64.1310(a)(4) quarterly report, or posting the sworn statement on the Completing Carrier or clearinghouse website. If a Completing Carrier chooses to post the sworn statement on its website, the Completing Carrier shall state in its § 64.1310(a)(4) quarterly report the web address of the sworn statement.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is reducing the Atlantic herring possession limit for federally permitted vessels fishing with midwater trawl gear in the Mid-Atlantic/Southern New England Catch Cap Closure Area, based on a projection that the threshold catch for the corresponding catch cap area has been reached. This action is necessary to comply with the regulations
Effective 00:01 hr local time, March 14, 2018, through December 31, 2018.
Daniel Luers, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 282-8457.
Regulations governing the Atlantic herring fishery can be found at 50 CFR part 648, including requirements for setting annual catch cap allocations for river herring and shad. NMFS set the 2018 catch cap in the Mid-Atlantic/Southern New England Catch Cap Area at 129.6 mt. NMFS established this value in the 2016 through 2018 herring specifications (81 FR 75731, November 1, 2016).
The NMFS Administrator of the Greater Atlantic Region (Regional Administrator) monitors the herring fishery in each of the catch cap areas based on vessel and dealer reports, state data, and other available information. The regulations at § 648.201 require that when the Regional Administrator projects that river herring and shad catch will reach 95 percent of a catch cap for vessels fishing with a specified gear type in a specified catch cap area, NMFS must prohibit, through notification in the
The Regional Administrator has determined, based on available information, that the herring midwater trawl vessels will have caught 95 percent of the river herring and shad catch cap allocated to the Mid-Atlantic/Southern New England Catch Cap Area by March 14, 2018. Therefore, effective 00:01 hr local time, March 14, 2018, federally permitted vessels fishing with midwater trawl gear may not fish for, catch, possess, transfer, or land more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring per trip or calendar day, in or from the Mid-Atlantic/Southern New England Catch Cap Closure Area through December 31, 2018. Midwater trawl vessels that have entered port before 00:01 hr local time, March 14, 2018, may land and sell more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring from the Cap Closure Area from that trip. Midwater trawl vessels may transit through the Mid-Atlantic/Southern New England Catch Cap Closure Area with more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring on board, provided all herring in excess of 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) was caught outside of this area and all fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined by § 648.2.
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. This action restricts the catch of herring in the Mid-Atlantic/Southern New England Catch Cap Closure Area for the remainder of the fishing year. Data have only recently become available indicating that herring midwater trawl vessels will have caught 95 percent of the river herring and shad catch cap allocated to that gear type in the Catch Cap Area. Once NMFS projects that river herring and shad catch will reach 95 percent of the cap for the Catch Cap Area, NMFS is required by Federal regulation to implement a 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) herring trip and calendar day possession limit for Cap Closure Area through December 31, 2018. The regulations at § 648.201(a)(4)(ii) require such action to ensure that herring vessels do not exceed the river herring and shad catch cap allocated to midwater trawl vessels in the Mid-Atlantic/Southern New England Catch Cap Area. If implementation of this closure is delayed to solicit prior public comment, the midwater trawl catch cap for the Mid-Atlantic/Southern New England Catch Cap Area for this fishing year will be exceeded, thereby undermining the conservation objectives of the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan. For the reasons stated above, NMFS further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the B season allowance of the 2018 total allowable catch of pollock for Statistical Area 610 in the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 12, 2018, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., May 31, 2018.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The B season allowance of the 2018 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 1,317 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the B season allowance of the 2018 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 1,217 mt and is setting aside the remaining 100 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 8, 2018.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Proposed rule and comment request.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is publishing for comment proposed amendments to Regulation J. The proposed amendments are intended to clarify and simplify certain provisions of Subpart A of Regulation J, remove obsolete provisions, and align the rights and obligations of sending banks, paying banks, and Federal Reserve Banks (Reserve Banks) with the Board's recent amendments to Regulation CC, Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks, to reflect the virtually all-electronic check collection and return environment. The proposed rule would also amend subpart B of Regulation J to clarify that terms used in financial messaging standards, such as ISO 20022, do not confer legal status or responsibilities.
Comments must be submitted by May 14, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. R-1599 and RIN 7100-AE98, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Clinton N. Chen, Senior Attorney (202/452-3952), Legal Division; or Ian C.B. Spear, Manager (202-452-3959), Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems; for users of Telecommunication Devices for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact 202-263-4869; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW, Washington, DC 20551.
Subpart A of Regulation J governs the collection of checks and other items by the Reserve Banks. This subpart includes the warranties and indemnities that are given to the Reserve Banks by parties that send items to the Reserve Banks for collection and return, as well as the warranties and indemnities for which the Reserve Banks are responsible in connection with the items they handle. Subpart A also describes the methods by which the Reserve Banks may recover for losses associated with their collection of items. Subpart A authorizes the Reserve Banks to issue operating circulars governing the details of the collection of checks and other items and provides that such operating circulars have binding effect on all parties interested in an item handled by a Reserve Bank. The Reserve Banks' Operating Circular No. 3, “Collection of Cash Items and Returned Checks” (OC 3),
In 2004, the Board amended Regulation J to cover electronic check processing options that the Reserve Banks offered after the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (Check 21 Act) took effect in October 2004.
As a result of the 2004 amendments, Regulation J defines an “electronic item” as an electronic image of, and information describing, an item that a Reserve Bank agrees to handle pursuant to an operating circular.
In 2017, the Board published a final rule amending Regulation CC to reflect the virtually all-electronic check collection and return environment.
Accordingly, the Board is proposing amendments to align subpart A of Regulation J with the Board's 2017 amendments to Regulation CC and incorporate certain provisions by reference, thereby reducing the need for duplication and improving consistency between the regulations. Under the Board's proposal, the term “electronic item” would be removed from Regulation J and “check” and “returned check” would be defined to include an electronic check and electronic returned check as defined in § 229.2 of Regulation CC. The term “item” would also be defined to include an electronic check as defined in Regulation CC. The Board also proposes to eliminate duplicative provisions by removing the Check-21-like warranties currently provided under Regulation J by the sender and the Reserve Banks. Instead, Regulation J would provide that the sender of an item (including an electronic check) and the Reserve Banks would (as applicable and unless otherwise provided) make all the warranties and indemnities set forth in and subject to the terms of subparts C and D in Regulation CC. The Board proposes similar amendments to the provisions of Regulation J that currently address returning checks as electronic items.
In the 2017 amendments to Regulation CC, the Board included certain indemnities with respect to electronically-created items (ECIs), which are check-like items created in electronic form that never existed in paper form. ECIs can be difficult to distinguish from electronic images of paper checks. As a practical matter, a bank receiving an ECI often handles it as if it were derived from a paper check. However, because there was no original paper check corresponding to the ECI, the warranties, indemnities, and other provisions of Regulation CC would not apply to those items. As the Board explained in the 2017 Regulation CC amendments, the payee and the depositary bank are best positioned to know whether an item is electronically created and to prevent the item from entering the check-collection system. Therefore, to protect banks that receive ECIs during the check collection process, the Board's Regulation CC amendments provided indemnities that ultimately shift liability for losses to the depositary bank because either the ECI (1) is not derived from a paper check, (2) was unauthorized, or (3) was transferred or presented for payment more than once.
Currently, neither Regulation CC nor Regulation J explicitly address the sending of ECIs to the Reserve Banks. However, the definition of item in Regulation J as currently drafted does not encompass ECIs and therefore does not allow for the handling of ECIs by the Reserve Banks. Regulation J defines an item, in part, as “an instrument or a promise or order to pay money, whether negotiable or not” that meets several other requirements.
Furthermore, because Regulation J is intended to provide rules for the collection and return of items by the Reserve Banks, the Board is proposing amendments to Regulation J that would allow the Reserve Banks to require senders to provide warranties and indemnities that only “items” and any “noncash items” the Reserve Banks have agreed to handle will be provided to the Reserve Banks. The Board's proposed amendments would also permit the Reserve Banks to provide a subsequent collecting bank and a paying bank the warranties and indemnities provided by the sender. As with the amendments to Regulation CC, the Board believes the proposed amendments will help to shift liability to parties better positioned to know whether an item is electronically created and to prevent the item from entering the check-collection system.
The Board recognizes that the proposed amendments may affect the creation and acceptance of ECIs. However, the Board's proposed amendments would not prevent parties that desire to exchange ECIs from doing so by agreement using direct exchange relationships or other methods not involving the Reserve Banks. The Board believes such arrangements are more
Regulation J currently provides that settlement with a Reserve Bank for cash items “shall be made by debit to an account on the Reserve Bank's books, cash, or other form of settlement” to which the Reserve Bank has agreed.
Financial messaging standards provide a common format that allows different financial institutions to communicate. Federal Reserve Banks plan to migrate to the ISO 20022 financial messaging standard for the Fedwire Funds Service. ISO 20022 is an international standard that employs terminology that differs in key respects from that used in U.S. funds-transfer law, including Regulation J. The Board proposes an amendment to subpart B of Regulation J that would clarify that terms used in financial messaging standards, such as ISO 20022, do not confer or connote legal status or responsibilities.
The Board also proposes several other amendments to Regulation J, which include removal of obsolete material and corrections to include certain provisions that were unintentionally omitted by previous amendatory instructions to Regulation J.
The Board proposes an effective date of July 1, 2018, to align with the effective date of the Board's amendments to subpart C of Regulation CC.
The paragraph citations in this section are to the paragraphs of the proposed rule unless otherwise stated. The Board requests comment on all aspects of the proposed rule.
Regulation J currently includes the term “check” (a draft as defined in the U.C.C. drawn on a bank and payable on demand). The Board proposes to revise the definition of “check” to mean a “check” and an “electronic check” as those terms are defined in Regulation CC. This amendment will align the terminology in the two regulations.
Regulation J also includes the term “check as defined in 12 CFR 229.2(k)” (the Regulation CC definition of “check”). This term is used in Regulation J in those provisions that require specific references to the Regulation CC definition of “check.” (See §§ 210.2(m), 210.7(b)(2), and § 210.12(a)(2).) The Board proposes to delete the definition of “check as defined in 12 CFR 229.2(k)” because it is no longer needed in light of the proposed revision of the Regulation J definition of “check” to cross-reference the Regulation CC definition. The Board proposes to revise the three provisions where it is used by deleting the reference to “check as defined in 12 CFR 229.2(k),” as described in more detail in the corresponding section-by-section analysis.
Regulation J uses the term “item” to refer to the instruments and electronic images that the Reserve Banks handle. Regulation J uses the term “electronic item” to refer to an electronic image of an item, and information describing that item, that a Reserve Bank agrees to handle as an item pursuant to an operating circular. To align the terminology of Regulation J with Regulation CC, the Board proposes to delete the definition of “electronic item” and revise the definition of “item” in § 210.2(i) to include a check, which, under the proposed amendment discussed above would include both a check and an electronic check as defined in Regulation CC. The Board also proposes to add a clarifying statement that the term “item” does not include an electronically-created item as defined in § 229.2 of Regulation CC (as discussed in detail above).
Current § 210.2(m) defines a “returned check” as “a cash item or a check as defined in 12 CFR 229.2(k) returned by a paying bank.” To align the definition of “returned check” with “check,” the Board proposes to delete the reference to “check as defined in 12 CFR 229.2(k)” and instead refer to the definition of “electronic returned check” in Regulation CC.
Current § 210.2(n) defines sender by providing a set of entities that sends an item to a Reserve Bank for forward collection. The Board proposes to add “member bank, as defined in section 1 of the Federal Reserve Act” in § 210.2(n)(2) to include a bank or trust company that is a member of one of the Federal Reserve Banks to ensure inclusion of any member bank that does not fall under the existing definition. The Board proposes to redesignate current §§ 210.2(n)(2)-(6) to §§ 210.2(n)(3)-(7) to accommodate the insertion.
Current § 210.2(q) defines “Fedwire” as having the same meaning set forth in § 210.26(e). The Board proposes to amend this definition to refer to both “Fedwire Funds Service and Fedwire” to conform to the proposed amendment to § 210.26(e).
Section 210.3(a) provides general provisions concerning the obligations of Reserve Banks and the role of operating circulars. For reasons described above in connection with electronically-created items, the Board proposes to add a sentence stating that the operating circulars may require a sender to provide warranties and indemnities that only items and any noncash items the Reserve Banks have agreed to handle will be sent to the Reserve Banks. Additionally, in order to allow the Reserve Banks to pass any such warranties and indemnities forward, the Board proposes to authorize the Reserve Banks to provide to a subsequent collecting bank and to the paying bank any warranties and indemnities provided by the sender pursuant to this paragraph.
Section 210.4(a) sets forth the rule for determining the Reserve Bank to which an item should be sent. The Board proposes to clarify this paragraph to provide that a sender's Administrate Reserve Bank may direct a sender (other than a Reserve Bank) to send any item to a specified Reserve Bank, whether or not the item is payable in the Reserve Bank's district. This amendment reflects current practice in the Reserve Banks' check service and is not expected or intended to have a substantive affect. The Board is also proposing to capitalize the term “Administrative Reserve Bank” wherever it appears to conform to the defined term in § 210.2(c).
Current § 210.5(a) lists the warranties, authorizations, and agreements made by a sender. The first two paragraphs (current §§ 210.5(a)(1) and (2)) apply to all items and require the sender to authorize the Reserve Banks to handle the item sent and warrant that the sender is entitled to enforce the item, that the item has not been altered, and that the item bears the indorsements applied by all prior parties. The Board is not proposing to revise these paragraphs. Current §§ 210.5(a)(3) and (4) set out warranties for electronic items and electronic items that are not representations of substitute checks, respectively. These warranties are now specified in Regulation CC, and the Board proposes to revise Regulation J accordingly. Proposed § 210.5(a)(3) would require the sender to make all applicable warranties and indemnities set forth in Regulation CC and the U.C.C. The proposal would retain the existing requirement that the sender make all warranties set forth in and subject to the terms of U.C.C. 4-207 for an electronic check as if it were an item subject to the U.C.C. These proposed changes would streamline Regulation J, align § 210.5(a) with the Regulation CC provisions that set out warranties and indemnities for electronic checks, and ensure a seamless chain of warranties for the items handled by the Reserve Banks.
The Board also proposes to require a sender to make any warranties or indemnities regarding the sending of items that the Reserve Banks include in an operating circular issued in accordance with § 210.3(a) to ensure that only items and any noncash items the Reserve Banks have agreed to handle will be sent to the Reserve Banks (proposed § 210.5(a)(4)). Finally, the Board proposes to add a reference to “indemnities” to the introductory text of § 210.5(a) to reflect that the sender would provide indemnities pursuant to proposed §§ 210.5(a)(3) and (4).
Current § 210.5(a)(5) sets out the sender's liability to Reserve Banks. The Board proposes to make a number of amendments to this subsection that align this paragraph to changes elsewhere in the proposed rule.
Current § 210.5(a)(5)(i)(C) states that the sender agrees to indemnify the Reserve Bank for any loss or expense resulting from “[a]ny warranty or indemnity made by the Reserve Bank under § 210.6(b), part 229 of this chapter, or the U.C.C.” The Board proposes to amend this provision to provide that the sender will also indemnify a Reserve Bank for any loss or expense sustained resulting from any warranties and indemnities regarding the sending of “items” required by the Reserve Bank in an operating circular issued pursuant to proposed § 210.3(a).
Current § 210.5(a)(5)(ii) specifies conditions and limitations to a sender's liability for warranties and indemnities that a Reserve Bank makes for a substitute check, a paper or electronic representation thereof, or any other electronic item. The Board proposes to delete the term “electronic item” in current § 210.5(a)(5)(ii) and replace it with “electronic check.”
Current § 210.5(a)(5)(ii)(A) provides that a sender of an original check is not liable for any amount that the Reserve Bank pays under subpart D of Regulation CC for a subsequently created substitute check or under § 210.6(b)(3) for an electronic item, absent the sender's agreement to the contrary. The Board proposes to delete the reference to current § 210.6(b)(3), which lists warranties and an indemnity for an electronic item that is not a representation of a substitute check, and replace it with a reference to § 229.34 of this chapter with respect to an electronic check, consistent with other proposed amendments to § 210.6(b) described below.
Current § 210.5(a)(5)(ii)(B) provides that nothing in Regulation J alters the liability structure that applies to substitute checks and paper or electronic representations of substitute checks under subpart D of Regulation CC. The Board proposes to add that this subpart also does not alter the liability of a sender of an electronic check under § 229.34, consistent with the other proposed revisions to Regulation J.
Current § 210.5(a)(5)(ii)(C) provides that a sender of an electronic item that is not a representations of a substitute check is not liable for any related warranties or indemnities that a Reserve Bank pays that are attributable to the Reserve Bank's own lack of good faith or failure to exercise ordinary care. The Board proposes to broaden this provision by applying the limitation on liability to all senders for any amount that the Reserve Bank pays that is attributable to the Reserve Bank's own lack of good faith or failure to exercise ordinary care under Regulation J or Regulation CC. The Board proposes to redesignate this section as § 210.5(a)(5)(iii) and make conforming changes to cross-references.
Section 210.5(c) sets out the procedures by which a Reserve Bank may recover against a sender if certain actions or proceedings related to the sender's actions are brought against (or defense is tendered to) a Reserve Bank. A portion of this section was inadvertently dropped from the Code of Federal Regulations. The Board proposes to reinstate the dropped language, which provides that, upon entry of a final judgment or decree, a Reserve Bank may recover from the
Current § 210.5(e) provides that when a sender sends an item to a Reserve Bank, the sender and any prior collecting bank grant to the sender's Administrative Reserve Bank a security interest in all of their respective assets in the possession of, or held for the account of, any Reserve Bank to secure their respective obligations due or to become due to the Administrative Reserve Bank under this subpart or subpart C of part 229 of this chapter (Regulation CC). The Board proposes to amend this subsection to reference subpart D of Regulation CC in addition to subpart C, as senders may have obligations to Reserve Banks under that subpart as well.
Section 210.6(a)(2) limits a Reserve Bank's liability with respect to an item to three instances: (1) The Reserve Bank's own lack of good faith or failure to exercise ordinary care, (2) as provided in this section of Regulation J, and (3) as provided in subparts C and D of Regulation CC. The Board proposes to expand this list to provide that a Reserve Bank may be liable under any warranties and indemnities provided in an operating circular issued in accordance with § 210.3(a) regarding the sending of items.
Section 210.6(b) sets forth the warranties and indemnities made by a Reserve Bank when it presents or sends an item. In alignment with the Board's proposed amendments to the sender's warranties in § 210.5(a), the Board proposes to replace current §§ 210.6(b)(2) and (3), which provide warranties and indemnities for electronic items and electronic items that are not representations of substitute checks, respectively. Those warranties are now covered by Regulation CC. The Board also proposes to make a conforming amendment to § 210.6(b)(1)(iii) to eliminate the unnecessary reference to “paper or electronic form.”
The Board proposes a new § 210.6(b)(2) to provide that a Reserve Bank would make any warranties or indemnities regarding the sending of items as set forth in an operating circular issued pursuant to proposed § 210.3(a). This language corresponds to the similar proposed provision for sender liability in § 210.5(a)(4).
The Board proposes a new § 210.6(b)(3) to provide that the Reserve Bank makes to a subsequent collecting bank and to the paying bank all the warranties and indemnities set forth in subparts C and D for Regulation CC. Proposed § 210.6(b)(3) would retain the existing application of U.C.C. 4-207 warranties to electronic items (now called electronic checks).
In § 210.6(b)(4), the Board proposes to retain the existing Reserve Bank indemnity for substitute checks created from electronic checks, which is in current § 210.6(b)(3)(ii). This provision provides an indemnity chain for substitute check indemnity claims under Regulation CC, enabling receiving banks (and, in turn, Reserve Banks) to pass the loss on such claims to the bank whose choice to handle an item electronically necessitated the later creation of a substitute check.
The limitations on Reserve Bank liability are set forth in proposed (and current) § 210.6(a)(2). The Board is proposing to delete this subsection as it is redundant and to redesignate current subsection (d) as subsection (c).
Section 210.7(b) provides the places of presentment for a Reserve Bank or subsequent collecting bank. Current § 210.7(b)(2) states “In the case of a check as defined in 12 CFR 229.2(k), in accordance with 12 CFR 229.36.” In alignment with the Board's proposed deletion of the defined term “check as defined in 12 CFR 229.2(k),” the Board proposes to delete the use of that term in § 210.7(b)(2), as it is no longer needed, and make other minor edits. As a result, proposed § 210.7(b)(2) would state “In accordance with § 229.36 of this chapter (Regulation CC).”
Current § 210.9(b)(5) requires that settlement for cash items with a Reserve Bank be made by debit to an account on the Reserve Bank's books, cash, or other form of settlement to which the Reserve Bank agrees. As discussed in the overview section, the use of cash as a means of settlement is quite rare and generally used only in emergencies. Accordingly, the Board proposes to amend this provision by removing the reference to cash as a means of settlement. A Reserve Bank could continue to accept cash or other forms of settlement by agreement in special situations. The Board also proposes to make conforming amendments to §§ 210.9(c) and (d), as well as to remove the references to other rarely-used forms of settlement (cashier's checks, certified checks, or other bank drafts or obligations). The Board is also proposing to correct cross-references and to capitalize the term “Administrative Reserve Bank” wherever it appears to conform to the defined term in § 210.2(c).
Current § 210.9(e) states that a Reserve Bank may handle a bank draft or other form of payment it receives in payment of a cash item as a cash item and that a Reserve Bank may handle a bank draft or other form of payment it receives in payment of a noncash item as either a cash item or a noncash item. The Board proposes to delete this section as it is now obsolete.
Current § 210.9(f) states that a Reserve Bank that acts in good faith and exercises ordinary care shall not be liable for the nonpayment of, or failure to realize upon, any bank draft or other form of payment that it accepts pursuant to § 210.9(b)-(d). The Board proposes to renumber this subsection as § 210.9(e) and to replace the reference to “bank draft or other form of payment” with “any non-cash form of payment” to conform to the proposed changes to the other provisions of this section.
Section 210.10(a) states that each Reserve Bank shall “include in its operating circulars” its time schedules for availability of cash items and returned checks and, correspondingly, when credits can be counted toward reserve balance requirements for purposes of Regulation D (12 CFR part 204). The Reserve Banks' practice is to publish the time schedules on the Federal Reserve website for financial services. Accordingly, the Board proposes to amend this section to delete
Section 210.11(b) states that a Reserve Bank may give credit for the proceeds of a noncash item subject to payment in actually and finally collected funds in accordance with a time schedule included in its operating circulars. To conform to amendments made in proposed § 210.10, the Board proposes to delete the reference to operating circulars and require only that the time schedule be published.
Current § 210.11(c) prohibits a Reserve Bank from providing credit for a bank draft or other form of payment for a noncash item until it receives payment in actually and finally collected funds. The Board proposes to delete this subsection, as actually and finally collected funds are already required by § 210.11(a).
Section 210.12 sets out the provisions governing the handling of returned checks. It is the counterpart to §§ 210.5 and 210.6, which govern the handling of items for forward collection.
Current § 210.12(a)(2) sets out the procedures by which a paying bank may return checks not handled by Reserve Banks and references “check as defined in § 229.2(k) of this chapter (Regulation CC).” In alignment with the Board's proposal to delete the defined term “check as defined in § 229.2(k)” in § 210.2(h), the Board proposes to delete the use of this term in this section, as it is no longer needed, and to use the term “check” instead.
Current § 210.12(c) provides the warranties, authorizations, and agreements related to returned checks made by paying banks and returning banks. The Board proposes amendments to this section that are parallel to the proposed amendments for forward-collection items with respect to the liability of the sender (§ 210.5(a)(3)) and the Reserve Banks (§ 210.6(b)(2)). Specifically, the Board proposes to replace current §§ 210.12(c)(3) and (4), which provide warranties for all returned checks that are electronic items and warranties for returned checks that are electronic items that are not representations of substitute checks, respectively, with a provision that requires the paying bank or returning bank to make all the warranties and indemnities as set forth in Regulation CC, as applicable (proposed § 210.12(c)(3)).
Current § 210.12(c)(5) sets out the conditions under which a paying bank or returning bank is liable to a Reserve Bank. The Board proposes to redesignate this paragraph as § 210.12(c)(4) and amend the paragraph to correspond with the proposed amendments to the section on sender's liability to a Reserve Bank (§ 210.5(a)(4)). These proposed amendments are intended to create consistent liability provisions for senders, paying banks, and returning banks.
Current § 210.12(d) is titled “Preservation of other warranties and indemnities.” The Board proposes to change the title of this section to “Returning bank's or paying bank's liability under other law” to mirror the heading for the corresponding section for senders (§ 210.5(b)).
Current § 210.12(e) sets forth a Reserve Bank's liability when it handles a returned check, including warranties and liabilities. The Board proposes to amend this section to correspond to the amendments proposed in § 210.6(b) related to the warranties and liabilities that are made by Reserve Banks when presenting or sending an item.
Section 210.12(f) parallels § 210.5(c) and sets out the procedures by which a Reserve Bank may recover against a paying bank or returning bank if certain actions or proceedings related to the paying bank's or returning bank's actions are brought against (or defense is tendered to) a Reserve Bank. A portion of this section was inadvertently dropped from the Code of Federal Regulations. The Board proposes to reinstate the dropped language, which provides that, upon entry of a final judgment or decree, a Reserve Bank may recover from the paying bank or returning bank the amount of attorneys' fees and other expenses of litigation incurred, as well as any amount the Reserve Bank is required to pay because of the judgment or decree or the tender of defense, with interest. In addition, the Board proposes to correct cross-references and make organizational changes in § 210.12(g).
Section 210.25 sets out the authority, purpose, and scope for subpart B of Regulation J, which governs Fedwire funds transfers. The Board proposes to add a new § 210.25(e) to clarify that financial messaging standards (
Section 210.2(e) defines the term “Fedwire” to mean the funds-transfer system owned and operated by the Federal Reserve Banks that is used primarily for the transmission and settlement of payment orders governed by Subpart B. The Board is proposing to amend this definition so that it applies to the official title of the service, “Fedwire Funds Service,” as well as the shorthand term “Fedwire.” The Board also proposes to change references to “Fedwire” to “Fedwire Funds Service” in §§ 210.9(b)(4)(i), 210.25(a) and (b)(3), and 210.29(b).
Current § 210.32 sets out provisions that govern Federal Reserve Bank liability and payment of interest. Section 210.32(b) provides that compensation that is paid by Federal Reserve Banks in the form of interest shall be calculated in accordance with section 4A-506 of Article 4A. Under section 4A-506(a), the amount of interest may be determined by agreement between the sender and
The Board conducts a competitive impact analysis when it considers an operational or legal change, if that change would have a direct and material adverse effect on the ability of other service providers to compete with the Federal Reserve in providing similar services due to legal differences or due to the Federal Reserve's dominant market position deriving from such legal differences. All operational or legal changes having a substantial effect on payments-system participants will be subject to a competitive-impact analysis, even if competitive effects are not apparent on the face of the proposal. If such legal differences exist, the Board will assess whether the same objectives could be achieved by a modified proposal with lesser competitive impact or, if not, whether the benefits of the proposal (such as contributing to payments-system efficiency or integrity or other Board objectives) outweigh the materially adverse effect on competition.
The Board does not believe that the amendments to Regulation J will have a direct and material adverse effect on the ability of other service providers to compete effectively with the Reserve Banks in providing similar services due to legal differences. The amendments would align the provisions in Regulation J governing Reserve Bank services to the generally applicable provisions in Regulation CC. The proposed amendment would not affect the competitive position of private-sector presenting banks vis-à-vis the Reserve Banks.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Board reviewed the proposed rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the OMB and determined that it contains no collections of information under the PRA.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (the “RFA”) (5 U.S.C. 601
The Board is proposing the foregoing amendments to Regulation J pursuant to its authority under the Federal Reserve Act, the EFA Act; the Check 21 Act, and other laws. The proposal clarifies and simplifies certain provisions of Subpart A of Regulation J, removes obsolete provisions, and aligns the rights and obligations of sending banks, paying banks, and Reserve Banks with the Board's recent amendments to Regulation CC to reflect the virtually all-electronic check collection and return environment. The proposed rule would also amend subpart B of Regulation J to clarify the legal status of terms in financial messaging standards.
The proposed rule would apply to all depository institutions regardless of their size.
The Board's proposed rule generally does not have any projected reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements, as the proposed amendments to Regulation J align the rights and obligations of sending banks, paying banks, and Federal Reserve Banks (Reserve Banks) with the Board's recent amendments to Regulation CC. The proposed warranties and indemnities are similar to the warranties and indemnities that apply to paper and electronic checks under existing Regulation J and other law. The proposed amendments do not require any bank to change the form in which it submits checks, nor do they require any bank to submit reports, maintain records, or provide notices or disclosures.
With respect to ECIs, the Board recognizes that the proposed amendments that would allow the Reserve Banks to require senders to provide certain warranties and indemnities may affect the creation and acceptance of ECIs by small entities. However, the Board's proposed amendments would not prevent small entities that desire to exchange ECIs from doing so by agreement using direct exchange relationships or other methods not involving the Reserve Banks. The Board believes the proposed amendments will help to shift liability to parties better positioned to know whether an item is electronically created and that can either prevent the item from entering the check-collection system or assume the risk of sending it forward.
Furthermore, the Board does not expect the Board's proposed amendments to remove references to cash and other specified forms of settlement to burden small entities, as the use of cash as settlement is rare and typically only done in emergency situations. The Board's proposed amendment would allow use of cash as settlement in emergency situations by continuing to permit other forms of settlement to which the Reserve Banks agree.
The Board notes that subparts C and D of Regulation CC overlap with the proposed rule with respect to checks collected or returned through the
The Board welcomes comment on the impact of the proposed rule on small entities and any approaches, other than the proposed amendments, that would reduce the burden on all entities.
Banks, Banking, Federal Reserve System.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board proposes to amend 12 CFR part 210 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 248 (i), (j), and (o); 12 U.S.C. 342; 12 U.S.C. 360; 12 U.S.C. 464; 12 U.S.C. 4001-4010; 12 U.S.C. 5001-5018.
(h)
(i)
(1) Item means—
(i) An instrument or a promise or order to pay money, whether negotiable or not, that is—
(A) Payable in a Federal Reserve District
(B) Sent by a sender to a Reserve Bank for handling under this subpart; and
(C) Collectible in funds acceptable to the Reserve Bank of the District in which the instrument is payable; or
(ii) A check.
(2) Unless otherwise indicated,
(m)
(n)
(1) A
(2) A member bank, as defined in section 1 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 221);
(3) A clearing institution, defined as—
(i) An institution that is not a depository institution but that maintains with a Reserve Bank the balance referred to in the first paragraph of section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 342); or
(ii) A corporation that maintains an account with a Reserve Bank in conformity with § 211.4 of this chapter (Regulation K);
(4) Another Reserve Bank;
(5) An international organization for which a Reserve Bank is empowered to act as depositary or fiscal agent and maintains an account;
(6) A foreign correspondent, defined as any of the following entities for which a Reserve Bank maintains an account: A foreign bank or banker, a foreign state as defined in section 25(b) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 632), or a foreign correspondent or agency referred to in section 14(e) of that act (12 U.S.C. 358); or
(7) A branch or agency of a foreign bank maintaining reserves under section 7 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 347d, 3105).
(q)
(s) * * *
(1) The terms not defined herein have the meanings set forth in § 229.2 of this chapter applicable to subpart C or subpart D of part 229 of this chapter (Regulation CC), as appropriate; and
(a)
(a)
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The initial sender's Administrative Reserve Bank (which is deemed to have accepted deposit of the item from the initial sender);
(iii) The Reserve Bank that receives the item from the initial sender (if
(3) The identity and order of the parties under paragraph (b)(1) of this section determine the relationships and the rights and liabilities of the parties under this subpart, part 229 of this chapter (Regulation CC), section 13(1) and section 16(13) of the Federal Reserve Act, and the Uniform Commercial Code. An initial sender's Administrative Reserve Bank that is deemed to accept an item for deposit or handle an item is also deemed to be a sender with respect to that item. The Reserve Banks that are deemed to handle an item are deemed to be agents or subagents of the owner of the item, as provided in § 210.6(a).
(a)
(1)
(2)
(i) The sender is a person entitled to enforce the item or authorized to obtain payment of the item on behalf of a person entitled to enforce the item;
(ii) The item has not been altered; and
(iii) The item bears all indorsements applied by parties that previously handled the item for forward collection or return.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) and (iii) of this section, the sender agrees to indemnify each Reserve Bank for any loss or expense sustained (including attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation) resulting from—
(A) The sender's lack of authority to make the warranty in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
(B) Any action taken by the Reserve Bank within the scope of its authority in handling the item; or
(C) Any warranty or indemnity made by the Reserve Bank under § 210.6(b), part 229 of this chapter, the U.C.C., or, regarding the sending of items, an operating circular issued in accordance with § 210.3(a).
(ii) A sender's liability for warranties and indemnities that the Reserve Bank makes for a substitute check, a paper or electronic representation thereof, or for an electronic check is subject to the following conditions and limitations—
(A) A sender of an original check shall not be liable under paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section for any amount that the Reserve Bank pays under subpart D of part 229 of this chapter, or under § 229.34 of this chapter with respect to an electronic check, absent the sender's agreement to the contrary; and
(B) Nothing in this subpart alters the liability of a sender of a substitute check or paper or electronic representation of a substitute check under subpart D of part 229 of this chapter, or a sender of an electronic check under § 229.34 of this chapter.
(iii) A sender shall not be liable for any amount that the Reserve Bank pays under this subpart or part 229 of this chapter that is attributable to the Reserve Bank's own lack of good faith or failure to exercise ordinary care.
(c)
(1) A Reserve Bank that has handled an item may recover as provided in paragraph (c)(2) if an action or proceeding is brought against (or if defense is tendered to) the Reserve Bank based on—
(i) The alleged failure of the sender to have the authority to make the warranty and agreement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
(ii) Any action by the Reserve Bank within the scope of its authority in handling the item; or
(iii) Any warranty or indemnity made by the Reserve Bank under § 210.6(b), part 229 of this chapter, or the U.C.C.
(2) Upon entry of a final judgment or decree in an action or proceeding described in paragraph (c)(1), a Reserve Bank may recover from the sender the amount of attorneys' fees and other expenses of litigation incurred, as well as any amount the Reserve Bank is required to pay because of the judgment or decree or the tender of defense, together with interest thereon.
(d)
(1) The Reserve Bank may recover the amount stated in paragraph (c) of this section by charging any account on its books that is maintained or used by the sender (or by charging a Reserve Bank sender), if—
(i) The Reserve Bank made seasonable written demand on the sender to assume defense of the action or proceeding; and
(ii) The sender has not made any other arrangement for payment that is acceptable to the Reserve Bank.
(2) The Reserve Bank is not responsible for defending the action or proceeding before using this method of recovery. A Reserve Bank that has been charged under this paragraph (d) may recover from its sender in the manner and under the circumstances set forth in this paragraph (d).
(3) A Reserve Bank's failure to avail itself of the remedy provided in this paragraph (d) does not prejudice its enforcement in any other manner of the indemnity agreement referred to in paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
(e)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) As provided in an operating circular issued in accordance with § 210.3(a) regarding the sending of items; and
(iv) As provided in subparts C and D of part 229 of this chapter (Regulation CC).
(b)
(1)
(i) The Reserve Bank is a person entitled to enforce the item (or is authorized to obtain payment of the item on behalf of a person that is either entitled to enforce the item or authorized to obtain payment on behalf of a person entitled to enforce the item);
(ii) The item has not been altered; and
(iii) The item bears all indorsements applied by parties that previously handled the item for forward collection or return.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section, the Reserve Bank shall indemnify the bank to which it transfers or presents an electronic check (the recipient bank) for the amount of any losses that the recipient bank incurs under subpart D of part 229 of this chapter (Regulation CC) for an indemnity that the recipient bank was required to make under subpart D of part 229 of this chapter in connection with a substitute check later created from the electronic check.
(ii) The Reserve Bank shall not be liable under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section for any amount that the recipient bank pays under subpart D of part 229 of this chapter that is attributable to the lack of good faith or failure to exercise ordinary care of the recipient bank or a person that handled the item, in any form, after the recipient bank.
(c)
(1) A claim against a Reserve Bank for lack of good faith or failure to exercise ordinary care shall be barred unless the action on the claim is commenced within two years after the claim accrues. Such a claim accrues on the date when a Reserve Bank's alleged failure to exercise ordinary care or to act in good faith first results in damages to the claimant.
(2) A claim that arises under paragraph (b)(3) of this section shall be barred unless the action on the claim is commenced within one year after the claim accrues. Such a claim accrues as of the date on which the claimant first learns, or by which the claimant reasonably should have learned, of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the claim.
(3) This paragraph (d) does not alter the time limit for claims under § 229.38(g) of this chapter (which include claims for breach of warranty under § 229.34 of this chapter) or subpart D of part 229 of this chapter.
(a) * * *
(1) A Reserve Bank or a subsequent collecting bank may present an item for payment or send the item for presentment and payment; and
(b) * * *
(2) In accordance with § 229.36 of this chapter (Regulation CC);
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) On the day a paying bank receives a cash item from a Reserve Bank, it shall settle for the item so that the proceeds of the settlement are available to its Administrative Reserve Bank, or return the item, by the latest of—
(A) The next clock hour or clock half-hour that is at least one half-hour after the paying bank receives the item;
(B) 8:30 a.m. eastern time; or
(C) Such later time as provided in the Reserve Banks' operating circulars.
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) On that day, settle for the item so that the proceeds of the settlement are available to its Administrative Reserve Bank, or return the item, by the latest of the next clock hour or clock half-hour that is at least one half-hour after it ordinarily would have received the item, 8:30 a.m. eastern time, or such later time as provided in the Reserve Banks' operating circulars; or
(B) On the next day that is a banking day for both the paying bank and the Reserve Bank, settle for the item so that the proceeds of the settlement are available to its Administrative Reserve Bank by 8:30 a.m. eastern time on that day or such later time as provided in the Reserve Banks' operating circulars; and compensate the Reserve Bank for the value of the float associated with the item in accordance with procedures provided in the Reserve Bank's operating circular.
(4)
(i) Settle for the item so that the proceeds of the settlement are available to its Administrative Reserve Bank by the close of Fedwire on the Reserve Bank's next banking day, or return the item by midnight of the day it receives the item (if the paying bank fails to settle for or return a cash item in accordance with this paragraph (b)(4)(i), it shall become accountable for the amount of the item as of the close of its banking day on the day it receives the item); and
(ii) Settle for the item so that the proceeds of the settlement are available to its Administrative Reserve Bank by 8:30 a.m. eastern time on the Reserve Bank's next banking day or such later time as provided in the Reserve Bank's operating circular, or return the item by midnight of the day it receives the item. If the paying bank fails to settle for or
(5)
(6)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a) Each Reserve Bank shall publish a time schedule indicating when the amount of any cash item or returned check received by it is counted toward the balance maintained to satisfy a reserve balance requirement for purposes of part 204 of this chapter (Regulation D) and becomes available for use by the sender or paying or returning bank. The Reserve Bank that holds the settlement account shall give either immediate or deferred credit to a sender, a paying bank, or a returning bank (other than a foreign correspondent) in accordance with the time schedule of the receiving Reserve Bank. A Reserve Bank ordinarily gives credit to a foreign correspondent only when the Reserve Bank receives payment of the item in actually and finally collected funds, but, in its discretion, a Reserve Bank may give immediate or deferred credit in accordance with its time schedule.
The revision reads as follows:
(b)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) and (iii) of this section, a paying bank or returning bank agrees to indemnify each Reserve Bank for any loss or expense (including attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation) resulting from—
(A) The paying or returning bank's lack of authority to give the authorization in paragraph (c)(1) of this section;
(B) Any action taken by a Reserve Bank within the scope of its authority in handling the returned check; or
(C) Any warranty or indemnity made by the Reserve Bank under paragraph (e) of this section or part 229 of this chapter.
(ii) A paying bank's or returning bank's liability for warranties and indemnities that a Reserve Bank makes for a returned check that is a substitute check, a paper or electronic representation thereof, or an electronic returned check is subject to the following conditions and limitations—
(A) A paying bank or returning bank that sent an original returned check shall not be liable for any amount that a Reserve Bank pays under subpart D of part 229 of this chapter, or under § 229.34 of this chapter with respect to an electronic returned check, absent the paying bank's or returning bank's agreement to the contrary;
(B) Nothing in this subpart alters the liability under subpart D of part 229 of this chapter of a paying bank or returning bank that sent a substitute check or a paper or electronic representation of a substitute check or under § 229.34 of this chapter of a paying bank or returning bank that sent an electronic returned check; and
(iii) A paying bank or returning bank shall not be liable for any amount that the Reserve Bank pays under this subpart or part 229 of this chapter that is attributable to the Reserve Bank's own lack of good faith or failure to exercise ordinary care.
(d)
(e)
(1) The following provisions apply when a Reserve Bank handles a returned check under this subpart.
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section, the Reserve Bank shall indemnify the bank to which it transfers or presents and electronic returned check (the recipient bank) for the amount of any losses that the recipient bank incurs under subpart D of part 229 of this chapter (Regulation CC) for an indemnity that the recipient bank was required to make under subpart D of part 229 of this chapter in connection with a substitute check later created from the electronic returned check.
(ii) The Reserve Bank shall not be liable under paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section for any amount that the recipient bank pays under subpart D of part 229 of this chapter that is attributable to the lack of good faith or failure to exercise ordinary care of the recipient bank or a person that handled the item, in any form, after the recipient bank.
(3) A Reserve Bank shall not have or assume any other liability to any person except—
(i) For the Reserve Bank's own lack of good faith or failure to exercise ordinary care;
(ii) As provided in this paragraph (e); and
(iii) As provided in subparts C and D of part 229 of this chapter (Regulation CC).
(f)
(1) A Reserve Bank that has handled a returned check may recover as provided in paragraph (f)(2) if an action or proceeding is brought against (or if defense is tendered to) the Reserve Bank based on—
(i) The alleged failure of the paying bank or returning bank to have the authority to give the authorization in paragraph (c)(1) of this section;
(ii) Any action by the Reserve Bank within the scope of its authority in handling the returned check; or
(iii) Any warranty or indemnity made by the Reserve Bank under paragraph (e) of this section or part 229 of this chapter,
(2) Upon entry of a final judgment or decree in an action or proceeding described in paragraph (f)(1), a Reserve Bank may recover from the paying bank or returning bank the amount of attorneys' fees and other expenses of litigation incurred, as well as any amount the Reserve Bank is required to pay because of the judgment or decree or the tender of defense, together with interest thereon.
(g)
(1) The Reserve Bank may recover the amount stated in paragraph (f) of this section by charging any account on its books that is maintained or used by the paying bank or returning bank (or by charging another returning Reserve Bank), if—
(i) The Reserve Bank made seasonable written demand on the paying bank or returning bank to assume defense of the action or proceeding; and
(ii) The paying bank or returning bank has not made any other arrangement for payment that is acceptable to the Reserve Bank.
(2) The Reserve Bank is not responsible for defending the action or proceeding before using this method of recovery. A Reserve Bank that has been charged under this paragraph (g) may recover from the paying or returning bank in the manner and under the circumstances set forth in this paragraph (g).
(3) A Reserve Bank's failure to avail itself of the remedy provided in this paragraph (g) does not prejudice its enforcement in any other manner of the indemnity agreement referred to in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this section, including Article 4A as incorporated herein, and operating circulars of the Reserve Banks issued in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, this subpart governs the rights and obligations of:
(e)
(e)
(a) Section 210.9(b)(4)(i)(A);
(b) Sections 210.25(a), (b)(3); and
(c) Section 210.29(b).
Appendix A to subpart B of part 210 [Amended]
(a) Under “Section 210.25—Authority, Purpose, and Scope”, add paragraph (e).
(b) Under “Section 210.32—Federal Reserve Bank Liability; Payment of Interest”, revise paragraph (b).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Section 210.25—Authority, Purpose, and Scope
(e)
Section 210.32—Federal Reserve Bank Liability; Payment of Interest
(b) Payment of interest. (1) Under article 4A, a Federal Reserve Bank may be required to pay compensation in the form of interest to another party in connection with its handling of a funds transfer. For example, payment of compensation in the form of interest is required in certain situations pursuant to sections 4A-204 (relating to refund of payment and duty of customer to report with respect to unauthorized payment order), 4A-209 (relating to acceptance of payment order), 4A-210 (relating to rejection of payment order), 4A-304 (relating to duty of sender to report erroneously executed payment order), 4A-305 (relating to liability for late or improper execution or failure to execute a payment order), 4A-402 (relating to obligation of sender to pay receiving bank), and 4A-404 (relating to obligation of beneficiary's bank to pay and give notice to beneficiary).
(2) Section 210.32(b) requires Federal Reserve Banks to provide compensation through an explicit interest payment. Under section 4A-506(a), the amount of such interest may be determined by agreement between the sender and receiving bank or by funds-transfer system rule. If there is no such agreement, under section 4A-506(b), the amount of interest is based on the federal funds rate.
Similarly, compensation in the form of explicit interest will be paid to government senders, receiving banks, or beneficiaries described in § 210.25(d) if they are entitled to interest under this subpart. A Federal Reserve Bank may also, in its discretion, pay explicit interest directly to a remote party to a Fedwire funds transfer that is entitled to interest, rather than providing compensation to its direct sender or receiving bank.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mesquite Airport, Mesquite, NV, by enlarging the area southwest of the airport and updating the airport's geographic coordinates to match the FAA's aeronautical database. These changes are necessary to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) procedures at this airport.
Comments must be received on or before April 30, 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-2018-007; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-18, 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.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200 S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone (206) 231-2253.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Mesquite Airport, Mesquite, NV to support IFR operations at the airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. 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. Persons 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-2018-007; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-18”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mesquite Airport, Mesquite, NV, to within 2.5 miles northwest and 5.5 miles southeast (from 1.8 miles each side) of the airport 233° bearing (from the Mormon Mesa VORTAC 068° bearing) extending to 10 miles southwest of the airport. This proposed airspace redesign is necessary to accommodate new RNAV procedures for this airport.
Additionally, this action would update the geographic coordinates of the airport to match the FAA's aeronautical database.. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 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.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Mesquite Airport and within 2.5 miles northwest and 5.5 miles southeast of the airport 233° bearing extending from the airport to 10 miles southwest of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class D airspace at Appleton International Airport (formerly Outagamie County Airport), Appleton, WI. The FAA is proposing this action due to the decommissioning of the GAMIE locator outer marker (LOM) and collocated outer marker (OM) which provided navigation guidance to the airport. This action would enhance the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport. Also, the airport name and geographic coordinates would be adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Additionally, this action would replace the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement” in the legal description, remove the city associated with the airport name in the airspace designation.
Comments must be received on or before April 30, 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-2018-0006; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-1 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.
Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5900.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D airspace, at Appleton International Airport, Appleton, WI, to support instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. 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-2018-0006/Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-1.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class D airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,400 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius (decreased from a 4.4-mile radius) of Appleton International Airport (formerly Outagamie County Airport), Appleton, WI. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the GAMIE LOM/OM.
This proposal also would update the airport name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Additionally, this action would make an editorial change to the Class D airspace legal description replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement”.
Finally, an editorial change would be made removing the name of the city associated with the airport name in the airspace designation to comply with a recent change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Actions, dated October 12, 2017.
Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 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 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.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,400 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Appleton International Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Altoona-Blair County Airport, Altoona, PA. This action would accommodate airspace reconfiguration due to the decommissioning of Altoona VHF omnidirectional range navigation system (VOR) and cancellation of the VOR approaches. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.
Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2018-0129; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-4, 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 on line at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
John Fornito, Operations Support
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Altoona-Blair County Airport, Altoona, PA, to support IFR operations at the airport.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2018-0129 and Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-4) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0129; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-4.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, 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 considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface due to the decommissioning of the Altoona VOR and cancelation of associated approaches at Altoona-Blair County Airport, Altoona, PA.
The Class E surface area airspace would be amended to within a 4.7-mile (from a 4-mile) radius of the airport, with a segment 1.0-mile each side of the 026° bearing from the airport to 8.7 miles northeast. The segment extending from the Altoona VOR to 7.4 miles northeast of the VOR would be removed.
The Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be amended to within an 11.2-mile (from a 6.5-mile) radius of the airport. The segment extending from the Altoona VOR to 16 miles northeast of the VOR would be removed. These changes would enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 6002 and 6005, respectively of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal 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.
Within a 4.7-mile radius of Altoona-Blair County Airport and within 1 mile each side of the 026° bearing from the airport to 8.7 miles northeast of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 11.2-mile radius of Altoona-Blair County Airport
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notification of filing of petition and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of an initial filing of a pesticide petition 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 16, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0787, 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 (RD) (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.
3.
EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition 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 request before responding to the petitioner. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petition described in this document contains 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 supports granting of the pesticide petition. 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 this pesticide petition.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
21 U.S.C. 346a.
Children's Bureau (CB), Administration on Children Youth and Families (ACYF), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
ACF is seeking public suggestions, in particular from state and tribal title IV-E agencies and Indian tribes and tribal consortiums and other stakeholders, for streamlining the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) data elements and removing any undue burden related to reporting AFCARS.
Comments on this advance notice of proposed rulemaking must be received by June 13, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by [docket number and/or RIN number], by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Kathleen McHugh, Division of Policy, Children's Bureau at (202) 401-5789.
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) has two sections:
Section 479 of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires HHS to regulate a data collection system for national adoption and foster care data that provides comprehensive national information on the following:
• Demographic characteristics of adopted and foster children and their biological and adoptive or foster parents;
• Status and characteristics of the foster care population;
• Number and characteristics of children entering and exiting foster care, children adopted or for whom adoptions have been terminated, and children placed in foster care outside of the state which has placement and care responsibility for them;
• Extent and nature of assistance provided by government programs for foster care and adoption and the characteristics of the children that receive the assistance; and
• Number of foster children identified as sex trafficking victims before entering and while in foster care.
Section 474(f) of the Act requires HHS to impose penalties for non-compliant AFCARS data. Section 1102 of the Act instructs the Secretary to promulgate regulations necessary for the effective administration of the functions for which HHS is responsible under the Act.
We published a final rule to revise the AFCARS regulations on December 14, 2016 (81 FR 90524) and required title IV-E agencies to continue to report AFCARS data in accordance with § 1355.40 and the appendix to part 1355 until September 30, 2019 and provided two fiscal years for title IV-E agencies to comply with §§ 1355.41 through 1355.47 of the final rule. In a notice of proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in this issue of the
The final rule was a culmination of two notices of proposed rulemaking (issued January 11, 2008 (73 FR 2082) and February 9, 2015 (80 FR 7132)) and a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (issued April 7, 2016 (81 FR 20283)). The final rule updated the AFCARS regulations to include child welfare legislative changes that occurred since 1993, included data elements related to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), and implemented fiscal penalties for noncompliant AFCARS data.
On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777 on Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda to lower regulatory burdens on the American people. In response to the President's direction that federal agencies establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review existing regulations and make recommendations regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, we have identified the AFCARS regulation as one in which the reporting burden may impose costs that exceed benefits. We are specifically
Public comments to this ANPRM will allow us to assess whether and how we can potentially reduce burden on title IV-E agencies to report AFCARS data while still adhering to the requirements of section 479 of the Act and collecting useful data that will inform efforts to improve the child welfare system. We encourage state and tribal title IV-E agencies that did not previously comment to do so now. Some state title IV-E agencies provided in their previous comments specific information on compliance cost and burden estimates; however, we received too few estimates to reference for calculating the cost and burden associated with this final rule. We encourage agencies to be as specific as possible when commenting on this ANPRM. We will take comments and estimates into consideration in revising the regulation.
For a full picture of the AFCARS regulation, we invite commenters to review the AFCARS regulation and accompanying information that CB issued on our website, which can be found here:
1. Identify the data elements, non-ICWA-related, that are overly burdensome for state and tribal title IV-E agencies and explain why. Please be specific in identifying the data elements and provide a rationale for why collecting and reporting this information is overly burdensome. If possible, provide specific cost and burden estimates related to the following areas:
a. Recordkeeping hours spent annually:
i. Searching data sources, gathering information, and entering the information into the electronic case management system,
ii. Developing or modifying procedures and systems to collect, validate, and verify the information and adjusting existing procedures to comply with AFCARS requirements, and
iii. Training and administrative tasks associated with training personnel on the AFCARS requirements (
b. Reporting hours spent annually extracting the information for AFCARS reporting and transmitting the information to ACF.
2. Previously, we received comments regarding burden and the system changes needed to report the ICWA-related data elements of the 2016 SNPRM. We would like to receive more detailed comments on the specific limitations we should be aware of that states will encounter in reporting the ICWA-related data elements in the final rule. Please be specific in identifying the data elements and provide a rationale for why this information is overly burdensome. If possible, provide specific cost and burden estimates related to the following areas:
a. The number of children in foster care who are considered Indian children as defined in ICWA.
b. Recordkeeping hours spent annually:
i. Searching data sources, gathering information, and entering the information into the electronic case management system,
ii. Developing or modifying procedures and systems to collect, validate, and verify the information and adjusting existing ways to comply with AFCARS requirements, and
iii. Training and administrative tasks associated with training personnel on the AFCARS requirements (
c. Reporting hours spent annually extracting the information for AFCARS reporting and transmitting the information to ACF.
3. Previously, we received comments that particular data elements did not lend themselves to national statistics and were best assessed with qualitative methods such as case review. Please provide specific recommendations on which data elements in the regulation to retain that are important to understanding and assessing the foster care population at the national level. Also, provide a rationale for your suggestion that may include its relevance to monitor compliance with the title IV-B and IV-E programs or another strong justification for using the data at the national level.
4. Previously we received comments noting concerns with variability in some of the data elements across states and within jurisdictions. Please provide specific suggestions to simplify data elements to facilitate the consistent collection and reporting of AFCARS data. Also, provide a rationale for each suggestion and how the simplification would still yield pertinent data.
5. Previously we received comments questioning the utility, reliability, and purpose of certain data elements at the national level. Provide specific recommendations on which data elements in the regulation to remove because they would not yield reliable national information about children involved with the child welfare system or are not needed for monitoring the title IV-B and IV-E programs. Please be specific in identifying the data elements and provide a rationale for why this information would not be reliable or is not necessary.
Children's Bureau (CB); Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF); Administration for Children and Families (ACF); Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; delay of compliance and effective dates.
The Children's Bureau proposes to delay the compliance and effective dates in the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) 2016 final rule for title IV-E agencies to comply with agency rules for an additional two fiscal years. We propose to delay the compliance and effective dates at the same time we seek public comment through an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), published elsewhere in this issue of the
In order to be considered, we must receive written comments on this NPRM on or before April 16, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by [docket number and/or RIN number], by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Kathleen McHugh, Division of Policy, Children's Bureau at (202) 401-5789.
In the AFCARS final rule issued on December 14, 2016 (81 FR 90524), ACF provided an implementation timeframe of two fiscal years for title IV-E agencies to comply with 45 CFR 1355.41 through 1355.47 (81 FR 90529). On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777 on Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda. In response to the President's direction that federal agencies establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review existing regulations and make recommendations regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, the HHS Task Force identified the AFCARS regulation as one where there may be areas for reducing reporting burden.
Therefore, we are engaging in two regulatory actions to adhere to our obligations under the EO. Through this NPRM, ACF proposes to revise § 1355.40 to provide an additional two fiscal years to comply with §§ 1355.41 through 1355.47. ACF also proposes to delay the effective dates of instructions 3 and 5 in the rule published December 14, 2016 (81 FR 90524), from October 1, 2019, to October 1, 2021. If this rule is finalized, the implementation timeframe would be delayed for title IV-E agencies to make revisions to their systems to comply with §§ 1355.41 through 1355.47. This NPRM is open for a 30-day comment period. Per Executive Order 12866, the typical comment period is 60 days. However, the reasons for the shorter comment period for this NPRM is that any delay in issuing a final rulemaking might lead to title IV-E agencies diverting resources to unnecessary changes to their systems to comply with the December 2016 AFCARS final rule. Furthermore, this rule does not establish additional regulatory obligations or impose any additional burden on regulated entities. ACF believes that a 30-day comment period on this non-substantive rulemaking is a sufficient amount of time for the public to comment and ACF does not believe that a 30-day comment period will hamper public comment. ACF is publishing an ANPRM elsewhere in this issue of the
We propose to revise the compliance date in the regulation to provide an additional two fiscal years to comply with §§ 1355.41 through 1355.47. State and tribal title IV-E agencies must continue to report AFCARS data in the same manner they do currently, per § 1355.40 and appendices A through E of part 1355 until September 30, 2021. We propose that as of October 1, 2021, state and tribal title IV-E agencies must comply with §§ 1355.41 through 1355.47.
In assessing the AFCARS regulation in response to E.O. 13777, we identified the following issues:
• In the December 2016 final rule, there are 272 individual data points, of which 153 data points are new items added to AFCARS. Of the 153 data points, 65 are new items related to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
• State commenters expressed concerns with data points that could not be easily reported to AFCARS because they are qualitative data points of which nuances about the circumstances of the child cannot be reported to AFCARS a quantitative data system, they are of a sensitive nature, or could not be aggregated easily at the national level for national statistics. These points included child, adoptive parent, guardian, and foster parent sexual orientation, health assessments, educational information, adoption and guardianship subsidy amounts, and information on legal guardians.
• The scope and complexity of data elements related to ICWA was also a concern. We note that most of the ICWA-related data elements in the December 2016 AFCARS final rule are not tied to statutory reporting requirements in title IV-E or IV-B. Rather, they were finalized to be consistent with the Department of Interior's (DOI) final rule on ICWA (published on June 14, 2016, 81 FR 38778) which is directed to state courts. Furthermore, the majority of the ICWA-related data elements related to activities undertaken by the court are not routinely collected in child welfare electronic databases. The court findings and other activity taking place before the court represent a shift away from a child welfare agency reporting on its own activity to reporting on the activity of an independent third party. This raises questions of efficiency, reliability and consistency, which section 479(c)(1) and 479(c)(2) of the Social Security Act require for the AFCARS data collection.
• We also anticipate states having many questions about how to report the ICWA-related data elements. HHS has no expertise in ICWA compliance, statute, and regulations and is not the cognizant authority over it, yet the December 2016 final rule places HHS in the position of interpreting various ICWA requirements when providing technical assistance to state title IV-E agencies on how to report on those data elements. How states report the data ultimately impacts practice, potentially introducing inconsistency with DOJ and DOI's interpretation of ICWA.
• Costs for system changes, training to consistently collect and report ICWA-related data and time to gather/enter data (sometimes manually) into the case management system.
The Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that added the ICWA compliance data elements to the AFCARS was only open for comment for 30 days. This was an insufficient amount of time for states to fairly analyze unfamiliar data elements, accurately calculate burden associated with these elements, and move any comments through their chain of command for submission to HHS for consideration. The ANPRM, on the other hand, will be open for comment for 90 days. It asks title IV-E agencies and the public to comment on the data elements of the December 2016 final rule.
Therefore, in order to get additional feedback on these and other issues we are issuing a proposed rule to delay implementation of the December 2016 AFCARS final rule. As States must go to the expense to revise their data collection systems in response to the December 2016 final rule, we do not want states to incur these costs unnecessarily as we further assess burden under the rule. This is an opportunity for commenters to provide HHS with specific feedback on the data elements and how HHS can revise AFCARS to balance updating requirements, the need for better data, and the burden on title IV-E agencies. Through the aforementioned ANPRM
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. ACF consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this rule does meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. Thus, it was subject to OMB review. ACF determined that the costs to title IV-E agencies as a result of this rule will not be significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 (have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities). Because the rule is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, no cost-benefit analysis needs to be included in this NPRM. This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, would be considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
The Secretary certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as enacted by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), that this proposed rule will not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule does not affect small entities because it is applicable only to state and tribal title IV-E agencies.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation). That threshold level is currently approximately $146 million. This proposed rule does not impose any mandates on state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector that will result in an annual expenditure of $146 million or more.
This regulation is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 8.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-58) requires federal agencies to determine whether a policy or regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's determination is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. This proposed rule will not have an impact on family well-being as defined in the law.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 35, as amended) (PRA), all Departments are required to submit to OMB for review and approval any reporting or recordkeeping requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule. PRA rules require that ACF estimate the total burden created by this proposed rule regardless of what information is available. ACF provides burden and cost estimates using the best available information. Information collection for AFCARS is currently authorized under OMB number 0970-0422. This notice of proposed rulemaking does not make changes to the AFCARS requirements for title IV-E agencies; it delays the effective date and provides title IV-E agencies with additional time to comply with sections 1355.41 through 1355.47. Thus, the annual burden hours for recordkeeping and reporting does not change from those currently authorized under OMB number 0970-0422. Therefore, we are not seeking comments on any information collection requirements through this NPRM.
Adoption and foster care, Child welfare, Computer technology, Grant programs—social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend 45 CFR part 1355 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 620
(a)
Federal Communications Commission.
Petitions for Reconsideration; correction.
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) published a document in the
Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before March 19, 2018. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before March 29, 2018.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Jessica Campbell, phone: 202-418-3609,
In the
Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before March 19, 2018. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before March 29, 2018.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), withdraw our September 15, 2016, proposed rule to list
The proposed rule that published on September 15, 2016 (81 FR 63454), to list
This document, comments on our proposed rule, and supplementary documents are available on the internet at
Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; telephone 805-644-1766. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
On September 15, 2016, we published a proposed rule (81 FR 63454) to list
Under section 4(b)(6) of the Act, the Service is required to make a final listing determination within 1 year from the publication of the proposed rule, by publishing either a final listing rule or a withdrawal of the proposed rule, or extending the final determination by not more than 6 months under certain circumstances specified in the Act. On July 19, 2017, the Service published a 6-month extension of the final determination on the proposed threatened status for
After publication of the proposed rule in the
During all three comment periods on the September 15, 2016, proposed rule, the Service requested additional information on the status of
A thorough review of information that we relied on in making this determination—including information on taxonomy, life history, ecology, population distribution and abundance, land ownership, and potential threats—is presented in the Species Report for the San Fernando Valley Spineflower (
Comparing annual numbers of
Based upon our review of the public comments, comments from other Federal and State and County agencies, partner and peer review comments (see Summary of Comments and
(1) Based on our analyses, the Service has determined that
(2) This document summarizes and evaluates the 2017 CCA and provides an analysis using the Service's Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). See Ongoing and Future Conservation Efforts, below.
(3) This document summarizes and evaluates the effects of the December 5, 2017, Rye Fire to
Below, we summarize conservation efforts that provide benefits to
For the Santa Clarita population, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) approved the 2010 Newhall Ranch Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) and issued an incidental take permit (permit no. 2081-2008-012-05, the ITP) under the California Endangered Species Act, California Fish and Game Code section 2050-2085 (CESA) in 2010, for the SCP and proposed Newhall Land development within the SCP area that would result in the partial removal of
Newhall Land has also deposited funds with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for management of
The rest of the SCP, including construction monitoring, habitat restoration, fencing and signing, and water control at the Santa Clarita population, has not yet been implemented. The implementation will occur in phases associated with the Newall Ranch development project.
Even with the conservation measures in the SCP, the proposed rule identified several threats that were still negatively acting on
The 2017 CCA outlines several new conservation actions that will be enacted to address the current and future threats that we identified in our September 15, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 63454). Additional conservation measures of the 2017 CCA are discussed below. We have also formally evaluated all 2017 CCA conservation measures pursuant to PECE, thereby taking all formalized conservation measures into consideration before making our final determination of the status of the plant. The Service's detailed PECE analysis, as well as the 2017 CCA and exhibits, are available for review at
The 2017 CCA provides for Newhall Land to voluntarily implement additional conservation measures described in the introduction plan with the goal of enhancing the status of
The additional conservation areas in the introduction plan are intended to further increase the distribution of
In carrying out the additional conservation measures described in the introduction plan, Newhall Land will introduce
Newhall Land began implementation of the introduction plan in 2016, by commencing site investigations to identify the additional conservation areas and suitable
The first step for each introduction site is the establishment of seeding trials. A series of initial seeding trials will be implemented at the proposed introduction areas prior to widespread introductions. The seeding trials are expected to take a minimum of 2 years to implement and obtain meaningful results. The seeding trials will be followed by more widespread introductions. The locations for widespread introductions will be based on where seeding trials demonstrate a
Enhancement activities in areas surrounding introduction sites will be implemented prior to or concurrently with
All
The introduction plan describes in detail the biological monitoring of the introduction sites that will be conducted to determine the status of introduced
The purpose of PECE is to ensure consistent and adequate evaluation of recently formalized conservation efforts when making listing decisions. The policy provides guidance on how to evaluate conservation efforts that have not yet been implemented or have not yet demonstrated effectiveness. The evaluation focuses on the certainty that the conservation efforts will be implemented and effective. The policy presents nine criteria for evaluating the certainty of implementation and six criteria for evaluating the certainty of effectiveness for conservation efforts. These criteria are not considered comprehensive evaluation criteria. The certainty of implementation and the effectiveness of a formalized conservation effort may also depend on species-specific, habitat-specific, location-specific, and effort-specific factors. We consider all appropriate factors in evaluating formalized conservation efforts. The specific circumstances will also determine the amount of information necessary to satisfy these criteria.
To consider that a formalized conservation effort contributes to forming a basis for not listing a species, or listing a species as threatened rather than endangered, we must find that the conservation effort is sufficiently certain to be (1) implemented, and (2) effective, so as to have contributed to the elimination or adequate reduction of one or more threats to the species identified through the section 4(a)(1) analysis. The elimination or adequate reduction of section 4(a)(1) threats may lead to a determination that the species does not meet the definition of endangered or threatened, or is threatened rather than endangered.
An agreement or plan may contain numerous conservation efforts, not all of which are sufficiently certain to be implemented and effective. Those conservation efforts that are not sufficiently certain to be implemented and effective cannot contribute to a determination that listing is unnecessary, or a determination to list as threatened rather than endangered. Regardless of the adoption of a conservation agreement or plan, however, if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species” on the day of the listing decision, then we must proceed with appropriate rulemaking activity under section 4 of the Act. Further, it is important to note that a conservation plan is not required to have absolute certainty of implementation and effectiveness in order to contribute to a listing determination. Rather, we need to be certain that the conservation efforts will be implemented and effective such that the threats to the species are reduced or eliminated.
Using the criteria in PECE (68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003), we evaluated the certainty of implementation (for those measures not already implemented) and effectiveness of conservation measures pertaining to
We have certainty that the conservation efforts will be implemented because the implementation of the 2017 CCA has already begun and funding has been secured, providing certainty that funding will continue to be available to implement the conservation efforts. The seeding trails began in 2016, restrictive covenants have been placed over the CCA additional conservation areas on Newhall Property, consent has been obtained to perform
We have certainty that the conservation efforts will be effective because the nature and extent of threats is adequately addressed in the 2017 CCA, including improving resiliency of the Santa Clarita population, increasing the number of ecoregions in which the plant is represented, and adding to the overall redundancy of the species. In addition, the combined factors of documented success with other
In conclusion, we have a high level of certainty that the conservation measures in the 2017 CCA will be implemented (for those measures not already begun) and effective, and thus they can be considered as part of the basis for our final listing determination for
In the proposed rule published on September 15, 2016 (81 FR 63454), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by November 14, 2016. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, Tribes, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. On July 19, 2017, we published a 6-month extension of the final determination on the proposed threatened status for
During the three comment periods on the proposed rule, we received six peer-review comment letters and four public comment letters on the proposed rule, one public comment letter on the 6-month extension, and five public comment letters on the reopening of the comment period for the 2017 CCA directly addressing the proposed listing of
The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our analysis of the information and assumptions used for listing determination is scientifically sound. In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from six independent specialists with scientific expertise in the biology of
As of February 2016, Argentine ants were present within two preserves at the Santa Clarita population, Entrada and Potrero (Dudek 2016, pp. 17, 20). Therefore, the additional conservation area adjacent to the existing Potrero preserve is at risk of invasion by Argentine ants. However, the two additional conservation areas adjacent to the existing San Martinez Grande
The 2017 CCA requires that annual Argentine ant monitoring be conducted as part of the ongoing habitat maintenance and describes appropriate control measures consistent with the Argentine Ant Control Plan for Newhall Ranch (Dudek 2014, entire). If Argentine ants invade, Newhall Land proposes control methods as part of an integrated pest management plan, which will be both to remove Argentine ants and mitigate for the absence of native pollinators within the preserves (Dudek 2014c, pp. 25-42). Qualified pest control professionals and conservation managers will review and approve any control or mitigation plan. The endowment associated with long-term management and monitoring of the additional conservation areas would provide the substantial financial investment needed to implement this plan.
Jones
The direct effects of fire on
The CDFW, SMMC, and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation will execute the agreement that requires the endowment be spent for the conservation and management of
Development was considered a future threat to the Santa Clarita population. However, the additional conservation areas proposed in the CCA are intended to further increase the number and extent of
At the Santa Clarita site, development of Newhall Ranch would remove ground coverage of nonnative plants. However, part of this development will create urban edges that would border some of the preserves. Nonnative weedy species are often edge species and become more prevalent or increase in abundance to the detriment of native species. Therefore, Newhall Land has proposed to restore
At Santa Clarita, proposed development in the area will break up large expanses of potential fuels and may reduce the risk of wildfire, but human-caused ignition may increase with increasing human presence and traffic. However, fire protection in the surrounding areas is also expected to increase because of the need to avoid loss of life and property; therefore, it is anticipated that any fires in the SCP preserves will be lighter rather than heavier in intensity (Dudek 2010a, p. 136). In addition, if fire-control lines or other forms of bulldozer damage occur within the preserves, Newhall Land proposed to repair and revegetate these areas to pre-burn conditions (Dudek 2010a, pp. 135-137). In our assessment of climate change, we analyze that drier conditions in the future may result in increased fire frequency, making the ecosystems in which a species currently grows more vulnerable to threats of nonnative plant invasion.
The December 2017 Rye Fire burned four out of seven of the SCP preserves on Newhall Ranch. The intensity of the fire was diagnosed as being light (Watershed Emergency Response Team 2018, pp. 18-20). Numerous previous wildfire events have occurred on Newhall Ranch since 1913, including at least 12 since 1983 (excluding the 2017 Rye Fire), and several of these fires have affected extensive areas of habitat occupied by the spineflower (Dudek 2017, p. 10).
Monitoring conducted under the SCP will continue to evaluate the performance of
The 2017 CCA establishes additional
The 2017 CCA states that annual Argentine ant monitoring will be conducted as part of the ongoing habitat maintenance, and appropriate control measures consistent with the Argentine Ant Control Plan for Newhall Ranch (Dudek 2014, entire) will be implemented in the event that invasion occurs. If Argentine ants invade, Newhall Land proposes control methods as part of an integrated pest management plan to remove Argentine ants and mitigate for the absence of native pollinators within the preserves (Dudek 2014c, pp. 25-42). Qualified pest control professionals and conservation managers will review and approve any control or mitigation plan. Argentine ants are not considered to be a significant long-term risk to
The additional conservation areas proposed in the 2017 CCA are intended to increase the number and extent of
The goal of the 2017 CCA is to establish at least two new self-sustaining, persistent
To address availability of seed source, it is anticipated that there will be opportunities for topsoil salvage from
To address the need for appropriate climatic and hydrologic conditions and the presence of specific soil types and geomorphological conditions, the additional conservation areas were selected based on proximity to extant
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Project included detailed analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed discharges of fill material in waters of the United States and associated upland development activities on
The intensity of the Rye Fire on Newhall Ranch was diagnosed as light (Watershed Emergency Response Team 2018, pp. 18-20). Based on field testing, the California Geological Survey found that within the mapped fire perimeter, 64 percent of the area was classified as very low/unburned, 34 percent as low, and 2 percent as moderate; no area was classified as high (Watershed Emergency Response Team 2018, pp. 18-20). The severity of the Rye Fire was similar to or generally less than the most recent fires on Newhall Ranch in
Using the criteria specified in PECE, we evaluated the certainty of future implementation and certainty of effectiveness of the 2017 CCA. Based on our evaluation, we have a high level of certainty that the conservation actions will be effectively implemented and, therefore, should be considered as part of the basis for our final listing determination for
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination. Stressors that currently act, or may act, on
All of these potential stressors are evaluated and presented in our Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 20-78). The best available data indicate that grazing and agriculture, utility line easements and maintenance, miscellaneous land use, and recreation are not resulting in population or rangewide impacts currently or in the future such that they rise to the level of threats to the continued existence of the species. We conclude this because these activities have been or will be removed from most areas that overlap
Development consists of converting the landscape into residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational features, with associated infrastructure such as roads. Currently, development does not impact
At the time we issued the proposed rule (81 FR 63454, September 15, 2016), available information indicated that the future development of the proposed Newhall Ranch would directly remove 24 percent of the
Under the 2010 SCP, Newhall Land Company designated seven spineflower preserves containing approximately 15 ac (6 ha) of
Overall, we projected in our September 15, 2016, proposed rule that development at one of the two
As discussed above, we have determined that the conservation actions outlined in the 2017 CCA are sufficiently certain to be implemented and effective such that they should be considered in our assessment of status. These conservation actions significantly reduce the identified threats, including effects of historical and future loss of habitat from development (Factor A and E), and their impacts to
The effects of small, isolated populations include increased risk of extinction from random, naturally occurring events, and potentially reduced genetic variation, which can affect the ability of a species to sustain itself into the future in the face of environmental fluctuations. There are two known populations of
When we issued the proposed rule (81 FR 63454, September 15, 2016), we concluded that having only two small, isolated populations decreased the ability of
Since the publication of the proposed rule, the 2017 CCA was completed, which provides for additional conservation areas that are intended to increase the number and extent of spineflower occurrences within the plant's historic range. The additional conservation areas at the Santa Clarita population, which total approximately 825 ac (334 ha), are contiguous with or adjacent to the existing San Martinez Grande and Potrero preserves established under the SCP. These areas are intended to expand the area of protected conservation land for
Introduction sites outside of the Santa Clarita population include an additional conservation area of 357 ac (144 ha) located in the Simi Valley watershed on the southern boundary of Newhall Land property in Ventura County; an additional conservation area of approximately 316 ac (128 ha) located on Newhall Land property in the Castaic Mesa area in northern Los Angeles County, near a known extirpated population location; and an additional conservation area located in a 7-ac (2.8-ha) portion of the Petersen Ranch Mitigation Bank adjacent to Elizabeth Lake, also near a known extirpated population location.
Introduction of
At this time, under PECE, we have determined that the conservation actions outlined in the 2017 CCA are sufficiently certain to be implemented and effective such that they should be considered in our assessment of status. These conservation actions significantly reduce the identified threats, including having small, isolated populations (Factor E), and their impacts to
Nonnative, invasive plants include nonnative vegetation that occurs within or adjacent to habitat that supports
When we issued the proposed rule (81 FR 63454, September 15, 2016), we determined that this stressor would likely affect
The 2017 CCA provides for Newhall Land to voluntarily implement conservation measures described in the introduction plan with the goal of establishing new, protected
In our September 15, 2016, proposed rule, we concluded that nonnative, invasive plants are abundant at both Laskey Mesa and Santa Clarita populations, reduce available habitat quality, compete with
Argentine ants may impact pollination and seed dispersal vectors of
At Laskey Mesa, we do not expect Argentine ants will impact
In our September 15, 2016, proposed rule, we determined that loss of habitat and individuals and the associated edge effects including proliferation of Argentine ants at the Santa Clarita population are likely to decrease habitat quality, reducing resiliency at this population. The 2017 CCA includes establishing additional
The additional conservation area adjacent to the existing Potrero preserve is at risk of invasion by Argentine ants. The two additional conservation areas adjacent to the existing San Martinez Grande preserve are farther from existing or proposed development (see Figure 2, above). None of the adjacent land uses near San Martinez Grande poses a heightened threat of Argentine ant invasion (Dudek 2016, p. 6). These additional conservation areas are not expected to be at risk of invasion from Argentine ants and should contribute to
The 2017 CCA describes that annual Argentine ant monitoring will be conducted as part of the ongoing habitat maintenance and appropriate control measures consistent with the Argentine Ant Control Plan for Newhall Ranch (Dudek 2014, entire) in the event that invasion occurs. If Argentine ants invade, Newhall Land proposes control methods as part of an integrated pest management plan to remove Argentine ants and mitigate for the absence of native pollinators within the preserves (Dudek 2014c, pp. 25-42). Qualified pest control professionals and conservation managers will review and approve any control or mitigation plan.
When we issued the proposed rule, we concluded that Argentine ants are a current and future population-level threat to
The term “climate” refers to the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2014, p. 119). The term “climate change” thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (for example, temperature or precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2014, p. 120). A recent synthesis report of climate change and its effects is available from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (IPCC 2014, entire).
There is no way to measure past impacts at either population associated with climate change. Compared to historical or baseline temperature and precipitation measurements, projections of climate change in the south coast region of California indicate that precipitation will decrease slightly and
1. Drier conditions may result in less suitable habitat, or a lower germination success and smaller population sizes;
2. Higher temperatures may inhibit germination, dry out soil, or affect pollinator services;
3. The timing of pollinator life cycles may become out-of-sync with timing of flowering;
4. A shift in the timing and nature of annual precipitation may favor expansion in abundance and distribution of nonnative species; and
5. Drier conditions may result in increased fire frequency, making the ecosystems in which a species currently grows more vulnerable to threats of nonnative plant invasion.
Overall, although many climate models generally agree about potential future changes in temperature and precipitation, their consequent effects on vegetation are more uncertain, as is the rate at which any such changes might be realized. It is not clear how or when changes in vegetation type or plant species composition will affect the distribution of
Since the publication of the proposed rule, the 2017 CCA was developed and signed. The actions in the 2017 CCA will result in at least two new self-sustaining, persistent
In our September 15, 2016, proposed rule, based on the analysis in the Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 73-78), we determined that we did not have reliable information to indicate that climate change is a threat to
In our Species Report, we concluded that wildfire directly impacts
Despite the effect of direct scorching, fire may prove beneficial to
The Rye Fire on Newhall Ranch began on December 5, 2017, and burned approximately 2,845 ac (1,150 ha) of land within the boundaries of the SCP area. Of the seven SCP preserves, four were burned (Grapevine Mesa, Airport Mesa, Spring, and Potrero). The westernmost portion of the Airport Mesa preserve burned while the entirety of the Spring, Grapevine, and Potrero preserves burned. Of the 20-ac (8-ha) cumulative
The intensity of the Rye Fire on Newhall Ranch was characterized as light (Watershed Emergency Response Team 2018, pp. 18-20). Based on field testing, the California Geological Survey found that within the mapped fire perimeter, 64 percent of the area was
If the Rye Fire promotes the invasion and spread of exotic plants, it will degrade habitat for
Numerous previous wildfire events have occurred on Newhall Ranch since 1913, including at least 12 since 1983 (excluding the 2017 Rye Fire), and several of these fires have affected extensive areas of spineflower-occupied habitat (Dudek 2017, p. 10).
Large year-to-year fluctuations in population numbers make it difficult to discern pre- and post-burn trends in
We expect relatively minor effects from the Rye Fire on arthropods that could be
Fire suppression activities may impact
In 2011, the Service issued a biological and conference opinion based on our review of the continued aerial application of fire retardants, including Phos-Chek, on National Forest System Lands and its effects on 75 species listed as endangered or threatened, or proposed for listing, and on designated critical habitat in accordance with section 7 of the Act (Service 2011, entire). This opinion did not directly address effects to
The effects of Phos-Check were also examined as part of the Ben Lomond spineflower study (McGraw 2017, pp. 5-6). There were no biologically meaningful increases in the cover or richness of exotic plants within the Phos-Chek treated areas. This may reflect the dense shrub and tree cover in these areas, which limits the ability of light-limited exotic plants to establish, or the Phos-Chek nutrients might have been readily taken up by native plants, or readily flushed from the sandy-soil system.
Monitoring of
Additional information about the effects of the fire on
Given the large
When stressors occur together, one stressor may exacerbate the effects of another stressor, causing effects not accounted for when stressors are analyzed individually. Synergistic effects may be observed in a short amount of time or may not be noticeable for years into the future, and could affect the long-term viability of
At the Laskey Mesa site, we anticipate that management actions will be undertaken to manage the proliferation of nonnative, invasive grasses. At the Santa Clarita site, the 2017 CCA conservation efforts will expand the area of protected conservation land for the plant and will increase the extent of protected locations within the Santa Clarita population to buffer it from detrimental effects. Argentine ants may still affect some portion of the Santa Clarita population, but by increasing the overall resiliency of the population to those effects by increasing numbers and area for the spineflower, the effects of Argentine ants, including some loss of pollinators and seed dispersers, is not expected to have significant impacts at the population scale. Weeding will decrease the impacts of nonnative, invasive plants. Additional conservation areas associated with the 2017 CCA outside the Santa Clarita population are not at risk from Argentine ant invasion; weeding will also take place. Increasing the overall redundancy of
We use the principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation as a lens to evaluate current and future effects to
Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events. It is about spreading risk among multiple populations to minimize the
Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions overtime. It is characterized by the breadth of genetic and environmental diversity within and among populations. Measures may include the number of varied niches occupied, the gene diversity, and heterozygosity of alleles per locus.
In our September 15, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 63454) to list
In our proposed rule, we determined that loss of habitat and individuals and the associated edge effects (
Given that invasion by invasive, nonnative plants and Argentine ants could occur, all additional conservation areas will be monitored and managed for these stressors. The enhancement areas surrounding introduction sites will help minimize invasion of nonnative plant species, which could threaten the quality of the habitat for
As of February 2016, Argentine ants were present within two SCP preserves at the Santa Clarita population, Entrada and Potrero (Dudek, 2016, pp. 17, 20). Therefore, the additional conservation area adjacent to the existing Potrero preserve is at risk of invasion by Argentine ants. The two additional conservation areas adjacent to the existing San Martinez Grande preserve are farther from existing or proposed development (see Figure 2, above). None of the adjacent land uses near San Martinez Grande poses a heightened threat of Argentine ant invasion (Dudek 2016, p. 6); therefore, these additional conservation areas are not expected to be at risk of invasion Argentine ants and should contribute to
Overall, increasing the number and health of the plants at the Santa Clarita population with introduction and enhancement is expected to increase the overall resiliency of the population to potential proliferation of invasive, nonnative plants and the effects of Argentine ant invasion. The two additional conservation areas adjacent to the San Martinez Grande preserve are at low risk of invasion by invasive, nonnative plants and Argentine ants, and should contribute to
The introduction sites outside of the Santa Clarita population include an additional conservation area of 357 ac (144 ha) located in the Simi Valley watershed on the southern boundary of Newhall Land property in Ventura County (Area 5 in Figure 2, above); an additional conservation area of approximately 316 ac (128 ha) located on Newhall Land property in the Castaic Mesa area in northern Los Angeles County, near a known extirpated population location (Area 4 in Figure 2); and an additional conservation area located in a 7-ac (2.8-ha) portion of the Petersen Ranch Mitigation Bank adjacent to Elizabeth Lake, also near a known extirpated population location (Area 6 in Figure 2). Argentine ants are not considered to be a significant long-term risk to
In our proposed rule, we determined that with only two extant populations, there may not be sufficient redundancy to sustain
In our proposed rule, we determined that the two
In conclusion, based on our high certainty that these efforts will be implemented and be effective, we conclude that the nature and extent of threats identified in our September 15, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 63454) are adequately addressed. The threats identified in the proposed rule include reduced resiliency due to habitat fragmentation and associated edge effects (
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species.” The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and a “threatened species” as a species that is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species” because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to
Since the publication of the September 15, 2016, proposed rule, the 2017 CCA was developed and signed, and is being implemented; the 2017 CCA provides for additional populations and protected habitat for
Because we determined that
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is an endangered species or a threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act defines “endangered species” as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and “threatened species” as any species that is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The term “species” includes “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” We published a final policy interpreting the phrase “significant portion of its range” (SPR) (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be an endangered or a threatened species throughout a significant portion of its range, the entire species is listed as an endangered or a threatened species, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is “significant” if the species is not currently an endangered species or a threatened species throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is considered to be the general geographical area within which that species can be found at the time the Service makes any particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is an endangered species or a threatened species throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
The SPR policy is applied to all status determinations, including analyses for the purposes of making listing, delisting, and reclassification determinations. The procedure for analyzing whether any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of the status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range, we list the species as an endangered (or threatened) species and no SPR analysis will be required. If the species is neither an endangered nor a threatened species throughout all of its range, we determine whether the species is an endangered or a threatened species throughout a significant portion of its range. If it is, we list the species as an endangered or a threatened species, respectively; if it is not, we conclude that listing the species is not warranted.
When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and either an endangered or a threatened species. To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the species is an endangered or a threatened species throughout a significant portion of its range—rather; it is a step in determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required. In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are affecting it uniformly throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats apply only to portions of the range that clearly do not meet the biologically based definition of “significant” (
If we identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and (2) endangered or threatened, we engage in a more detailed analysis to determine whether these standards are indeed met. The identification of an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is an endangered or a threatened species. We must go through a separate analysis to determine whether the species is an endangered or a threatened species in the SPR. To determine whether a species is an endangered or a threatened species throughout an SPR, we will use the same standards and methodology that we use to determine if a species is an endangered or a threatened species throughout its range.
Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it may be more efficient to address the “significant” question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a portion of the range is not “significant,” we do not need to determine whether the species is an endangered or a threatened species there; if we determine that the species is not an endangered or a threatened species in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is “significant.”
Applying the process described above to identify whether any portions warrant further consideration, we determine whether there are any particular portions where (1) the portions may be significant and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. To identify portions that may be significant, we consider whether any natural divisions within the range might be of biological or conservation importance. To identify portions where the species may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, we consider whether the threats are geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range.
We evaluated the range of
Because there are only two extant
When we issued our September 15, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 63454), we determined that the Laskey Mesa population was currently affected by nonnative, invasive grasses; effects of small, isolated populations; and potentially climate change. We also determined at the time we issued that proposed rule that the Santa Clarita population was affected by nonnative, invasive grasses; Argentine ants; effects of small, isolated populations; and potentially climate change. The Santa Clarita population would also be affected in the future by the proposed Newhall Ranch development project, which would result in removal of 24 percent of the
However, in considering whether the geographic concentration of threats in the Santa Clarita portion of the range are such that the species may be threatened or endangered there, we now consider how the implementation of the 2017 CCA have and will continue to ameliorate these threats. With the implementation of the 2017 CCA, as discussed above, we have determined that the Santa Clarita portion of
As summarized under Ongoing and Future Conservation Efforts and
We have identified portions (both Santa Clarita and Laskey Mesa) of
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to
A complete list of references cited in this document is available on
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to approve and implement the measures the portion of Framework Adjustment 29 (Framework 29) to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan that establishes scallop specifications and other measures for fishing years 2018 and 2019. The measures discussed in this proposed rule are in addition to the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) management measures of Framework 29 that were published in a separate proposed rule on February 20, 2018.
Comments must be received by March 30, 2018.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) has prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) for this action that describes the proposed measures in Framework 29, other considered alternatives, and analyzes the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives, including NGOM management measures of Framework 29 that were published as a proposed rule on February 20, 2018 (83 FR 7129). The Council submitted a decision draft of Framework 29 to NMFS that includes the draft EA, a description of the Council's preferred alternatives, the Council's rationale for selecting each alternative, and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). Copies of the draft of Framework 29, the draft EA, the IRFA, and information on the economic impacts of this proposed rulemaking are available upon request from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950 and accessible via the internet in documents available at:
With regard to new access areas that will become available to scallop fishing through the Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2 (see proposed rule for the Omnibus Habitat Amendment published on November 6, 2017 (82 FR 51492)), additional documents are available via the internet at:
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0016, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Travis Ford, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9233.
The scallop fishery's management unit ranges from the shorelines of Maine through North Carolina to the outer boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone. The Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP), established in 1982, includes a number of amendments and framework adjustments that have revised and refined the fishery's management. The New England Fishery Management Council sets scallop fishery catch limits and other management measures through specification or framework adjustments that occur annually or biennially. The Council adopted Framework 29 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP in its entirety on December 7, 2017. The Council submitted a decision draft of the framework, including a draft EA, for NMFS review and approval on December 21, 2017. Framework 29, which establishes scallop specifications and other measures for fishing years 2018 and 2019, includes changes to the NGOM management provisions for fishing years 2018 and 2019, changes to the catch, effort, and quota allocations and adjustments to the rotational area management program for fishing year 2018, and default specifications for fishing year 2019.
On February 20, 2018, NMFS published a separate proposed rule to approve and implement the portion of Framework 29 that address the NGOM measures (83 FR 7129). We informed the Council at the December meeting that we would consider separating out the NGOM measures in Framework 29 to ensure that they were in place prior to April 1, 2018. Additional information on the proposed NGOM measures is provided in the February 20, 2018, proposed rule and is not repeated here. This action addresses only the remaining portions of Framework 29.
This action proposes to approve and implement the portion of Framework 29 that establishes scallop specifications and other measures for fishing year 2018. This includes default fishing year 2019 measures that would go into place should the next specifications-setting action be delayed beyond the start of fishing year 2019.
NMFS will implement these measures of Framework 29, if approved, as close as possible to the April 1, 2018, start of fishing year 2018. If NMFS implements these Framework 29 measures after the start of the 2018 fishing year, 2018 default allocation measures will go into place on April 1, 2018. The Council has reviewed the proposed regulations in this rule as drafted by NMFS and deemed them to be necessary and appropriate as specified in section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
The Council set the proposed OFL based on a fishing mortality rate (F) of 0.48, equivalent to the overfishing F threshold updated through the 2014 assessment. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee recommended a scallop fishery ABC for 2018 of 132 million lb (59,968 mt) and 128 million lb (58,126 mt) for 2019, after accounting for discards and incidental mortality. The Council reduced these recommended ABCs to the amounts included in this proposed rule: 45,950 mt for the 2018 fishing year, and 45,805 mt for the 2019 fishing year. For each fishing year the ACL is based on the proposed ABC using an F of 0.38, which is the F associated with a 25-percent probability of exceeding the OFL. The Scientific and Statistical Committee will reevaluate the default ABC for 2019 when the Council develops the next framework adjustment in 2018.
Table 1 outlines the proposed scallop fishery catch limits. After deducting the incidental target total allowable catch (TAC), the research set-aside (RSA), and the observer set-aside, the remaining ACL available to the fishery is allocated according to the following fleet proportions established in Amendment 11 to the FMP (72 FR 20090; April 14, 2008): 94.5 percent is allocated to the limited access scallop fleet (
This action would deduct 1.25 million lb (567 mt) of scallops annually for 2018 and 2019 from the ABC for use as the Scallop RSA to fund scallop research. Participating vessels are compensated through the sale of scallops harvested under RSA projects. Of the 1.25 million lb (567 mt) allocation, NMFS has already allocated 133,037 lb (60.3 mt) to previously-funded multi-year projects as part of the 2017 RSA awards process. NMFS is reviewing proposals submitted for consideration of 2018 RSA awards and will be selecting projects for funding in the near future.
This action would also deduct 1 percent of the ABC for the industry-funded observer program to help defray the cost to scallop vessels that carry an observer. The observer set-aside is 460 mt for 2018 and 458 mt for 2019. The Council may adjust the 2019 observer set-aside when it develops specific, non-default measures for 2019.
This action would implement vessel-specific DAS allocations for each of the three limited access scallop DAS permit categories (
If NMFS implements these Framework 29 measures after April 1, 2018, fishing year 2018 default DAS allocations, which were established in Framework Adjustment 28 to the Scallop FMP (82 FR 15155; March 27, 2017), will go into place on April 1, 2018. Full-time vessels will receive 21.75 DAS, Part-time vessels will receive 8.69 DAS, and Occasional vessels will receive 1.91 DAS. The allocations would later be increased in accordance with Framework 29, if approved. NMFS will send a letter to all limited access permit holders providing both default and Framework 29 DAS allocations so that vessel owners know what mid-year adjustments would occur should Framework 29 be approved and implemented after April 1, 2018.
For fishing year 2018 and the start of 2019, Framework 29 would keep the Mid-Atlantic Access Area (MAAA) open as an access area and would include what is now the Elephant Trunk Flex Rotational Area as part of the MAAA. In addition, this action would close the northern portion of Nantucket Lightship (NLS-N), but it would allocate trips into the southern portion of Nantucket Lightship in an area referred to as Nantucket Lightship-South (NLS-S). Further, this action would allocate effort into new access areas (Closed Area 1 (CA1) and Nantucket Lightship-West (NLS-W)) that will become available to scallop fishing through the Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2 (Omnibus Habitat Amendment). We published a proposed rule for the Omnibus Habitat Amendment on
Table 3 provides the proposed limited access full-time allocations for all of the access areas, which could be taken in as many trips as needed, so long as the vessels do not exceed the possession limit (also in Table 3) on each trip.
Table 4 provides the proposed limited access part-time allocations for three of the access areas, which could be taken in as many trips as needed, so long as the vessels do not exceed the possession limit (also in Table 4) on each trip. There is no part-time allocation in NLS-S.
For the 2018 fishing year, an occasional limited access vessel would be allocated 9,000 lb (4,082 kg) of scallops with a trip possession limit at 9,000 lb of scallops per trip (4,082 kg per trip). Occasional vessels would be able to harvest 9,000 lb (4,082 kg) allocation from only one of three available access areas (CA1, NLS-W, or MAAA). There is no occasional vessel allocation in NLS-S. For the 2019 fishing year, occasional limited access vessels would be allocated 9,000 lb (4,082 kg) in the MAAA only with a trip possession limit of 9,000 lb per trip (4,082 kg per trip).
The owner of a vessel issued a limited access scallop permit may exchange unharvested scallop pounds allocated into one access area for another vessel's unharvested scallop pounds allocated into another access area. These exchanges may only be made for the amount of the current trip possession limit (18,000-lb (8,165-kg)). In addition, these exchanges would be made only between vessels in the same permit category. For example, a full-time vessel may not exchange allocations with a part-time vessel, and vice versa.
Towards the end of fishing year 2012 and into fishing year 2013 catch rates in CA1 began to drop below profitable levels for limited access vessels. As a result, many vessels were unable to harvest the pounds associated with their CA1 trips in these two fishing years. Because these trips were not allocated evenly throughout the fleet, Framework Adjustment 25 to the Scallop FMP (79 FR 34251; June 16, 2014) allowed unharvested pounds associated with fishing years 2012 and 2013 CA1 trips to be harvested by those vessels in CA1 when it reopens in the future. Because Framework 29 would be the first action since 2013 to open CA1 to scallop fishing, it would reinstate this unharvested allocation to the limited access fleet in fishing year 2018. 1,638,604 lb (743,258 kg) of CA1 allocation went unharvested from fishing years 2012 and 2013, distributed across 130 permit holders. All amounts of outstanding limited access unharvested CA1 allocation would be made available in addition to fishing year 2018 allocations to that access area. For example, if a full-time limited access vessel has 2,000 lb (907 kg) of unharvested 2012/2013 CA1 allocation, and the CA1 trip limit is 18,000 lbs (8,165 kg), the vessel would be able to land a total of 20,000 lb (9,072 kg) from CA1 in fishing year 2018. Unharvested 2012/2013 CA1 allocation may only be harvested from CA1. There would be no change to specified trip limits through Framework 29,
The Omnibus Habitat Amendment will make available several areas that were previously closed to the scallop fishery. However, these areas remain closed to scallop fishing until they are opened by a scallop action. The bulk of these areas are encompassed in the NLW-W and CA1 Rotational Areas, which Framework 29 intends to open to scallop fishing. Framework 29 does not propose to open the area west and north of NLS-W (Table 5). We are calling this area the Nantucket Lightship Hatchet Scallop Rotational Area, and it would remain closed to help minimize flounder bycatch due to uncertainty about catch rates in the area.
If NMFS implements these Framework 29 measures after April 1, 2018, the default 2018 IFQ allocations would go into place automatically on April 1, 2018. Because this action would implement IFQ allocations greater than the default allocations, NMFS will send a letter to IFQ permit holders providing both default April 1, 2018, IFQ allocations and Framework 29 IFQ allocations so that vessel owners know what mid-year adjustments would occur should Framework 29 be approved.
This action proposes that vessels participating in RSA projects would be able to harvest RSA compensation from all available access areas and the open area. Vessels would be prohibited from fishing for RSA compensation in the NGOM unless the vessel is fishing an RSA compensation trip using NGOM RSA allocation that was awarded to an RSA project, as proposed in the separate rule for the NGOM portions of Framework 29. In addition, Framework 29 would prohibit the harvest of RSA from any access areas under default 2019 measures. At the start of 2019, RSA compensation could only be harvested from open areas. The Council would re-evaluate this measure in the action that would set final 2019 specifications.
This action would adjust the scallop fleet's accountability measures for two different flatfish stocks (Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder and Georges Bank yellowtail flounder) and develop an accountability measure for northern windowpane flounder. The Council wanted to make the flatfish accountability measures more consistent throughout the Scallop FMP. In addition, it had a preference for gear restricted areas as opposed to closed areas, similar to the existing southern windowpane flounder accountability measure already in place. This action would change the existing Georges Bank yellowtail flounder and the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder accountability measures from closed areas to gear restricted areas, and it would develop a gear restricted area accountability measure for northern windowpane flounder.
For SNE/MA yellowtail flounder this action would adopt the same gear restricted area that is already in place for southern windowpane flounder,
For Georges Bank yellowtail flounder and northern windowpane flounder this action would create the Georges Bank Accountability Measure Area (Table 7).
When the fleet is subject to any of the flatfish accountability measures in a gear restricted area vessels would be required to fish with scallop dredge gear that conforms to the restrictions already in place for the southern windowpane flounder accountability measure:
(1) No more than 5 rows of rings in the apron of the dredge;
(2) A maximum hanging ratio of 1.5 meshes per 1 ring overall; and
(3) A prohibition on the use of trawl gear.
For Georges Bank yellowtail flounder this action would change the existing accountability measure to a requirement to use the accountability measure gear in the Georges Bank Gear Restricted Area. The requirement to use this AM gear in the gear restricted area would remain in effect for the period of time based on the corresponding percent overage of the Georges Bank yellowtail flounder sub-ACL, as follows:
For northern windowpane flounder this action would create an accountability measure that requires the use of the accountability measure gear in the Georges Bank Gear Restricted Area. The requirement to use this AM gear in the gear restricted area would remain in effect for the period of time based on the corresponding percent overage of the northern windowpane flounder sub-ACL, as follows:
For SNE/MA yellowtail flounder this action would change the existing accountability measure to a requirement to use the accountability measure gear in the area west of 71° W. Long. The requirement to use this AM gear in the gear restricted area would remain in effect for the period of time based on the corresponding percent overage of the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder sub-ACL, as follows:
This proposed rule includes three revisions to address regulatory text that is unnecessary, outdated, or unclear. These revisions are consistent with section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which provides authority to the Secretary of Commerce to promulgate regulations necessary to ensure that amendments to an FMP are carried out in accordance with the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The first revision, at § 648.10(f)(4), would clarify that scallop vessels no longer need to send in daily catch reports through their vessel monitoring system for trips less than 24 hours because these reports are no longer useful for monitoring purposes. The second revision, at § 648.11(g)(2)(ii), would remove the limitation that a LAGC IFQ could be selected for observer coverage no more than twice in a given week. This revision is necessary because, due to an update to our pre-trip notification system, we will no longer be able to accommodate the limit of two trips per week. Because of the change, vessels may be selected more than twice in given week, but we expect that this would be a very rare occurrence. The final revision, at § 648.14 (i)(4)(ii)(A) and (B), is a correction to the regulations that should have been made as part of Framework Adjustment 28 to the Scallop FMP (82 FR 15155; March 27, 2017). This correction would clarify that owners of IFQ vessels cannot have an ownership interest in vessels that collectively are allocated more than 5 percent of the total IFQ scallop APL, and that they may not have an IFQ allocation on an IFQ scallop vessel of more than 2.5 percent of the total IFQ scallop APL.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An IRFA has been prepared for Framework 29, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities, and also addresses the measures included in the separate proposed rule for the NGOM measures in Framework 29. The IRFA consists of Framework 29 analyses, the draft IRFA, and the preamble to this proposed rule.
This action proposes the management measures and specifications for the Atlantic sea scallop fishery for 2018, with 2019 default measures, with the exception of specifications and management measures applicable to the NGOM, which are addressed separately in the NGOM portion of Framework 29. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the Council's Framework 29 document and the preamble of this proposed rule, and are not repeated here.
This action contains no new collection-of-information, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.
The proposed regulations do not create overlapping regulations with any state regulations or other federal laws.
The proposed regulations would affect all vessels with limited access and LAGC scallop permits, but there is no differential effect based on whether the affected entities are small or large. Framework 29 provides extensive information on the number and size of vessels and small businesses that would be affected by the proposed regulations, by port and state (see
For RFA purposes, NMFS defines a small business in a shellfish fishery as a firm that is independently owned and operated with receipts of less than $11 million annually (see 50 CFR 200.2). Individually-permitted vessels may hold permits for several fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are regulated by several different fishery management plans, even beyond those impacted by this proposed rule. Furthermore, multiple permitted vessels and/or permits may be owned by entities with various personal and business affiliations. For the purposes of this analysis, “ownership entities” are defined as those entities with common ownership as listed on the permit application. Only permits with identical ownership are categorized as an “ownership entity.” For example, if five permits have the same seven persons listed as co-owners on their permit applications, those seven persons would form one “ownership entity,” that holds those five permits. If two of those seven owners also co-own additional vessels, that ownership arrangement would be considered a separate “ownership entity” for the purpose of this analysis. On June 1 of each year, ownership entities are identified based on a list of all permits for the most recent complete calendar year. The current ownership dataset is based on the calendar year 2016 permits and contains average gross sales associated with those permits for calendar years 2014 through 2016. Matching the potentially impacted 2016 fishing year permits described above (limited access permits and LAGC IFQ permits) to calendar year 2016 ownership data results in 161 distinct ownership entities for the limited access fleet and 115 distinct ownership entities for the LAGC IFQ fleet. Of these, based on the Small Business Administration guidelines, 154 of the limited access distinct ownership entities and 113 of the LAGC IFQ entities are categorized as small. The remaining seven of the limited access and two of the LAGC IFQ entities are categorized as large entities. The number of distinct small business entities with active NGOM permits were 27 in 2016 permits.
The Council's preferred alternative (Alternative 4, Sub-option 2) would allocate each full-time limited access vessel 24 open area DAS and 6 access area trips, amounting to 108,000 lb (49,988 kg) at a possession limit of 18,000 lb (8,165 kg) for each trip (Table 11). The LAGC IFQ sub-ACL for vessels with IFQ permits only will be 2.8 million pounds (1.3 million kg). This alternative is expected to positively impact profitability of small entities regulated by this action in 2018 because, compared to the status quo (4 trips, 72,000 lb (32,659 kg)), it would allocate more access trips and allocation to access areas, but it would allocate only one DAS less than the status quo (25 DAS). This alternative would also redirect fishery effort away from Closed Area II in 2018 to more productive areas with larger scallops and higher densities (
Under the preferred alternative, allocation for the LAGC IFQ fishery, excluding the limited access vessels with IFQ permits, will be about 35 percent higher than the allocation under the status quo. As a result, the economic impacts of the preferred alternative on the LAGC IFQ fishery are expected to be positive compared to the impacts of the status quo scenario (Table 13).
The economic benefits of all the alternatives, including the proposed alternative, considered in this action would exceed the benefits for the No Action alternative. Alternative 3 would allocate one less access area trip, but more open area DAS: 26 days under the Sub-option 1, and 31 days under the Sub-option 2. The other alternative to the proposed action is Alternative 4, Sub-option 1, which would allocate a lower number of open area DAS (21 days instead of 24) while retaining the same number of access area trips (6 trips), compared to the proposed action. With the exception of Alternative 3, Sub-option 2, these alternatives would result in lower landings (about 54 million lb (24.5 million kg)) and gross fleet revenue (about $601 million), compared to the proposed alternative landing levels (about 56.1 million lb (25.4 million kg) (Table 11)) and gross fleet revenue (about $620 million (Table 8)). Compared to the proposed action, Alternative 3, sub-option 2 would have slightly higher landings (57.6 million lb (26.1 million kg) but slightly lower revenue (about $619 million), because the proposed action would have higher allocations for the more productive areas. Similarly, the proposed action would result in a higher TAC to the LAGC IFQ fishery and would result in higher revenues, compared to all the other alternatives (Tables 8 and 9). Therefore, the proposed alternative would have the highest economic benefit for the small business entities.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(i) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) * * *
(A)
(
(2) * * *
(vi) * * *
(B) Transit the Closed Area II Scallop Rotational Area, as defined in § 648.60(d), unless there is a compelling safety reason for transiting the area and the vessel's fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2.
(C) Fish for, possess, or land scallops in or from an access area in excess of the vessel's remaining specific allocation for that area as specified in § 648.59(b)(3) or the amount permitted to be landed from that area.
(ix) Fish for scallops west of 71° W. long., outside of the Sea Scallop Access Areas, with gear that does not meet the specifications described in § 648.64 during the period specified in the notice announcing the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Yellowtail Flounder or the Southern Windowpane Flounder Gear Restricted Area described in § 648.64(e) and (g), respectively.
(x) Fish for scallops in the Georges Bank Accountability Measure Area described in § 648.64(b), with gear that does not meet the specifications described in § 648.64(c) during the period specified in the notice announcing the Georges Bank Yellowtail Flounder or the Northern Windowpane Flounder Gear Restricted Area described in § 648.64(d) and (f), respectively.
(3) * * *
(v) * * *
(E) Transit the Elephant Trunk Flex Scallop Rotational Area, Closed Area II Scallop Rotational Area, or the Closed Area II Extension Scallop Rotational Area, as defined in § 648.60(b), (d), and (e), respectively, unless there is a compelling safety reason for transiting the area and the vessel's fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2.
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Have an ownership interest in vessels that collectively are allocated more than 5 percent of the total IFQ scallop APL as specified in § 648.53(a)(8).
(B) Have an IFQ allocation on an IFQ scallop vessel of more than 2.5 percent of the total IFQ scallop APL as specified in § 648.53(a)(8).
(a) * * *
(8) The following catch limits will be effective for the 2018 and 2019 fishing years:
(b) * * *
(3) The DAS allocations for limited access scallop vessels for fishing years 2018 and 2019 are as follows:
(c)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) The Sea Scallop Rotational Area Management Program consists of Scallop Rotational Areas, as defined in § 648.2. Guidelines for this area rotation program (
(2) Transiting a Closed Scallop Rotational Area. No vessel possessing scallops may enter or be in the area(s) specified in this section when those areas are closed, as specified through the specifications or framework adjustment processes defined in § 648.55, unless the vessel is transiting the area and the vessel's fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2, or there is a compelling safety reason to be in such areas without such gear being stowed. A vessel may only transit the Closed Area II Scallop Rotational Area, as defined in § 648.60(d), if there is a compelling safety reason for transiting the area and the vessel's fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2.
(3) Transiting a Scallop Access Area. Any sea scallop vessel that has not declared a trip into the Scallop Area Access Program may enter a Scallop Access Area, and possess scallops not caught in the Scallop Access Areas, for transiting purposes only, provided the vessel's fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2. Any scallop vessel that has declared a trip into the Scallop Area Access Program may not enter or be in another Scallop Access Area on the same trip except such vessel may transit another Scallop Access Area provided its gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2, or there is a compelling safety reason to be in such areas without such gear being stowed. A vessel may only transit the Closed Area II Scallop Rotational Area, as defined in § 648.60(d), if there is a compelling safety reason for transiting the area and the vessel's fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2.
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) The following access area allocations and possession limits for limited access vessels shall be effective for the 2018 and 2019 fishing years:
(
(
(
(
(ii)
(c)
(e)
(1) 2018: Closed Area 1, Nantucket Lightship-West, Nantucket Lightship-South, and Mid-Atlantic.
(2) 2019: No access areas.
(g) * * *
(3) * * *
(v) The following LAGC IFQ access area allocations will be effective for the 2018 and 2019 fishing years:
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(2) [Reserved]
(3)
(b) [Reserved]
(c)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(a) As specified in § 648.55(d), and pursuant to the biennial framework adjustment process specified in § 648.90, the scallop fishery shall be allocated a sub-ACL for the Georges Bank and Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic stocks of yellowtail flounder and the northern and southern stocks of windowpane flounder. The sub-ACLs for the yellowtail flounder stocks and the windowpane flounder stocks are specified in § 648.90(a)(4)(iii)(C) and § 648.90(a)(4)(iii)(E) of the NE multispecies regulations, respectively.
(b) Georges Bank Accountability Measure Area. The Georges Bank Accountability Measure Areas is defined by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated (copies of a chart depicting this area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request):
(c)
(1) No more than 5 rows of rings shall be used in the apron of the dredge. The apron is on the top side of the dredge, extends the full width of the dredge, and is the rows of dredge rings that
(2) The maximum hanging ratio for a net, net material, or any other material on the top of a scallop dredge (twine top) possessed or used by vessels fishing with scallop dredge gear does not exceed 1.5 meshes per 1 ring overall. This means that the twine top is attached to the rings in a pattern of alternating 2 meshes per ring and 1 mesh per ring (counted at the bottom where the twine top connects to the apron), for an overall average of 1.5 meshes per ring for the entire width of the twine top. For example, an apron that is 40 rings wide subtracting 5 rings one each side of the side pieces, yielding 30 rings, would only be able to use a twine top with 45 or fewer meshes so that the overall ratio of meshes to rings did not exceed 1.5 (45 meshes/30 rings = 1.5).
(3) Vessels may not fish for scallops with trawl gear west of 71° W. Long when the gear restricted area accountability measure is in effect.
(d)
(2)
(e)
(2)
(f)
(2)
(g)
(2)
(h)
(2)
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has submitted the following information collection to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for USAID, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or email address:
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 16, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC, 20503. Commentors are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notice of a new system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposes a new Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) system of records entitled: USDA/FSIS-0004, Public Health Information System (PHIS). PHIS is a Web-based system that collects information generated from FSIS inspection, compliance verification, notification and monitoring activities regarding the slaughter, processing, import and export of meat, and poultry and egg products. Within PHIS, FSIS maintains contact and other identifying information about employees and contractors of USDA, government officials, representatives of regulated establishments, and third parties.
Send written comments to: Docket Clerk, FSIS, Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW, Mailstop 3782, Room 8-163B, Washington, DC 20250-3700 or fax to (202) 245-4793. Comments may also be posted on:
Roberta Wagner, Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development (OPPD), FSIS, Room 350-E, Jamie Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250, or Neal Westgerdes, PHIS System Owner/Manager, OPPD, FSIS, Room 2925-South, 1400 Independence Ave. SW Washington, DC 20250, (202) 205-4233.
The Privacy Act requires agencies to publish in the
USDA grants PHIS access to and collect information from the following user groups: (1) Employees and contractors of USDA (“USDA Personnel”); (2) government officials (domestic and foreign) (“Other Government Officials”); and (3) representatives of the regulated establishments and businesses, such as importers and exporters of food products, who require access to PHIS (“Business Personnel”). PHIS collects from all three user groups basic identifying contact information. The system also collects identifying information about individuals who are not PHIS users, but whose names may appear in records entered by a user, for contact purposes.
PHIS obtains and stores the identifying information for USDA Personnel, including: the user's and supervisor's full names, titles, duty stations, business contact information, assigned PHIS role(s), and USDA eAuthentication numbers. This information is used for contacting personnel, shipping documents and supplies, inspection assignment scheduling and for security and access control purposes. In addition to this basic identifying contact information, the system receives employee profile information for USDA Personnel from the National Finance Center, including, but not limited to: Social security numbers (stored in masked formats); hire dates; organizational level; pay plan; and locality and pay code. This employee profile data are used to verify USDA Personnel employment status.
For Other Government Officials and Business Personnel, the system collects information including the name and title of the user, business contact information, and PHIS roles and USDA eAuthentication information. From Business Personnel, it collects the user's entity name and associated business or tax identification numbers, as applicable. Only basic contact information is collected about individuals who are not PHIS users, but whose names appear in records entered by a user.
USDA Personnel enter records in connection with their inspection, compliance verification, and notification activities at regulated establishments. The records entered by Other Government Officials include documents concerning the equivalence of foreign inspection systems, documents concerning State program inspection verification and activities, responses to USDA decisions, and requests for information from USDA. Business Personnel enter records in connection with, or in response to, USDA Personnel's activities and decisions, and requests for services from USDA. Examples include records supporting compliance with FSIS regulations, such as applications for
A Privacy Impact Assessment is posted on
No Privacy Act exemption is claimed.
In accordance with the Privacy Act, as implemented by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-108, USDA has provided a report of this proposed new system of records to the Chair of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate; the Chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives; and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.
Public Health Information System (PHIS), USDA/FSIS-04.
Unclassified.
USDA National Information Technology Center (NITC), 8930 Ward Parkway, Kansas City, MO, 64114, and NITC, 4300 Goodfellow Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63120.
PHIS System Owner, Office of Policy and Program Development Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, Room 2925-South, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250. (202) 205-4233.
Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451
The primary role of this Web-based electronic system is to assist FSIS in accomplishing its food safety mission of conducting inspections and compliance verification activities at regulated establishments to confirm that meat, poultry and egg products are safe, wholesome, not adulterated, and correctly labeled, packaged and distributed. Supplementary purposes include the verification of product eligibility for moving in and out of the United States.
PHIS maintains FSIS inspection, compliance verification and sampling program results and business profile information. PHIS also maintains data about State and foreign food safety programs. PHIS maintains information about individuals: to allow users access to the system; to schedule and assess inspection and compliance verification activities; to track requests for USDA services; and to allow responses to appeal of USDA Personnel's decisions.
All individuals granted access to the PHIS are covered: (1) Employees and contractors of USDA (“USDA Personnel”); (2) government officials (domestic and foreign) (“Other Government Officials”); and (3) representatives of the regulated establishments and businesses, such as importers and exporters of food products, who require access to PHIS (“Business Personnel”). All individuals, even if they are not users of the PHIS, who are mentioned or referenced in any documents entered into PHIS by a user are also covered. This group may include, but is not limited to: Plant workers, vendors, agents, and interviewees.
PHIS obtains and stores identifying information for the three categories of individuals as follows:
For USDA Personnel, PHIS stores the user's and supervisor's full names, titles, duty stations, business contact information, assigned PHIS role(s) and eAuthentication numbers. This information is used for contacting personnel, shipping documents and supplies, inspection assignment scheduling and for security and access control purposes. In addition to this basic identifying contact information, the system receives employee profile information for USDA Personnel from the National Finance Center, including, but not limited to: Social security numbers (stored in masked formats); hire dates; organizational level; pay plan; and locality and pay code. This employee profile data is used to verify USDA Personnel employment status.
For Other Government Officials and Business Personnel, the system collects information including the name and title of the user, business contact information, PHIS roles and e-Authentication information. From Business Personnel, it also collects the user's entity name and associated business or tax identification numbers, as applicable. Only basic contact information is collected about individuals who are not PHIS users, but whose names appear in records entered by a user.
Basic identifying contact information of all user groups (USDA Personnel, Other Government Officials and Business Personnel) is obtained directly from the user. In addition, employment verification information about USDA Personnel is obtained from the NFC through a secure data feed.
Records entered by USDA Personnel or Other Government Officials in connection with their official duties are obtained directly from them.
Business Personnel records, including appeals, requests for services and requests for grants of inspection or updates to their entities' business profiles, are entered into PHIS directly by Business Personnel or are given in paper form to USDA Personnel for input into PHIS on behalf of the Business Personnel. Business records can also be obtained from a foreign country's Central Competent Authority (“CCA”).
USDA Personnel can also obtain some types of information about the other groups of users from USDA's electronic interface with other Federal agencies involved in tracking cross-border movement of the regulated establishments' products, including but not limited to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). Business records from foreign countries are obtained from the respective foreign officials and typically, the CCA assigned the responsibility for maintaining a country's food safety systems reports in PHIS. Information about third parties referenced in the records entered by a user is obtained directly from the user entering or modifying the record.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside of USDA as a routine use under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3), as follows:
1. To the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) or other Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative or administrative body, when it is
a. USDA or any component thereof;
b. Any employee of USDA in his/her official capacity;
c. Any employee of USDA in his/her individual capacity where DOJ or USDA has agreed to represent the employee; or
d. The United States or any agency thereof and if the USDA determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records is compatible with the purpose for which USDA collected the records.
2. To a Congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that Congressional office made at the written request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
3. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or other Federal government agencies pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
4. To an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function. This would include, but not be limited to, the Comptroller General or any of his authorized representatives in the course of the performance of the duties of the Government Accountability Office, or USDA's Office of the Inspector General or any authorized representatives of that office.
5. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
a. USDA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records;
b. USDA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach, there is a risk of harm to individuals, USDA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and
c. the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with USDA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm; and
6. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for USDA, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals who provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to USDA officers and employees.
7. To an appropriate Federal, State, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, where a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations, and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
8. To an appropriate Federal, State, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or appropriate authority responsible for protecting public health, preventing or monitoring disease or illness outbreaks, or ensuring the safety of the food supply. This includes the Department of Health and Human Services and its agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, other Federal agencies, and State, tribal, and local health departments.
9. To another federal agency or federal entity when USDA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs and operations), the federal government or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
The system includes a database, electronic documents and paper records. The storage for the database records is a dedicated virtual server located in the USDA NITC facility in Kansas City, MO. Duplicate records are maintained at the USDA NITC facility in St. Louis, MO. The primary storage for the electronic documents is a records management system managed and hosted by USDA at their Enterprise Data Centers. Paper records are maintained in the USDA offices where they were created. Records backup storage is maintained by NITC Personnel in a virtual tape library at the USDA NITC facility in Kansas City, MO. Copies of the backup records are maintained at the USDA NITC facility in St. Louis, MO. Each USDA laboratory stores data in the local internal storage on each server. Paper records from establishments that do not wish to use the Web-based PHIS, and communication records, such as PHIS-related emails, are stored in a dedicated, secured location at FSIS field offices to which USDA Personnel are assigned.
Retrieval is by user profile object information, which is created during the user authorization process and includes the following data elements: User identification, role, permission, organization identification, and assigned place of work. Information can also be retrieved by a unique eAuthentication identification number assigned to all users.
A master file backup is created at the end of the calendar year and maintained in St. Louis, MO. The St. Louis offsite storage site is located approximately 250 miles from the primary data facility and is not susceptible to the same hazards.
Records in this system are safeguarded by restricting accessibility, in accordance with USDA security and access policies. The safeguarding includes: Firewall(s), network protection, and an encrypted password. All users are assigned a level of role-based access, which is strictly controlled and granted through USDA-approved, secure application (Level 2 eAuthentication) after the user successfully completes Government National Agency Check with Inquiries (NACI). Controls are in place to preclude anonymous usage and browsing.
Any individual may request a copy of records in PHIS by submitting a written request, with reasonable specificity, to FSIS Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Office at: 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Room 2168-South, Mail Stop No. 3713, Washington, DC 20250. Under the Privacy Act (PA), 5 U.S.C. 552a, an individual United States citizen or legal permanent resident may seek access to records that are retrieved by his/her own name or other personal identifier, such as social security number or employee identification number. Such records will be made available unless they fall within the exemptions of the PA and the FOIA. Your Privacy Act request for records must be in writing and addressed to the FOIA office. For
An individual United States citizen or legal permanent resident may also seek to correct or to amend his or her own records in PHIS that are retrieved by name or other personal identifier, such as one's social security number (SSN) or employee number. Such Privacy Act requests for correction or amendment will be processed in accordance with applicable legal requirements and exemptions under the governing regulations and statutes such as the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552, the PA, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and 7 CFR part 1, subpart G.
See “Records Access Procedures” above.
See “Records Access Procedures” above.
None.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the control of chronic wasting disease in farmed or captive cervid herds.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 14, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the regulations related to the control of chronic wasting disease in farmed or captive cervid herds, contact Dr. Randy Pritchard, Surveillance, Preparedness, and Response Services, VS, APHIS, 2150 Centre Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80526; (970) 494-7241. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy of cervids (elk, deer, and moose) typified by chronic weight loss leading to death. The presence of CWD in cervids causes significant economic and market losses to U.S. producers. In an effort to control and limit the spread of this disease in the United States, APHIS created a cooperative, voluntary Federal-State-private sector CWD Herd Certification Program designed to identify farmed or captive herds infected with CWD and provide for the management of these herds in a way that reduces the risk of spreading CWD. APHIS' Veterinary Services (VS) manages the CWD Herd Certification Program.
Owners of farmed or captive elk, deer, and moose herds who choose to participate in the CWD Herd Certification Program would need to follow program requirements for animal identification, testing, herd management, and movement of animals into and from herds. The regulations for this program are located in 9 CFR part 55. Part 55 also contains the regulations that authorize the payment of indemnity for the voluntary depopulation of CWD-positive, CWD-exposed, or CWD-suspect captive cervids. APHIS also established requirements in 9 CFR part 81 for the interstate movement of elk, deer, and moose to prevent movement that could pose a risk of spreading CWD.
The CWD Herd Certification Program and the indemnity program entail the use of information collection activities such as VS appraisal and indemnity claim form; sample collections and laboratory submissions, testing, and reporting; VS State application for CWD Herd Certification Program approval, renewal, or reinstatement; application for enrollment in the CWD Herd Certification Program; memoranda of understanding between APHIS and participating States; herd or premises plans; annual reports; State reviews; epidemiological investigations and reporting of out-of-State traces to affected States; reports of cervid suspects, escapes, disappearances, and deaths; inspections and inventories; a letter to appeal suspension, cancellation, or change in status; farmed, captive, and wild cervid identification; interstate certificates of veterinary inspection; surveillance data; and recordkeeping.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of public meeting.
We are notifying stakeholders and interested persons that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is hosting a public meeting to provide information on the Agency's current thinking regarding low pathogenicity avian influenza (LPAI) indemnity, compensation, and controlled marketing. The meeting will include an overview of the concepts we are developing with respect to LPAI indemnity, compensation, and controlled marketing and provide an opportunity for attendees to discuss issues of interest.
The meeting will be held on March 27, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The public meeting will be held at the Atlanta Airport Marriott, 4711 Best Road, Atlanta, GA 30337.
Dr. Fidelis Hegngi, Avian Health Surveillance Staff, Preparedness, and Response Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 46, Suite 4B-02.27, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3564.
The low pathogenicity avian influenza (LPAI) virus typically causes little to no clinical signs in infected poultry. It spreads primarily through direct contact between healthy and infected birds or through indirect contact with contaminated equipment and materials. To prevent cases of LPAI, poultry producers must use special preventative measures and precautions on the farm. When LPAI findings do occur, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and its State partners work to address them quickly and keep the disease from spreading to new flocks. Because LPAI does not typically kill poultry the way highly pathogenic avian influenza does, there may be additional control options beyond depopulation.
In order to provide a forum for the discussion of policy issues related to LPAI, APHIS is organizing a public meeting to provide information on our current thinking with respect to LPAI indemnity, compensation, and controlled marketing with poultry stakeholders and partners. This meeting will be held on March 27, 2018, and will begin at 8 a.m., and is scheduled to end at 4:30 p.m. Information regarding the meeting and registration instructions may be obtained from the person listed under
The meeting will open with remarks by Dr. Jack Shere, Deputy Administrator for APHIS' Veterinary Services. An overview of APHIS' current thinking on LPAI indemnity, compensation, and controlled marketing process will follow. APHIS will share the concepts we are developing on the process and take questions in a feedback session, where attendees can seek clarification about specific issues and state their opinions. The meeting will then break for lunch. After lunch, attendees will discuss the challenges of an LPAI incident or outbreak in the Table Egg and Upland Game Bird industries and offer possible solutions. The entire group will then reconvene to receive the highlights of each session, and the meeting will end after a discussion of next steps and closing remarks.
If you require special accommodations, such as a sign language interpreter, please call or write the individual under
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (Council) will meet via teleconference. The Council is authorized under Section 9 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act (the Act), as amended, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Additional information concerning the Council, can be found by visiting the Council's website at:
The teleconference will be held on Tuesday March 20, 2018, from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST) or until Council business is completed. All meetings are subject to cancellation. For an updated status of the teleconference prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held via teleconference. For anyone who would like to attend the teleconference, please visit the website listed in the
Nancy Stremple, Executive Staff, National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, by cell phone at 202-309-9873, or by email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Report out from Committee work groups;
2. Provide updates on the 2018 grant proposal review and 2019 Call for Proposals;
3. Provide Forest Service updates on budget, projects, partnerships and nominations;
4. Listen to constituents with urban forestry concerns;
5. Perform administrative tasks;
6. Annual accomplishments/recommendations report to the Secretary—Status;
7. Next Meeting, Action items for the week of July 16, 2018.
The teleconference is open to the public. However, the public is strongly encouraged to RSVP prior to the teleconference to ensure all related documents are shared with public meeting participants. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by March 13, 2018, to be scheduled on the agenda. Council discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Council members, however anyone who would like to bring urban and community forestry matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the Council's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Nancy Stemple, Executive Staff, National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, Sidney Yates Building, Room 3SC-01C, 201 14th Street SW, Washington, DC 20024, or by email at
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA).
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), herein referred to as RUS or the Agency, announces its Community Connect Grant Program application window for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. In addition, this NOSA announces the minimum and maximum Community Connect grant amounts, the funding priority, the application submission dates, the agency contact information, and the procedures for submission of paper and electronic applications.
This notice is being issued prior to passage of a final appropriations act to allow potential applicants time to submit proposals and give the Agency time to process applications within the current fiscal year. The Agency will publish the amount of funding received in any continuing resolution or the final appropriations act on its website at
Submit completed paper or electronic grant applications by the following deadlines:
•
•
• If the submission deadline falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the application is due the next business day.
Copies of the FY 2018 Application Guide and materials for the Community Connect Grant Program may be obtained through:
(1) The Community Connect website at
(2) The RUS Office of Loan Origination and Approval at 202-720-0800.
Completed applications may be submitted the following ways:
(1)
(2)
Shawn Arner, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Loan Origination and Approval, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Telephone: (202) 720-0800.
The purpose of the Community Connect Grant Program is to provide financial assistance in the form of grants to eligible applicants that will provide service at the Broadband Grant Speed to all premises in currently unserved, lower-income, and extremely rural areas. RUS will give priority to rural areas that demonstrate the greatest need for broadband services, based on the criteria contained herein.
In addition to providing service to all premises, the program's “community-oriented connectivity” concept will stimulate practical, everyday uses and applications of broadband by cultivating the deployment of new broadband services that improve economic development and provide enhanced educational and health care opportunities in rural areas. Such an
As in years past, the FY 2018 Community Connect Grant Application Guide has been updated based on program experience. All applicants should carefully review and prepare their applications according to instructions in the FY 2018 Application Guide and sample materials. Expenses incurred in developing applications will be at the applicant's own risk.
In accordance with 7 CFR 1739.2, the Administrator has established a minimum grant request amount of $100,000 and a maximum grant request amount of $3,000,000 per application for FY 2018.
The standard grant agreement, which specifies the term of each award, is available at
While prior Community Connect grants cannot be renewed, existing Community Connect awardees may submit applications for new projects. The Agency will evaluate project proposals from existing awardees as new applications. All grant applications must be submitted during the application window.
a. Only entities legally organized as one of the following are eligible for Community Connect Grant Program financial assistance:
i. An incorporated organization.
ii. An Indian tribe or tribal organization, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b.
iii. A state or local unit of government.
iv. Other legal entity, including a cooperative, private corporation, or limited liability company organized on a for-profit or not-for-profit basis.
b. Applicants must have the legal capacity and authority to enter into contracts, to comply with applicable federal statutes and regulations, and to own and operate the broadband facilities as proposed in their application.
c. Applicants must have an active registration with current information in the System for Award Management (SAM) at
a. The following entities are
i. Individuals and partnerships
ii. Corporations that have been convicted of a Federal felony within the past 24 months. Any corporation that has been assessed to have any unpaid federal tax liability, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed and is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance.
b. In accordance with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Sections 743-4, no funds may be available “for a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with an entity that requires employees or contractors of such entity seeking to report fraud, waste, or abuse to sign internal confidentiality agreements or statements prohibiting or otherwise restricting such employees or contractors from lawfully reporting such waste, fraud, or abuse to a designated investigative or law enforcement representative of a Federal department or agency authorized to receive such information.”
The Community Connect Grant Program requires matching contributions for grants. See 7 CFR 1739.14 and the FY 2018 Application Guide for information on required matching contributions.
a. Grant applicants must demonstrate matching contributions in cash of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the requested grant amount. Matching contributions must be used solely for the Project and shall not include any financial assistance from federal sources unless there is a federal statutory exception specifically authorizing the federal financial assistance to be considered as such as discussed in 7 CFR 1739.14.
b. Applications that do not provide sufficient documentation of the required fifteen percent match will be declared ineligible.
a. Eligible grant purposes.
Grant funds may be used to finance:
i. The construction, acquisition, or leasing of facilities, including spectrum, land or buildings to deploy service at the Broadband Grant Speed to all participating Critical Community Facilities and all required facilities needed to offer such service to all residential and business customers located within the Proposed Funded Service Area;
ii. The improvement, expansion, construction, or acquisition of a Community Center that furnishes free internet access at the Broadband Grant Speed and provides Computer Access Points. Grant funds provided for such costs shall not exceed the lesser of ten percent (10%) of the grant amount requested or $150,000; and
iii. The cost of bandwidth to provide service free of charge at the Broadband Grant Speed to Critical Community Facilities for the first two (2) years of operation.
b. Ineligible grant purposes.
Grant funds may not be used to finance:
i. The duplication of any existing Broadband Service provided by another entity.
ii. Operating expenses other than the cost of providing bandwidth at the Broadband Grant Speed to the Critical Community Facilities for two (2) years.
iii. Any other operating expenses not specifically permitted in 7 CFR 1739.12.
c.
Eligible projects must propose to fulfill the following requirements (see 7 CFR 1739.11 for more information):
a.
b.
c.
i. A city, town, or incorporated area that has a population of greater than 20,000 inhabitants; or
ii. An urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to a city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants. For purposes of the definition of Rural Area, an urbanized area means a densely populated territory as defined in the most recent decennial Census.
d.
e.
f.
The FY 2018 Application Guide provides specific detailed instructions for each item in a complete application. The Agency emphasizes the importance of including every required item and strongly encourages applicants to follow the instructions carefully, using the examples and illustrations in the FY 2018 Application Guide. Prior to official submission of applications, applicants may request technical assistance or other application guidance from the Agency, as long as such requests are made prior to April 30, 2018. Agency contact information can be found in Section G of this NOSA. The Agency will not solicit or consider scoring or eligibility information that is submitted after the application deadline. The Agency reserves the right to contact applicants to seek clarification information on materials contained in the submitted application. See the FY 2018 Application Guide for a full discussion of each required item. For a comprehensive list of all information required in a grant application, refer to 7 CFR 1739.15.
The FY 2018 Application Guide, copies of necessary forms and samples, and the Community Connect Grant Program Regulation are available in the following locations:
a. Community Connect Grant Program web page at
b. The Office of Loan Origination and Approval in RUS; call 202-720-0800.
a. Carefully review the Community Connect Application Guide and the 7 CFR part 1739, which detail all necessary forms and worksheets. A table summarizing the necessary components of a complete application can be found in Section D(2)(d).
b.
c.
d.
e.
i. Applications submitted on paper. Submit the original application and two (2) copies to RUS.
ii. Applications submitted electronically through
The grant applicant must supply a DUNS number as part of the application. The Standard Form 424 (SF-424) contains a field for the DUNS number. The applicant can obtain the DUNS number free of charge by calling Dun and Bradstreet. Go to
Prior to submitting a paper or an electronic application, the applicant must register in SAM at
a. Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than May 14, 2018 to be eligible for FY 2018 grant funding. Late applications, applications which do not include proof of mailing or shipping, and incomplete applications are not eligible for FY 2018 grant funding. If the submission deadline falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the application is due the next business day. In the event of an incomplete application, the Agency will notify the applicant in writing, return the application, and terminate all further action.
i. Address paper applications to the Telecommunications Program, RUS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Room 2844, STOP 1597, Washington, DC 20250-1597. Applications should be marked, “Attention: Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Loan Origination and Approval.”
ii. Paper applications must show proof of mailing or shipping by the deadline with one of the following:
A. A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service (USPS) postmark.
B. A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the USPS.
C. A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
iii. Due to screening procedures at the USDA, packages arriving via regular mail through the USPS are irradiated, which can damage the contents and delay delivery to the office. RUS encourages applicants to consider the impact of this procedure when selecting their application delivery method.
b. Electronic grant applications submitted through
i. Applications will not be accepted via fax or electronic mail.
ii. Electronic applications for grants must be submitted through the federal government's
iii.
iv.
v.
vi. RUS encourages applicants who wish to apply through
vii. If system errors or technical difficulties occur, use the customer support resources available at the
Grant applications are evaluated for financial and technical feasibility, in accordance with 7 CFR 1739.16. An application that contains flaws that would prevent the successful implementation, operation, or sustainability of the project will not be approved for an award. In addition, grant applications are scored competitively and are subject to the criteria listed below. The maximum number of points possible is 100. See 7 CFR 1739.17 and the FY 2018 Application Guide for more information on the scoring criteria.
a.
i. Economic characteristics.
ii. Educational challenges.
iii. Health care needs.
iv. Public safety issues.
b.
c.
d. In making a final selection among and between applications with comparable rankings and geographic distribution, the Administrator may take into consideration the characteristics of the Proposed Funded Service Area (PFSA), as identified in 7 CFR 1739.17(d).
a. Grant applications are ranked according to their final scores. RUS selects applications based on those rankings, subject to the availability of funds and consistent with 7 CFR 1739.17. It should be noted that an application receiving fewer points can be selected over an application receiving more points in the event that there are insufficient funds available to cover the costs of the higher scoring application, as stated in 7 CFR 1739.16(f).
b. Applications will be ranked and grants awarded in order until all grant funds are expended.
c. The Agency reserves the right to offer the applicant a lower amount than the amount proposed in the application, as stated in 7 CFR 1739.16(g).
a.
b. After sending the award letter, the Agency will send an agreement that contains all the terms and conditions, as referenced in 7 CFR 1739.18 and Section B of this NOSA. A copy of the standard agreement is posted on the RUS website at
The items listed in this NOSA, the Community Connect Grant Program regulation, the FY 2018 Application Guide, and accompanying materials implement the appropriate administrative and national policy requirements, which include, but are not limited to:
a. Executing a Community Connect Grant Agreement.
b. Using Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” to request reimbursements (along with the submission of receipts for expenditures, timesheets, and any other documentation to support the request for reimbursement).
c. Providing annual project performance activity reports until the expiration of the award.
d. Ensuring that records are maintained to document all activities and expenditures utilizing Community Connect grant funds and matching funds (receipts for expenditures are to be included in this documentation).
e. Providing a final project performance report.
f. Complying with policies, guidance, and requirements as described in the following applicable Code of Federal Regulations, and any successor regulations:
i. 2 CFR parts 200 and 400 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards).
ii. 2 CFR part 417 (Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension).
iii. 2 CFR part 180 (Government-wide Debarment and Suspension).
g. Signing Form AD-3031 (“Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants”) (for corporate applicants only).
h. Complying with Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” For information on limited English proficiency and agency-specific guidance, go to
The policies contained in subpart E of part 1901 apply to recipients. As recipients of Federal financial assistance, borrowers are required to comply with the applicable Federal, State and local laws. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance. Recipients are required to adhere to specific outreach activities. These outreach activities include, contacting community organizations and leaders that include minority leaders, advertising in local newspapers and other media throughout the entire service area, and including the nondiscrimination slogan, “This is an Equal Opportunity Program. Discrimination is prohibited by Federal Law,” in methods that may include, but not be limited to, advertisements, public broadcasts, and printed materials, such as, brochures and pamphlets. All recipients must submit and have on file a valid Form RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement,” and RUS Form 266 or RD Form 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”
By signing Form 400-4 or 266, Assurance Agreement recipients affirm that they will operate the program free from discrimination. The recipient will maintain the race and ethnic data on the board members and beneficiaries of the program. The Recipient will provide alternative forms of communication to persons with limited English proficiency. The Agency will conduct Civil Rights Compliance Reviews on recipients to identify the collection of racial and ethnic data on Program beneficiaries. In addition, the Compliance review will ensure that equal access to the Program benefits and activities are provided for persons with disabilities and language barriers.
a.
b.
c.
i. First Tier Sub-Awards of $25,000 or more (unless they are exempt under 2 CFR part 170) must be reported by the Recipient to
ii. The Total Compensation of the Recipient's Executives (the five most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the Recipient (if the Recipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) to
iii. The Total Compensation of the Sub-recipient's Executives (the five most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the Sub-recipient (if the Sub-recipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) to the Recipient by the end of the month following the month in which the sub-award was made.
d.
1.
2.
3.
4.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, marital status, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, familial status, disability, limited English proficiency, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:
a.
b.
c.
d. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
A notice by the U.S. Arctic Research Commission on 03/09/2018.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Arctic Research Commission will hold its 109th meeting in Seattle, WA, on April 21, 2018. The business sessions, open to the public, will convene at 8:30 a.m. at The Edgewater Hotel, 2411 Alaskan Way, Seattle, WA 98121.
The Agenda items include:
The meeting will focus on reports and updates relating to programs and research projects affecting Alaska and the greater Arctic.
The Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (Title I Pub. L. 98-373) and the Presidential Executive Order on Arctic Research (Executive Order 12501) dated January 28, 1985, established the United States Arctic Research Commission.
If you plan to attend this meeting, please notify us via the contact information below. Any person planning to attend who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission of those needs in advance of the meeting.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Alaska Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 12:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 15, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. AKT.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-609-5689, conference ID number: 3574845. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the Maryland Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on Friday, April 11, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is to plan its next civil rights project.
Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. (EDT)
Evelyn Bohor at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-298-3457 and conference ID: 8259032. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-298-3457 and conference ID: 8259032.
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
On November 8, 2017, Advanced Optowave Corporation submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 52, Site 5, in Ronkonkoma, New York.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies have been provided to producers and exporters of aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (China). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Applicable March 15, 2018.
Tyler Weinhold or Tom Bellhouse, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1121 or (202) 482-2057, respectively.
Commerce published the notice of initiation of this administrative review on July 6, 2017.
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. On January 24, 2018, and March 1, 2018, Commerce extended the deadline for the preliminary results.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise covered by the order is aluminum extrusions which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process, made from aluminum alloys having metallic elements corresponding to the alloy series designations published by The Aluminum Association commencing
Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 6603.90.8100, 7616.99.51, 8479.89.94, 8481.90.9060, 8481.90.9085, 9031.90.9195, 8424.90.9080, 9405.99.4020, 9031.90.90.95, 7616.10.90.90, 7609.00.00, 7610.10.00, 7610.90.00, 7615.10.30, 7615.10.71, 7615.10.91, 7615.19.10, 7615.19.30, 7615.19.50, 7615.19.70, 7615.19.90, 7615.20.00, 7616.99.10, 7616.99.50, 8479.89.98, 8479.90.94, 8513.90.20, 9403.10.00, 9403.20.00, 7604.21.00.00, 7604.29.10.00, 7604.29.30.10, 7604.29.30.50, 7604.29.50.30, 7604.29.50.60, 7608.20.00.30, 7608.20.00.90, 8302.10.30.00, 8302.10.60.30, 8302.10.60.60, 8302.10.60.90, 8302.20.00.00, 8302.30.30.10, 8302.30.30.60, 8302.41.30.00, 8302.41.60.15, 8302.41.60.45, 8302.41.60.50, 8302.41.60.80, 8302.42.30.10, 8302.42.30.15, 8302.42.30.65, 8302.49.60.35, 8302.49.60.45, 8302.49.60.55, 8302.49.60.85, 8302.50.00.00, 8302.60.90.00, 8305.10.00.50, 8306.30.00.00, 8414.59.60.90, 8415.90.80.45, 8418.99.80.05, 8418.99.80.50, 8418.99.80.60, 8419.90.10.00, 8422.90.06.40, 8473.30.20.00, 8473.30.51.00, 8479.90.85.00, 8486.90.00.00, 8487.90.00.80, 8503.00.95.20, 8508.70.00.00, 8515.90.20.00, 8516.90.50.00, 8516.90.80.50, 8517.70.00.00, 8529.90.73.00, 8529.90.97.60, 8536.90.80.85, 8538.10.00.00, 8543.90.88.80, 8708.29.50.60, 8708.80.65.90, 8803.30.00.60, 9013.90.50.00, 9013.90.90.00, 9401.90.50.81, 9403.90.10.40, 9403.90.10.50, 9403.90.10.85, 9403.90.25.40, 9403.90.25.80, 9403.90.40.05, 9403.90.40.10, 9403.90.40.60, 9403.90.50.05, 9403.90.50.10, 9403.90.50.80, 9403.90.60.05, 9403.90.60.10, 9403.90.60.80, 9403.90.70.05, 9403.90.70.10, 9403.90.70.80, 9403.90.80.10, 9403.90.80.15, 9403.90.80.20, 9403.90.80.41, 9403.90.80.51, 9403.90.80.61, 9506.11.40.80, 9506.51.40.00, 9506.51.60.00, 9506.59.40.40, 9506.70.20.90, 9506.91.00.10, 9506.91.00.20, 9506.91.00.30, 9506.99.05.10, 9506.99.05.20, 9506.99.05.30, 9506.99.15.00, 9506.99.20.00, 9506.99.25.80, 9506.99.28.00, 9506.99.55.00, 9506.99.60.80, 9507.30.20.00, 9507.30.40.00, 9507.30.60.00, 9507.90.60.00, and 9603.90.80.50.
The subject merchandise entered as parts of other aluminum products may be classifiable under the following additional Chapter 76 subheadings: 7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 7616.99, as well as under other HTSUS chapters. In addition, fin evaporator coils may be classifiable under HTSUS numbers: 8418.99.80.50 and 8418.99.80.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For purposes of this review Commerce preliminarily finds that all programs previously countervailed in prior segments of this proceeding, remain countervailable—that is, they provide a financial contribution within the meaning of sections 771(5)(B)(i) and (D) of the Act, confer a benefit within the meaning of section 771(5)(B) of the Act, and are specific within the meaning of 771(5A) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, including our reliance on adverse facts available pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act,
For those companies named in the
As explained above, on July 20, 2017, Commerce received timely no-shipment certifications from Guangdong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd., Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited, and Xin Wei Aluminum Co. Ltd. Because there is no evidence on the record to indicate that these companies had entries of subject merchandise during the POR,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we preliminarily assigned subsidy rates in the amounts shown above for the producer/exporters shown above. Upon completion of the administrative review, consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
For the 214 companies for which this review is rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2016, through
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends upon publication of the final results to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts indicated above for each company listed on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. For all non-reviewed firms, we intend to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results of review within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce preliminarily applied adverse facts available to Liaoning and Liaoyang, pursuant to section 776 of the Act, there are no calculations to disclose.
Interested parties may submit written case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. Issues addressed at the hearing will be limited to those raised in the briefs.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.
These preliminary results are issued and published pursuant to sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Applications for five new scientific research permits and seven permit renewals.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received twelve scientific research permit application requests relating to Pacific salmon, steelhead, eulachon, and green sturgeon. The proposed research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management and conservation efforts. The applications may be viewed online at
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the applications should be sent to the Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274. Comments may also be sent by email to
Shivonne Nesbit, Portland, OR (ph.: 503-231-6741), email:
The following listed species are covered in this notice:
Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
Zach Larson and Associates is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile SONCC coho in the Smith River, Morrison Creek, Ranch Bar, Saxton Bar Alcove, and Yontocket Slough in Northern California. The research may also cause them to take adult eulachon—a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The study's purpose is to establish baseline data for the comparability between pre-treatment and post-treatment project sites. Documenting salmonid and non-salmonid species presence and their habitat use in privately owned portions of the Smith River is also needed to identify further habitat enhancement opportunities in the Smith River. This research would benefit the affected species by informing future restoration designs, providing data to support future enhancement projects, and helping managers assess the status of salmonid populations in the sloughs and alcoves in the Smith River estuary. The researchers propose to capture fish using beach seines. Captured fish would be captured, handled, and released. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.
The Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile CVSR chinook, SRWR chinook, CCV steelhead and juvenile green sturgeon in the Sacramento River, California. The study's purpose is to monitor restoration actions and to detect annular and cyclic population changes. The GCID project provides the longest and most complete anadromous fish data set on Sacramento River. As a result, the research would benefit the affected species by informing operational decisions for state and Federal water facilities and supplementing other out-migrant monitoring projects conducted in the Sacramento River Basin. The researchers propose to use a rotary screw trap to capture the targeted fish. They would then be anesthetized, identified to species, measured, have a tissue sample taken for genetic analysis (fin clip and scales), and allowed to recover in cool, aerated water before being released back to the stream. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.
The Salmon Protection and Watershed Network (SPAWN) is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them to take spawned adult carcasses and juvenile CCC coho, CC chinook and CCC steelhead in Lagunitas Creek and tributaries, California. The study's purpose is to provide baseline data on habitat and juvenile and adult salmon abundance throughout the species' range for CCCCoho. The research would benefit the affected species by providing data to inform future research, restoration, and conservation efforts. The researchers propose to use fyke nets to capture juvenile fish and observe adult fish during spawning surveys. Captured fish would be anesthetized, identified to species, measured, PIT tagged, have a tissue sample taken for genetic analysis (fin clip and scales), and allowed to recover in cool, aerated water before being released back to the stream. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.
The County of Santa Cruz is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile CCC coho, CCC steelhead, and S-CCC steelhead in the San Lorenzo River and its tributaries, Aptos Creek and its tributaries, Corralitos Creek and its tributaries, and Soquel Creek and its tributaries. The study's purpose is to document habitat conditions and collect data on juvenile salmonid abundance in Santa Cruz County watersheds. The research would benefit the affected species by providing data on salmonid spawning and rearing habitat conditions and thereby help inform habitat restoration and conservation efforts and land and water use decisions. The researchers at Santa Cruz County propose to use backpack electrofishing and beach seines to capture fish and to observe fish during snorkel surveys. Captured fish would be anesthetized, identified to species, measured, PIT tagged, have a tissue sample taken for genetic analysis (fin clip and scales), and allowed to recover in cool, aerated water before being released back to the stream. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.
The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile and adult CCC coho, CCC steelhead, and CC chinook Lagunitas Creek (including two tributaries, San Geronimo Creek and Devil's Gulch) and Walker Creek. The study's purpose is to document trends in coho salmon abundance, determine freshwater and marine survival rates for coho salmon, assess the relationship between population trends and management efforts, and determine which coho life stage has the lowest survival rates. In Lagunitas Creek, this research would benefit the affected species by providing a consistent sampling program as a standardized method to evaluate salmon populations. The renewed monitoring program would maintain Lagunitas Creek as a Coastal Monitoring Program (CMP) life-cycle monitoring station. In Walker Creek, the research would benefit the affected species by providing needed population data for coho and steelhead—data needed to inform future habitat restoration. The MMWD propose to use backpack electrofishing and rotatory screw traps to capture fish and to observe fish during snorkel surveys and spawning surveys. Captured fish would be anesthetized, identified to species, measured, PIT tagged, have a tissue sample taken for genetic analysis (fin clip and scales), and allowed to recover in cool, aerated water before being released back to the stream. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them take of take juvenile and adult CCC steelhead in Guadalupe Creek, Alamitos Creek, Calero Creek, Los Gatos Creek, Guadalupe River, Stevens Creek, Coyote Creek, Upper Penitencia Creek, and Lake Almaden. The study's purpose is to collect baseline data on
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is seeking a five-year permit to annually take juvenile and adult SC steelhead in Southern California from Topanga Canyon to Santa Maria. The purpose of this project is to monitor the population status, trends, spatial structure, and life history diversity of SC steelhead. This research would benefit the affected species by providing information to manage and recover the species. The CDFW proposes to use backpack electrofishing, hand and/or dipnets, beach seines, hook and line sampling, minnow traps, fyke nets, and weirs to capture fish. Fish would also be observed during snorkel and spawning surveys. Captured fish would be anesthetized, identified to species, measured, PIT tagged, have a tissue sample taken for genetic analysis (fin clip and scales), and allowed to recover in cool, aerated water before being released back to the stream. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them take juvenile CVSR Chinook, SRWR Chinook, and juvenile and adult CCC steelhead on the America River, CA. The study's purpose is to monitor the abundance of juvenile salmon, infer biological responses to ongoing habitat restoration activities, and generate data for the salmon life cycle models. The research would benefit the affected species by informing future efforts to enhance the juvenile salmonid abundance, production, condition, and survival in the American River. The USFWS propose to use a rotary screw trap to capture fish. Captured fish would be anesthetized, identified to species, measured, PIT tagged, have a tissue sample taken for genetic analysis (fin clip and scales), and allowed to recover in cool, aerated water before being released back to the stream. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.
The Confluence Environmental Company (CEC) is seeking a five-year permit to annually take juvenile CC Chinook, juvenile SONCC coho, juvenile NC steelhead, subadult green sturgeon and adult eulachon—a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions—in Humbolt Bay. The study's purpose is to compare different fish communities using estuarine habitats with and without oyster aquaculture in Humboldt Bay. The research would benefit the affected species by providing information on the environmental impacts shellfish aquaculture may have on the listed animals. The CEC proposes to use fyke nets to capture fish. Captured fish would be identified to species, and released. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.
FISHBIO is seeking a five-year permit to annually take juvenile and adult CCV steelhead, CVSR chinook, and sDPS green sturgeon in the San Joaquin River and San Joaquin's river south delta. The study's purpose is to characterize the spatial distribution of non-native resident fishes in the San Joaquin River and delta, and to identify areas of relatively elevated predator abundance. That information, in turn, would benefit listed species by increasing our
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is seeking a five-year permit to annually take juvenile SRWR chinook, CVSR chinook, CCV steelhead and sDPS green sturgeon in the Northern Sacramento River Delta. The purpose of this project is test if the removal or reduction of invasive aquatic vegetation biomass changes the density and composition of the local food web. The research would benefit the affected species by providing information on ways to reduce non-native predator numbers and helping direct habitat restoration for native fish. The DWR proposes to use boat electrofishing to capture fish. Captured fish would be identified to species, and released. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.
The CDFW is seeking a two-year permit to take juvenile SONCC coho, CC chinook, NC steelhead, CCV steelhead, CCC coho, CVSR chinook, SRWR chinook, CCC steelhead, SC steelhead, and sDPS green sturgeon. The study's purpose is to assess the condition of the rivers and streams in California and provide a baseline for future comparisons. CDFW is participating in the USEPA National Rivers and Streams Assessment (NRSA), a probability-based survey designed to assess the condition of the Nation's rivers and streams. NRSA is a keystone program in California that provides data for the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress (305(b) report) and fulfills the water quality criteria and water quality monitoring requirements of the Clean Water Act. The CDFW proposes to capture fish by boat, raft or backpack electrofishing. Captured fish would be identified and measured. After the captured fish have fully recovered in an aerated live well they would be released at or near the location of capture, away from any future electroshocking activities. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice; request for nominations and topic submissions.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) is requesting nominations for membership on the Market Risk Advisory Committee (MRAC or Committee) and also inviting the submission of potential topics for discussion at future Committee meetings. The MRAC is a discretionary advisory committee established by the Commission in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The deadline for the submission of nominations and topics is March 29, 2018.
Nominations and topics for discussion at future MRAC meetings should be emailed to
Alicia L. Lewis, MRAC Designated Federal Officer and Special Counsel to Commissioner Rostin Behnam at (202) 418-5862 or email:
The MRAC was established to conduct public meetings and submit reports and recommendations to the Commission on matters of public concern to clearinghouses, exchanges, swap execution facilities, swap data repositories, intermediaries, market makers, service providers, end-users (
MRAC members generally serve as representatives and provide advice reflecting the views of organizations and entities that constitute the structure of the derivatives and financial markets. The MRAC may also include regular government employees when doing so furthers purposes of the MRAC. Historically, the MRAC has had approximately 30 members with the following types of entities with interests in the derivatives markets and systemic risk being represented: (i) Exchanges, (ii) clearinghouses, (iii) swap execution facilities, (iv) swap data repositories, (v) intermediaries, (vi) market makers, (vii) service providers, (viii) end-users, (ix) academia, (x) public interest groups, and (xi) regulators. The MRAC has held approximately 2-4 meetings per year. MRAC members serve at the pleasure of the Commission. In addition, MRAC members do not receive compensation or honoraria for their services, and they are not reimbursed for travel and per diem expenses.
The Commission seeks members who represent organizations or groups with an interest in the MRAC's mission and function and reflect a wide range of perspectives and interests related to the derivatives markets and other financial markets. To advise the Commission effectively, MRAC members must have a high-level of expertise and experience in the derivatives and financial markets and the Commission's regulation of such markets, including from a historical perspective. To the extent practicable, the Commission will strive to select members reflecting wide ethnic, racial, gender, and age representation. MRAC members should be open to participating in a public forum.
The Commission invites the submission of nominations for MRAC membership. Each nomination submission should include relevant information about the proposed member, such as the individual's name, title, and organizational affiliation as well as information that supports the individual's qualifications to serve on the MRAC. The submission should also include suggestions for topics for discussion at future MRAC meetings as well as the name and email or mailing address of the person nominating the proposed member.
Submission of a nomination is not a guarantee of selection as a member of the MRAC. As noted in the MRAC's Membership Balance Plan, the CFTC identifies members for the MRAC based on Commissioners' and Commission staff professional knowledge of the derivatives and other financial markets, consultation with knowledgeable persons outside the CFTC, and requests to be represented received from organizations. The office of the Commissioner primarily responsible for the MRAC plays a primary, but not exclusive, role in this process and makes recommendations regarding membership to the Commission. The Commission, by vote, authorizes members to serve on the MRAC.
In addition, the Commission invites submissions from the public regarding the topics on which MRAC should focus. In other words, topics that:
(a) Reflect matters of public concern to clearinghouses, exchanges, swap execution facilities, swap data repositories, intermediaries, market makers, service providers, end-users and the Commission regarding systemic issues that impact the stability of the derivatives markets and other related financial markets; and/or
(b) Are important to otherwise assist the Commission in identifying and understanding the impact and implications of the evolving market structure of the derivatives markets and other related financial markets.
Each topic submission should include the commenter's name and email or mailing address.
5 U.S.C. App. II.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of availability.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission, or CPSC) is announcing the availability of a draft document titled, “Guidance on the Application of Human Factors to Consumer Products.”
Submit comments by May 14, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2018-0004, by any of the following methods:
Rana Balci-Sinha, Director, Division of Human Factors, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850-3213; email:
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) staff
The draft guidance document is intended for industry stakeholders, designers, and manufacturers in the consumer product sector. This draft guidance can be tailored to meet the needs of a particular product, recognizing that not all practices apply to all products.
The draft guidance document is not a rule and does not establish legally enforceable responsibilities.
The draft guidance document is available on the Commission's website at:
The Commission invites comment on the draft document, “Guidance on the Application of Human Factors to
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office has received a request for Department of the Army authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act, from the Town of Holden Beach to install a terminal groin structure on the east end of Holden Beach, extending into the Atlantic Ocean, just west of Lockwoods Folly Inlet.
Written comments on the FEIS will be received until 7 p.m., April 16, 2018.
Copies of comments and questions regarding the FEIS may be submitted to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Wilmington District, Regulatory Division, c/o Mr. Mickey Sugg. ATTN: File Number SAW-2011-01914, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403.
Questions about the proposed action and FEIS can be directed to Mr. Mickey Sugg, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, telephone: (910) 251-4811 or
The seaward section of the groin would be constructed with loosely placed 4- to 5-ft-diameter granite armor stone to facilitate the movement of sand past the structure, and would have a crest width of ~5 ft and a base width of ~40 ft, while the underlying geo-textile base layer would have a slightly greater width of ~45 ft. The shore anchorage segment would be entirely buried at the completion of groin construction and would remain buried so long as the position of the MHW line remains seaward of the initial post-construction primary dune line. The intermediate groin would be designed to be a relatively low-profile structure to maximize sand overpassing and to minimize impacts to beach recreation and aesthetics.
The proposed terminal groin is one of four such structures approved by the General Assembly to be constructed in North Carolina following passing of Senate Bill (SB) 110. The USACE determined that there is sufficient information to conclude that the project would result in significant adverse impact on the human environment, and has prepared a FEIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives considering the project's purpose and need. The purpose and need of the proposed Holden Beach East End Shore Protection Project is to provide shoreline protection that would mitigate ongoing chronic erosion on the eastern portion on the Town's oceanfront shoreline so as to preserve the integrity of its public infrastructure, provide protection to existing development, and ensure the continued public use of the oceanfront beach along this area.
a. Potential impacts to marine biological resources (burial of benthic organisms, passageway for fish and other marine life) and Essential Fish Habitat.
b. Potential impacts to threatened and endangered marine mammals, reptiles, birds, fish, and plants.
c. Potential for effects/changes to Holden Beach, Oak Island, Lockwoods Folly inlet, and the AIWW respectively.
d. Potential impacts to navigation.
e. Potential effects on federal navigation maintenance regimes, including the Federal project.
f. Potential effects of shoreline protection.
g. Potential impacts on public health and safety.
h. Potential impacts to recreational and commercial fishing.
i. Potential impacts to cultural resources.
j. Potential impacts to future dredging and nourishment activities.
a. Alternative 1—No Action (Continue Current Management Practices);
b. Alternative 2—Abandon and Retreat;
c. Alternative 3—Beach Nourishment Only;
d. Alternative 4—Inlet Management and Beach Nourishment;
e. Alternative 5—Short Terminal Groin with Beach Nourishment;
f. Alternative 6—Intermediate Terminal Groin with Beach Nourishment/Applicants Preferred Alternative.
The Corps has initiated consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife
Potential water quality concerns will be addressed pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act through coordination with the North Carolina Divisions of Coastal Management (DCM) and Water Resources (DWR). This coordination will ensure consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act and project compliance with water quality standards. The Corps has coordinated closely with DCM in the development of the FEIS to ensure the process complies with State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, as well as the NEPA requirements. The FEIS has been designed to consolidate both NEPA and SEPA processes to eliminate duplications.
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 14, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Thomas Wei, 202-341-0626.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
One potential strategy that has recently become more popular in upper elementary school grades is to departmentalize instruction, where each teacher specializes in teaching one subject to multiple classes of students instead of teaching all subjects to a single class of students (self-contained instruction). However, virtually no evidence exists on its effectiveness relative to the more traditional self-contained approach. This evaluation will help to fill the gap by examining whether departmentalizing fourth and fifth grade teachers improves teacher and student outcomes. The evaluation will focus on math and reading, with an emphasis on low-performing schools that serve a high percentage of disadvantaged students.
The evaluation will include implementation and impact analyses. The implementation analysis will describe schools' approaches to departmentalization and benefits and challenges encountered. The analysis will be based on information from schools' study agreement form; meetings to design each school's approach to departmentalization; monitoring and support calls with schools; a principal interview; and a teacher survey. The impact analysis will draw on data from a teacher survey, videos of classroom instruction, a principal interview, and district administrative records to estimate the impact of departmentalized instruction on various outcomes. The outcomes include the quality of instruction and student-teacher relationships, teacher satisfaction and retention, and student achievement and behavior. These various data collection activities will be carried out between spring 2018 and fall 2020, although
Take notice that on February 27, 2018, Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C. (CIG) Post Office Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, filed in Docket No. CP18-94-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208(b), 157.210 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization for the CIG 2018 Line Nos. 5A and 5B Expansion Project, which consists on modifying certain existing compression facilities located at the Cheyenne Hub in Weld County, Colorado, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Francisco Tarin, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C., P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, at (703) 667-7517.
Specifically, CIG proposes to modify its existing CIG Cheyenne Compressor Station, CIG Cheyenne Jumper Compressor Station, and CIG Front Range Jumper Compressor Station located in Weld County, Colorado to allow for additional transportation service from mainline receipt points along the Colorado Front Range to the Cheyenne Hub Complex. The project will enable CIG to provide an incremental 230 million cubic feet per day (MMscf/d) of northbound capacity along Line Nos. 5A and 5B from points of receipt in the DJ Basin to the Cheyenne Hub. As a result of the project, CIG will increase its mainline northbound capability from 315 MMscf/d to 545 MMscf/d. Additionally, the delivery capability into the high pressure pool at the Cheyenne Hub will increase from 255 MMscf/d to 505 MMscf/d. The estimated cost for the project is approximately $14.5 million.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 57.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website (
In an order issued on October 8, 2004, the Commission set forth a guideline for Other Federal Agencies (OFAs) to submit their costs related to Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act.
The Commission will hold a technical conference for reviewing the submitted OFA costs. The purpose of the conference will be for OFAs and licensees to discuss costs reported in the forms and any other supporting documentation or analyses.
The technical conference will be held on March 29, 2018, in Conference Room 3M-3 at the Commission's headquarters, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC. The technical conference will begin at 2:00 p.m. (EST).
The technical conference will also be transcribed. Those interested in obtaining a copy of the transcript immediately for a fee should contact the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc., at 202-347-3700, or 1-800-336-6646. Two weeks after the post-forum meeting, the transcript will be available for free on the Commission's e-library system. Anyone without access to the Commission's website or who has questions about the technical conference should contact Raven A. Rodriguez at (202) 502-6276 or via email at
FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
Take notice that on March 9, 2018, pursuant to section 292.402 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules and Regulations,
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on March 30, 2018.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered pyroxasulfone. 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 16, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the File Symbol of interest as show in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing pyroxasulfone a currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Pesticide Programs is announcing a public meeting of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) on May 2-3, 2018. This meeting provides advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on issues associated with pesticide regulatory development and reform initiatives, evolving public policy and program implementation issues, and science issues associated with evaluating and reducing risks from use of pesticides.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 2, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Thursday, May 3, 2018, from 9 a.m. to noon.
The PPDC Meeting will be held at 1 Potomac Yard South, 2777 S Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA, in the lobby-level Conference Center.
EPA's Potomac Yard South Bldg. is approximately 1 mile from the Crystal City Metro Station.
Dea Zimmerman, Office of Pesticide Programs (L-17J), Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; telephone number: (312) 353-6344; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you work in an agricultural settings or if you are concerned about implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); and the amendments to both of these major pesticide laws by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996; the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: Agricultural workers and farmers; pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental, consumer, and farm worker groups; pesticide users and growers; animal rights groups; pest consultants; State, local, and tribal governments; academia; public health organizations; and the public. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0057, is available at
The PPDC is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463. EPA established the PPDC in September 1995 to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on issues associated with pesticide regulatory development and reform initiatives, evolving public policy and program implementation issues, and science issues associated with evaluating and reducing risks from use of pesticides. The following sectors are represented on the current PPDC: Environmental/public interest and animal rights groups; farm worker organizations; pesticide industry and trade associations; pesticide user, grower, and commodity groups; Federal and State/local/tribal governments; the general public; academia; and public health organizations.
PPDC meetings are free, open to the public, and no advance registration is required. Public comments may be made during the public comment session of each meeting or in writing to the person listed under
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has authorized its contractor, Accelera Solutions, Inc. of Fairfax, VA, to access information which has been submitted to EPA under all sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).
Access to the confidential data occurred on or about February 22, 2018.
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004, is available at
Under EPA contract number (GS-35F-0391P, order number EP-G18H-01472), contractor Accelera of 12150 Monument Drive, Suite 800, Fairfax, VA, is assisting the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in the operations, maintenance and infrastructure support for the Confidential Business Information Local Area Network (CBI LAN). This includes the existing hardware, associated operating systems, security artifacts and COTS products, currently in use on the OPPT CBI LAN and ADMIN LAN. In addition, the contractor is providing assistance on the virtual desktop solution, which will streamline the process of bilateral use of CBI and business processes, to support headquarters and region offices. Furthermore, they are assisting in establishing expertise in secure virtual environments.
In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA contract number (GS-35F-0391P, order number EP-G18H-01472), Accelera required access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. Accelera personnel were given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.
EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA that EPA has provided Accelera access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract is taking place at EPA Headquarters in accordance with EPA's
Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until February 13, 2022. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.
Accelera personnel have signed nondisclosure agreements and were briefed on appropriate security procedures before they were permitted access to TSCA CBI.
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of the availability of funds.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to make available approximately $7 million to provide supplemental funds to Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) capitalization grants previously awarded competitively under section 104(k)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund pilots awarded under section 104(d)(1) of CERCLA that have not transitioned to section 104(k)(3) grants are not eligible to apply for these funds. EPA will consider awarding supplemental funding only to RLF grantees who have demonstrated an ability to deliver programmatic results by making at least one loan or subgrant. The award of these funds is based on the criteria described at CERCLA 104(k)(4)(A)(ii).
The Agency is now accepting requests for supplemental funding from RLF grantees. Requests for funding must be submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Brownfields Coordinator (listed below) by April 13, 2018. Funding requests for hazardous substances and/or petroleum funding will be accepted. Specific information on submitting a request for RLF supplemental funding is described below and additional information may be obtained by contacting the EPA Regional Brownfields Coordinator.
This action is effective March 15, 2018.
A request for supplemental funding must be in the form of a letter addressed to the appropriate Regional Brownfields Coordinator (see listing below) with a copy to Rachel Congdon,
Rachel Congdon, U.S. EPA, (202) 566-1564 or the appropriate Brownfields Regional Coordinator.
The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act added section 104(k) to CERCLA to authorize federal financial assistance for brownfields revitalization, including grants for assessment, cleanup and job training. Section 104(k) includes a provision for EPA to, among other things, award grants to eligible entities to capitalize Revolving Loan Funds and to provide loans and subgrants for brownfields cleanup. Section 104(k)(4)(A)(ii) authorizes EPA to make additional grant funds available to RLF grantees for any year after the year for which the initial grant is made (noncompetitive RLF supplemental funding) taking into consideration:
(I) The number of sites and number of communities that are addressed by the revolving loan fund;
(II) the demand for funding by eligible entities that have not previously received a grant under this subsection;
(III) the demonstrated ability of the eligible entity to use the revolving loan
(IV) such other similar factors as the [Agency] considers appropriate to carry out this subsection.
In order to be considered for supplemental funding, grantees must demonstrate that they have significantly depleted funds (both EPA grant funding and any available pre- or post-closeout program income) and that they have a clear plan for quickly utilizing requested additional funds. Grantees must demonstrate that they have made at least one loan or subgrant prior to applying for this supplemental funding and have significantly depleted existing available funds. For FY2018, EPA defines “significantly depleted funds” as uncommitted or available funding is 25% or less of total RLF funds awarded under both open and closed grants, and cannot exceed $600,000. For new RLF recipients with an award of $1 million of less, the uncommitted or available funding cannot exceed $300,000. Additionally, the RLF recipient must have demonstrated a need for supplemental funding based on, among other factors, the list of potential projects in the RLF program pipeline; demonstrated the ability to make loans and subgrants for cleanups that can be started and completed and will lead to redevelopment; demonstrated the ability to administer and revolve the capitalization funding in the RLF grant; demonstrated an ability to use the RLF grant to address funding gaps for cleanup; and demonstrated that they have provided a community benefit from past and potential loan(s) and/or subgrant(s). EPA encourages innovative approaches to maximizing revolving and leveraging with other funds, including use of grants funds as a loan loss guarantee, combining with other government or private sector lending resources. Applicants for supplemental funding must contact the appropriate Regional Brownfields Coordinator below to obtain information on the format for supplemental funding applications for their region. When requesting supplemental funding, applicants must specify whether they are seeking funding for sites contaminated by hazardous substances or petroleum. Applicants may request both types of funding.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region 2, of a proposed cost recovery settlement agreement pursuant to CERCLA between EPA and Honeywell International Inc. (“Settling Party”) regarding the Universal Oil Products Superfund Site, East Rutherford, New Jersey (“Site”). Pursuant to the proposed cost recovery settlement agreement, the Settling Party will pay $161,352.00 to resolve the Settling Party's civil liability under Section 107(a) of CERCLA for certain past response costs.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2018.
The proposed settlement agreement is available for public inspection at EPA's Region 2 offices. To request a copy of the proposed settlement agreement, please contact the EPA employee identified in the
Michael J. van Itallie, Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Regional Counsel, Region 2, 290 Broadway—17th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Email:
For 30 days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 14, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 14, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The following is a description of the information collection requirements approved under this collection:
Section 27.14(k) requires 600 MHz licensees to demonstrate compliance with performance requirements by filing a construction notification with the Commission, within 15 days of the applicable benchmark.
Section 27.14(t)(6) requires 600 MHz licensees to make a renewal showing as a condition of each renewal. The showing must include a detailed description of the applicant's provision of service during the entire license period and address: (i) The level and quality of service provided by the applicant (including the population served, the area served, the number of subscribers, the services offered); (ii) the date service commenced, whether service was ever interrupted, and the duration of any interruption or outage; (iii) the extent to which service is provided to rural areas; (iv) the extent to which service is provided to qualifying tribal land as defined in 47 CFR 1.2110(f)(3)(i); and (v) any other factors associated with the level of service to the public.
Section 27.17(c) requires 600 MHz licensees to notify the Commission within 10 days of discontinuance if they permanently discontinue service by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 and requesting license cancellation.
Section 27.1321(b) previously designated as 27.19(b) requires 600 MHz licensees with base and fixed stations in the 600 MHz downlink band within 25 kilometers of Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) observatories to coordinate with the National Science Foundation (NSF) prior to commencing operations.
Section 27.1321(c) previously designated as 27.19(c) requires 600 MHz licensees that intend to operate base and fixed stations in the 600 MHz downlink band in locations near the Radio Astronomy Observatory site located in Green Bank, Pocahontas County, West Virginia, or near the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, to comply with the provisions in 47 CFR 1.924.
Section 74.602(h)(5)(ii) requires 600 MHz licensees to notify the licensee of a studio-transmitter link (TV STL), TV relay station, or TV translator relay station of their intent to commence wireless operations and the likelihood of harmful interference from the TV STL, TV relay station, or TV translator relay station to those operations within the wireless licensee's licensed geographic service area. The notification is to be in the form of a letter, via certified mail, return receipt requested and must be sent not less than 30 days in advance of approximate date of commencement of operations.
Section 74.602(h)(5)(iii) requires all TV STL, TV relay station and TV translator relay station licensees to modify or cancel their authorizations and vacate the 600 MHz band no later than the end of the post-auction transition period as defined in 47 CFR 27.4.
These rules which contain information collection requirements are designed to provide for flexible use of this spectrum by allowing licensees to choose their type of service offerings, to encourage innovation and investment in mobile broadband use in this spectrum, and to provide a stable regulatory environment in which broadband deployment would be able to develop through the application of standard terrestrial wireless rules. Without this information, the Commission would not be able to carry out its statutory responsibilities.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Holding Company Report of Insured Depository Institutions' Section 23A Transactions with Affiliates (FR Y-8; OMB No. 7100-0126).
Comments must be submitted on or before May 14, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's website at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, if approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Survey of Consumer Finances (FR 3059; OMB 7100-0287).
Comments must be submitted on or before May 14, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's website at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents,
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Federal Reserve should modify the proposal prior to giving final approval.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Interagency Notice of Change in Control (FR 2081a; OMB No. 7100-0134), Interagency Notice of Change in Director or Senior Executive Officer (FR 2081b; OMB No. 7100-0134), Interagency Biographical and Financial Report (FR 2081c; OMB 7100-0134), and the Interagency Bank Merger Act Application (FR 2070; OMB No. 7100-0171).
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at:
The Interagency Notice of Change in Director or Senior Executive Officer form is used, under certain circumstances, by a state member bank, BHC, SLHC, or the affected individual to notify the Board of a proposed change in the institution's board of directors or senior executive officers. The notice must be filed only if the state member bank, SLHC, or BHC is not in compliance with all minimum capital requirements, is in troubled condition or, is otherwise required by the Board to provide such notice.
The Interagency Biographical and Financial Report is used by certain shareholders, directors, and executive officers, in connection with different types of applications filed with the agencies. Information requested on this reporting form is subject to verification and, as with all required information, must be complete.
The Interagency Bank Merger Act Application is an event-generated application and is completed by a state member bank each time the bank requests approval to effect a merger, consolidation, assumption of deposit liabilities, other combining transaction with a nonaffiliated party, or a corporate reorganization with an affiliated party. The form collects information on the basic legal and structural aspects of these transactions.
The notices and reporting forms are public documents. Any organization or individual that submits a form may request that all or a portion of the submitted information be kept confidential. In such cases, the filer must justify the exemption by demonstrating that disclosure would cause substantial competitive harm, result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, or would otherwise qualify for an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The confidentiality status of the information submitted is judged on a case-by-case basis.
Because information is being collected from individuals, the Board is required to make certain disclosures to the notificant under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3)). The disclosures made by the Federal Reserve on the FR 2081 meet the requirements of the Privacy Act.
The Bank Merger Act (BMA), 12 U.S.C. 1828(c), authorizes the Board to collect the information in the FR 2070. The BMA requires, in relevant part, that a state member bank, when it is the acquiring, assuming or resulting bank, obtain prior approval from the Board before merging or consolidating with another insured depository institution, or before acquiring the assets of or assuming liability to deposits made in any other insured depository institution.
The Interagency Bank Merger Act Application is a public document. However, applicants may request that parts of their applications be kept confidential. In such cases, the filer must justify the exemption by demonstrating that disclosure would cause substantial competitive harm, would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, or would otherwise qualify for an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The confidentiality status of the information submitted is judged on a case-by-case basis.
The draft final forms would include certain new information requests. These new requests relate to information that is customarily requested during the application review process but not reflected on the current forms. Requesting this information at the beginning of the review, through the forms, should increase the efficiency of the applications process and improve transparency. For example, the draft final FR 2070 would require a description of any contract deadlines and any filings with other state and federal regulators; the draft final FR 2081a would require a narrative description of the proposal and information regarding the expected timing of the proposal; the draft final FR 2081c would require a description of any liability that is contractually delinquent; and the draft final FR 2081a and FR 2081b would both require a description of whether the submission is being filed after-the-fact and whether any exemptions apply.
In addition, each of the draft final forms has been revised to remove information that is no longer relevant. For example, the draft final FR 2070 would no longer require a description of goodwill amortization and purchase discount accretion schedules because of accounting rule changes; the draft final FR 2081a would no longer require a description of current book value per share because that information can be calculated using other available information; and the draft final FR 2081c would remove the requirement to provide a fax number.
The comment period for this notice expired on December 1, 2017. The Board did not receive any comments. The revisions will be implemented as proposed.
Representatives from the Board worked together with representatives from the FDIC and OCC to draft revisions to the Interagency Notice of Change in Control, Interagency Notice of Change in Director or Senior Executive Officer, Interagency Biographical and Financial Report, Interagency Bank Merger Act because each of the agencies uses the forms for information collection. The agencies collaborated to determine whether the forms should be modified. They reviewed the forms in consideration of current law and applications processing procedures and practices.
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the
The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.
By direction of the Commission.
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the
The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.
Theresa Kingsberry, Program Support Specialist, Federal Trade Commission Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room CC-5301, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 326-3100.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent orders—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Sylvia Kundig (415-848-5188), Western Region-San Francisco, 901 Market Street, Suite 570, San Francisco, CA 94103.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 7, 2018), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 6, 2018. Write “Air Medical Group Holdings, Inc., KKR North America Fund XI (AMG) LLC, and AMR Holdco, Inc.; File No. 1710217, Docket No. C-4642” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Air Medical Group Holdings, Inc., KKR North America Fund XI (AMG) LLC, and AMR Holdco, Inc.; File No. 1710217, Docket No. C-4642” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) with KKR North America Fund XI (AMG), LLC, Air Medical Group Holdings, Inc., (“AMGH”), and AMR Holdco, Inc. (“AMR”). The Consent Agreement is intended to remedy the anticompetitive effects that likely would result from AMGH's proposed acquisition of AMR (the “Acquisition”). Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, AMR must sell its inter-facility air medical transport services business in Hawaii. The Acquisition, if consummated, would result in the consolidation of the only two inter-facility air medical transport service providers in Hawaii.
The Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for 30 days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this
AMGH is wholly owned by KKR North America Fund XI (AMG) LLC. It is likely the largest provider of air ambulance services in the United States with 270 operating locations in 38 states. AMGH operates as Hawaii Life Flight in Hawaii.
AMR is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Envision Healthcare and is the largest national ground ambulance provider in the United States, but also provides air ambulance services in several locations. In Hawaii, it provides both ground ambulance services and inter-facility air ambulance transport services. To provide inter-facility air ambulance transport services, AMR partners with LifeTeam, an air ambulance provider located in the Midwest, which has the necessary FAA licenses and certifications, and provides the pilots and maintenance for the fixed-wing aircraft. AMR handles the marketing, medical personnel, and billing for the services provided.
Under an agreement executed on August 7, 2017, AMGH will acquire 100 percent of the voting stock of AMR in a deal valued at approximately $2.4 billion.
The Commission's Complaint alleges that the Acquisition, if consummated would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition for the provision of inter-facility air ambulance transport services in Hawaii.
The Commission's Complaint alleges that the relevant product market in which to analyze the Acquisition is the provision of inter-facility air ambulance transport services. These services consist of air ambulance services that transfer patients between medical facilities on different islands, including from medical facilities with low acuity or limited patient treatment capabilities to those that can provide the appropriate medical and surgical care. The Commission's Complaint alleges that the relevant geographic market in which to analyze the effects of the Acquisition is the State of Hawaii.
The Commission's Complaint alleges that the Acquisition will increase concentration in an already highly concentrated market. AMGH and AMR are the only two providers of inter-facility air ambulance transport services in Hawaii.
According to the Commission, the effect of the Acquisition, if consummated, may be substantially to lessen competition and tend to create a monopoly in inter-facility air ambulance transport services, and increase the likelihood of the unilateral exercise of market power. The Acquisition would increase the likelihood that consumers, third-party payers, or government health care providers would be forced to pay higher prices or experience degradation in service or quality.
The Commission's Complaint alleges that entry into the relevant market would not be timely, likely, or sufficient to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects of the Acquisition. The primary barrier to entry is the lack of sufficient volume of referrals and payments from third party payers to justify the economic risk of new entry, even if the parties imposed a small but significant non-transitory increase in price (SSNIP).
The proposed Consent Agreement remedies the anticompetitive concerns raised by the Acquisition by requiring AMR to sell its inter-facility air ambulance transport services business, including the assets that support that business, to AIRMD, LLC, dba LifeTeam. LifeTeam is a large, established company with experience in the industry. It is also the current operator of the FAA certified aircraft used by AMR for inter-facility air ambulance transport services in Hawaii, and thus very familiar with AMR's assets and operations in Hawaii. Under the proposed Consent Agreement, AMR will divest to LifeTeam the four-fixed wing aircraft it uses to fly patients inter-island, support LifeTeam's application for a Certificate of Need with the State of Hawaii to operate ground ambulances, and offer LifeTeam the option to purchase up to four ground ambulances from AMR. LifeTeam would use the ground ambulances to support its air ambulance transport service to transfer patients to and from medical facilities and the aircraft it operates.
The proposed Consent Agreement also contains an Order to Maintain Assets that will issue at the time the proposed Consent Agreement is accepted for public comment. The Order to Maintain Assets requires Respondents to operate and maintain the divestiture assets in the normal course of business through the date that the Respondents complete divestiture of the assets, thereby maintaining the economic viability, marketability, and competitiveness of the assets. The Order to Maintain Assets also authorizes the Commission to appoint an independent third party as a monitor to oversee the Respondents' compliance with the requirements of the proposed Consent Agreement.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed Consent agreement, and the Commission does not intend this analysis to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Consent Agreement or to modify its terms in any way.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before April 8, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Michael Turner (202-326-3619), Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 9, 2018), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 8, 2018. Write “In the Matter of Oregon Lithoprint, Inc., File No. 161 0230” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of Oregon Lithoprint, Inc., File No. 161 0230” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing consent order (“Consent Agreement”) from Oregon Lithoprint Inc. (“OLI”). The Commission's Complaint alleges that OLI violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by inviting a competitor in the publication of foreclosure notices to divide clients by geographic market.
Under the terms of the proposed Consent Agreement, OLI is required to cease and desist from communicating with its competitors about the placement of foreclosure notices. It is also barred from entering into, participating in, inviting, or soliciting an agreement with any competitor to divide markets or to allocate customers.
The Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for 30 days for receipt of comments from interested members of the public. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will review the Consent Agreement again and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement or make final the accompanying Decision and Order (“Proposed Order”).
The purpose of this Analysis to Aid Public Comment is to invite and facilitate public comment. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Consent Agreement and the accompanying Proposed Order or in any way to modify their terms.
The allegations of the Complaint are summarized below:
OLI owns the News-Register, a twice-weekly community newspaper based in Yamhill, Oregon. Among other things, the News-Register charges clients to publish a type of legal notice known as a foreclosure notice. Under Oregon law, parties foreclosing on real property must place a notice of foreclosure in a qualifying newspaper in the county within which the property is located.
The News-Register's only competitor in Yamhill County is The Newberg Graphic, a weekly community newspaper. The Newberg Graphic also publishes foreclosure notices, and it charges considerably less than the News-Register for the service. The News-Register has more subscribers and a wider circulation within Yamhill County than The Newberg Graphic.
In August 2016, the publisher of the News-Register learned that a client intended to place foreclosure notices only in The Newberg Graphic from that point on because The Newberg Graphic was less expensive than the News-Register. In response, on August 29, 2016, the publisher emailed a manager at the parent company of The Newberg Graphic and explained the publisher's view that, under state law, foreclosure notices should be placed in the newspaper with the largest circulation in the area that the property is located. The publisher concluded his email by inviting the competitor to join the News-Register in instructing mutual clients that they should place foreclosure notices in the newspaper dominant in the area of the foreclosed property. The parent company of the The Newberg Graphic rejected the invitation and reported it to the Federal Trade Commission.
Several months later, in October 2016, the publisher of the News-Register emailed the competitor again to state that the News-Register had told a client to use The Newberg Graphic because the property in question was located in its area, and that the client was in fact going to use The Newberg Graphic to publish the notice. He ended the email stating “[i]t is probably too much to expect that others would do likewise.”
The parent company of the The Newberg Graphic interpreted this second email as another invitation to collude, rejected the invitation, and reported it to the Federal Trade Commission.
OLI's August 29, 2016, email to its competitor is an explicit attempt to arrange an agreement between the two companies to divide foreclosure notices by geography. It is an invitation to collude. The October 2016 email is also an invitation to collude: OLI proposed a market allocation scheme and expressed a hope that its competitor would join that conduct. The Commission has long held that invitations to collude violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.
In a 2015 statement, the Commission explained that unfair methods of competition under Section 5 “must cause, or be likely to cause, harm to competition or the competitive process, taking into account any associated cognizable efficiencies and business justifications.”
An invitation to collude is “potentially harmful and . . . serves no legitimate business purpose.”
The Commission has long held that an invitation to collude violates Section 5 of the FTC Act even where there is no proof that the competitor accepted the invitation
The Proposed Order contains the following substantive provisions:
Section II, Paragraph A of the Proposed Order enjoins OLI from entering or attempting to enter any agreement to refuse to publish legal notices or allocate customers for the publication of legal notices.
Section II, Paragraph B prohibits OLI from publically or privately communicating with a competitor that the competitor should advice customers to place foreclosure notices in the newspaper with the widest circulation in the area in which the property is located, or refuse to publish notices for properties located in a competitor's primary distribution area.
Section II, Paragraph C, contains three provisos. The first allows OLI to communicate with any governmental body regarding the proper interpretation of state law related to legal notices. The second allows OLI to participate with any effort of the Oregon newspaper association to lobby any governmental body regarding legal notices. The third allows OLI to disseminate information regarding legal notices to the public.
Sections III-VI of the Proposed Order impose certain standard reporting and compliance requirements on OLI.
The Proposed Order will expire in 10 years.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed Consent agreement, and the Commission does not intend this analysis to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Consent Agreement or to modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), CDC must develop vaccine information materials that all health care providers are required to give to patients/parents prior to administration of specific vaccines. On October 18, 2016, CDC published a notice in the
Beginning no later than June 1, 2018, each health care provider who administers MMR or MMRV vaccine to any child or adult in the United States shall provide copies of the relevant vaccine information materials referenced in this notice, dated February 12, 2018, in conformance with the February 23, 2018 CDC Instructions for the Use of Vaccine Information Statements prior to providing such vaccinations.
Suzanne Johnson-DeLeon (
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-660), as amended by section 708 of Public Law 103-183, added section 2126 to the Public Health Service Act. Section 2126, codified at 42 U.S.C. 300aa-26, requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop and disseminate vaccine information materials for distribution by all health care providers in the United States to any patient (or to the parent or legal representative in the case of a child) receiving vaccines covered under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).
Development and revision of the vaccine information materials, also known as Vaccine Information Statements (VIS), have been delegated by the Secretary to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Section 2126 requires that the materials be developed, or revised, after notice to the public, with a 60-day comment period, and in consultation with the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, appropriate health care provider and parent organizations, and the Food and Drug Administration. The law also requires that the information contained in the materials be based on available data and information, be presented in understandable terms, and include:
(1) A concise description of the benefits of the vaccine,
(2) A concise description of the risks associated with the vaccine,
(3) A statement of the availability of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and
(4) Such other relevant information as may be determined by the Secretary.
The vaccines initially covered under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program were diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, and poliomyelitis vaccines. Since April 15, 1992, any health care provider in the United States who intends to administer one of these covered vaccines is required to provide copies of the relevant vaccine information materials prior to administration of any of these vaccines. Since then, the following vaccines have been added to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, requiring use of vaccine information materials for them as well: Hepatitis B,
The vaccine information materials referenced in this notice were developed in consultation with the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, the Food and Drug Administration, and parent and healthcare provider organizations. Following consultation and review of comments submitted, the vaccine information materials covering MMR and MMRV vaccines have been finalized and are available to download from
With publication of this notice, by June 1, 2018, all health care providers must discontinue use of the previous editions and provide copies of these updated vaccine information materials prior to immunization in conformance with CDC's February 23, 2018 Instructions for the Use of Vaccine Information Statements.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public
CDC must receive written comments on or before May 14, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0020 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Submit all comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
The Enhanced STD surveillance Network (SSuN)—Revision—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention seeks to request a three-year revision approval of the information collection project entitled,
The purpose of this project is to: (1) Provide supplemental information on case reports of notifiable STDs that enhances the ability of public health authorities to interpret trends in reported case incidence, assess inequalities in the burden of disease by population characteristics and to monitor STD treatment and selected adverse health outcomes of STDs; and (2) monitor STD screening, incidence, prevalence, epidemiologic and health care access trends in at-risk populations seeking STD services in specific clinical settings.
While routine STD surveillance activities are ongoing in all U.S. states and jurisdictions, through the
The precursor to
The current project comprises 10 US local/state health departments. These facilities include Baltimore City Health Department, California Department of Public Health, Florida Department of Health, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Minnesota Department of Health, Multnomah County Health Department, New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, Philadelphia Department of Public Health, San Francisco Department of Public Health, and Washington State Department of Health.
Since the initial OMB approval in 2015,
The two major data collection components of the
The second population-focused component is comprised of two activities, including enhanced surveillance on a random sample of persons diagnosed with gonorrhea, and enhanced surveillance on person diagnosed and reported with early syphilis with ocular/neurologic manifestations. For the first activity a random sample of all gonorrhea cases diagnosed and reported to health departments among persons residing within the participating jurisdictions are selected for enhanced interview. The second population of interest are persons diagnosed with primary, secondary, and early latent syphilis. Cases determined to have neurologic/ocular manifestations will be selected for enhanced interview/investigation. In both these activities, jurisdictions follow consensus protocols to collect uniform data on demographic characteristics, behavioral risk factors, and health care seeking behaviors.
In 2016, there were 129,434 persons diagnosed and reported with gonorrhea across the 10 participating
In 2016, there were 25,253 early syphilis cases reported across the 10 participating
CDC will conduct an early syphilis case follow-up evaluation with diagnosing or reporting providers to ascertain additional information about physical exam findings, laboratory tests results, including cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) results, and prescribed (type and duration) treatment not present in the original case or laboratory report. CDC will collect clinical information from the diagnosing healthcare facilities for those diagnosed with early syphilis who reported neurologic/ocular symptoms (406 early syphilis cases). These evaluations can be either by direct contact with providers (phone) or through other methods such as secure fax-back, mail or other means as long as privacy of patient information can be strictly maintained.
Collection of this information is estimated to take approximately 10 minutes to complete, for 69 burden hours.
For the syphilis cases with neurologic and/or ocular manifestations only, there will be a three-month follow up interview to document resolution of symptoms. Data collection for this three-month follow-up is expected to take about five minutes per person and will be conducted through either telephone-administered or in-person interviews. With an estimated 50% follow-up success rate, the total burden hours is estimated at 16 hours.
Data managers at each of the 10 local/state health departments will be responsible for transmitting validated datasets to CDC every month, alternating between the facility and population-based activities in
The total estimated annual burden hours are 3,479 for
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
NIOSH gives notice of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees from the De Soto Avenue Facility in Los Angeles County, California, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to
42 CFR 83.9-83.12.
Pursuant to 42 CFR 83.12, the initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled
CDC must receive written comments on or before May 14, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0021 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Submit all comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
The World Trade Center Health Program: Impact Assessment and Strategic Planning for Translational Research (Focus Group Protocol)—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-347 (hereafter referred to as “the Zadroga Act”), established the World Trade Center Health Program (WTCHP). Under subtitle C, the Zadroga Act requires the establishment of a research program on health conditions resulting
The WTCHP employs the Research-to-Care (RTC) model strategic framework employed to prioritize, conduct, and assess research that informs excellence in clinical care for the population of responders and survivors affected by the 9/11 attack in New York City. The RTC model assumes the collective involvement of WTCHP stakeholders, including members, researchers, clinicians, and program administrators. It accounts for a variety of inputs that can affect the progress and impact of WTCHP research. These inputs include people and organizations (
The program supports activities such as research prioritization, conduct of research, delivery of medical care, and iterative assessments of the translation of research to improvements in health care services and chronic disease management. These activities aim to produce tangible outputs such as research findings on WTC-related conditions, healthcare protocols, peer-reviewed publications, quality assessment reports, and member and provider education products. Finally, the model anticipates short-, intermediate-, and long-term measurement of outcomes and serves as a communication tool for program planning and evaluation.
In 2016, NIOSH contracted with the Research and Development (RAND) Corporation to evaluate the WTCHP RTC model including the research investments to date and the effectiveness with which the Program translates its research to different stakeholder groups. This work will ultimately provide guidance for the WTCHP on strategic directions, as well as produce generalizable knowledge about the translation of research into improved outcomes for individuals and populations exposed to disasters such as the 9/11 attacks. In the formative stage of our assessment, we propose to hold a series of focus groups with different stakeholder groups to explore their perspectives on translational research in the context of the WTCHP. The focus groups will each consist of a well-defined stakeholder group, and will last approximately two hours.
These focus groups are necessary to gather background information on the relationship between different stakeholders and the WTCHP that will inform the development of more detailed interview protocols to be used with stakeholders in the next phase of this evaluation. Specific topics to be addressed in the focus groups will include:
• Conceptualizations of research and “translational research.”
• Relevance of WTCHP research topics, potential gaps, and stakeholder priorities.
• Uses and usefulness of WTCHP research.
• Barriers to conduct and use of WTCHP research.
• Understanding of and perspectives on the relevance and usefulness of the Research-to-Care model.
The total estimated burden hours is 360. There are no costs to the respondent other than their time and local travel to the location of the focus group.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), CDC must develop vaccine information materials that all health care providers are required to give to patients/parents prior to administration of specific vaccines. On March 15, 2016, CDC published a notice in the
Beginning no later than June 1, 2018, each health care provider who administers varicella vaccine to any child or adult in the United States shall provide copies of the relevant vaccine information materials referenced in this notice, dated February 12, 2018, in conformance with the February 23, 2018 CDC Instructions for the Use of Vaccine Information Statements prior to providing such vaccinations.
Suzanne Johnson-DeLeon (
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-660), as amended by section 708 of Public Law 103-183, added section 2126 to the Public Health
Development and revision of the vaccine information materials, also known as Vaccine Information Statements (VIS), have been delegated by the Secretary to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Section 2126 requires that the materials be developed, or revised, after notice to the public, with a 60-day comment period, and in consultation with the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, appropriate health care provider and parent organizations, and the Food and Drug Administration. The law also requires that the information contained in the materials be based on available data and information, be presented in understandable terms, and include:
(1) A concise description of the benefits of the vaccine,
(2) A concise description of the risks associated with the vaccine,
(3) A statement of the availability of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and
(4) Such other relevant information as may be determined by the Secretary.
The vaccines initially covered under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program were diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, and poliomyelitis vaccines. Since April 15, 1992, any health care provider in the United States who intends to administer one of these covered vaccines is required to provide copies of the relevant vaccine information materials prior to administration of any of these vaccines. Since then, the following vaccines have been added to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, requiring use of vaccine information materials for them as well: Hepatitis B,
The varicella vaccine information materials referenced in this notice were developed in consultation with the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, the Food and Drug Administration, and parent and healthcare provider organizations. Following consultation and review of comments submitted, the vaccine information materials covering varicella vaccine have been finalized and are available to download from
With publication of this notice, by June 1, 2018, all health care providers must discontinue use of the previous edition and provide copies of these updated varicella vaccine information materials prior to immunization in conformance with CDC's February 23, 2018 Instructions for the Use of Vaccine Information Statements.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for comment.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces the availability of a draft NORA Agenda entitled
Electronic or written comments must be received by May 14, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by CDC-2018-0024 and docket number NIOSH-302, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Emily Novicki
The National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) is a partnership program created to stimulate innovative research and improved workplace practices. The national agenda is developed and implemented through the NORA sector and cross-sector councils. Each council develops and maintains an agenda for its sector or cross-sector.
This is the first Respiratory Health Agenda, developed for the third decade of NORA (2016-2026). It was developed considering new information about injuries and illnesses, the state of the science, and the probability that new information and approaches will make a difference. As the steward of the NORA process, NIOSH invites comments on the draft
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees from the Ames Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to
42 U.S.C. 7384q(b). 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C).
On February 1, 2018, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:
All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors or subcontractors who worked in any area of the Ames Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, during the period from January 1, 1971, through December 31, 1989, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.
This designation became effective on March 3, 2018. Therefore, beginning on March 3, 2018, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by May 14, 2018.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
2.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by May 14, 2018.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before May 14, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300u(a)(4)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to health information. Section 1003(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(C)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to drugs and other FDA regulated products in carrying out the provisions of the FD&C Act.
As part of its federal mandate, FDA regulates whether direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drug products is truthful, balanced, and accurately communicated (see 21 U.S.C. 352(n)). Similarly, the FD&C Act prohibits the dissemination of false or misleading information about medications in consumer-directed and professional prescription drug promotion. FDA regulates within the framework of free speech and due process principles of the United States Constitution. To inform current and future policies, and to seek to enhance audience comprehension, the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion conducts research focusing on (1) advertising features including content and format, (2) target populations, and (3) research quality. This proposed research focuses on the physician target population. FDA surveyed physicians about their attitudes toward DTC advertising and its role in their relationships with their patients in 2002 (Ref. 1) and again in 2013 (Refs. 2 and 3). The 2013 survey included multiple types of prescribers: Primary care physicians, specialists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. Whereas the focus of both previous FDA surveys was on DTC advertising and promotion, the current study is designed to address issues related to professional prescription drug promotion. The goal is to query a representative sample of health care professionals (HCPs) about their opinions of promotional materials and procedures targeted at HCPs, clinical trial design and knowledge, and FDA approval status. We will also take this opportunity to ask HCPs briefly about their knowledge of abuse-deterrent formulations for opioid products.
To educate themselves about prescription drugs, HCPs sometimes rely on professionally directed promotional information (Refs. 4-8). In 2012, pharmaceutical companies spent more than $24 billion on marketing to physicians (Ref. 9). The industry exposes health care professionals to promotional materials through a variety of mechanisms, including communication with pharmaceutical representatives, journal ads, prescribing software, presentations at sponsored meetings, and direct mail ads (Ref. 10). Several studies indicate that data presented in promotional materials may not be fully comprehended and may even potentially be misleading due to a variety of causes, such as insufficient information, unsupported claims, or a failure to disclose limitations of the information presented (Refs. 11-15).
Although HCPs are learned intermediaries, like most people, they may rely on heuristics in making decisions and may have cognitive biases in the type of information they attend to at any given time. They may be persuaded by strong statements and may not have the time to ascertain accuracy of such information (Ref. 16). The proposed survey will provide further insights about how professionally targeted prescription drug promotion might influence health care professionals' decision-making processes and practices and how
The general research questions in the survey are as follows:
1. What methods and/or channels are used to disseminate prescription drug promotional information to health care professionals/prescribers?
2. How knowledgeable and interested are HCPs in clinical trial data and its presence in prescription drug promotion?
3. How familiar are HCPs with the FDA approval of prescription drugs and how does this translate into practice?
In addition, given the critical nature of the opioid situation in the United States at this time, we plan to ask several questions about prescription drug promotion of opioid products.
HCPs who fall into one of four categories will be recruited online through WebMD's Medscape subscriber network. We propose to complete 700 primary care physician, 600 specialist, 350 nurse practitioner, and 350 physician assistant surveys. HCPs will be included if they see patients at least 50 percent of the time. Both Doctors of Medicine and Doctors of Osteopathy will be included. Primary care physicians will include those who indicate they work in general, family, or internal medicine. Specialties were chosen based on prevalence in the United States and prescription drug promotional activity. Specialists will include cardiologists, dermatologists, endocrinologists, neurologists, obstetrician/gynecologists, oncologists, ophthalmologists, psychiatrists, rheumatologists, and urologists. The data will be weighted to adjust for differential coverage of select characteristics such as region and respondent age and gender. Pretesting with 25 respondents will take place before the main study to evaluate the procedures and measures used in the main study.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Announcing Budget Period Extensions with Funding for the Health Center Program.
HRSA provided additional grant funds during extended budget periods to prevent interruptions in the provision of critical health care services for funded service areas until new awards could be made to eligible Service Area Competition (SAC) applicants or HRSA could conduct an orderly phase-out of Health Center Program activities by the current award recipients.
Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 254b, as amended).
Approximately one-third of Health Center Program award recipients' service areas are competed each year, and each competition has the potential to result in a change in award recipient. SACs are also held prior to the current grant's project period end date when (1) a grant is voluntarily relinquished, or (2) a program noncompliance enforcement action taken by HRSA terminates the grant. If the SAC draws no fundable applications, HRSA may extend the current award recipient's budget period to ensure primary health care services remain available while a new competition is conducted for the service area.
The amount of additional grant funds is calculated by pro-rating HRSA's annual funding commitment to the service area. Approximately 6 months is required to announce and conduct a SAC and select a new award recipient. In all cases, current fiscal year funds are used to extend the award recipient's existing budget period award. Through these actions, award recipients receive consistent levels of funding to support uninterrupted primary health care services to the nation's underserved populations and communities during service area award recipient transition.
Matt Kozar, Strategic Initiatives and Planning Division Director, Office of Policy and Program Development, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, at
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is soliciting nominations of individuals who are interested in being considered a voting member for appointment to the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (Advisory Council). Nominations from qualified individuals who wish to be considered for appointment to this member category of the Advisory Council are currently being accepted.
Nominations must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on April 30, 2018.
Information on how to submit a nomination is on the Advisory Council website,
Jomana Musmar, MS, Ph.D., Acting Designated Federal Officer, Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Room 715H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201. Phone: (202) 690-5566; email:
Under Executive Order 13676, dated September 18, 2014, authority was given to the Secretary of HHS to establish the Advisory Council, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Agriculture. Activities of the Advisory Council are governed by the provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees. The Advisory Council will provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary of HHS regarding programs and policies intended to: preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics by optimizing their use; advance research to develop improved methods for combating antibiotic resistance and conducting antibiotic stewardship; strengthen surveillance of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; prevent the transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; advance the development of rapid point-of-care and agricultural diagnostics; further research on new treatments for bacterial infections; develop alternatives to antibiotics for agricultural purposes; maximize the dissemination of up-to-date information on the appropriate and proper use of antibiotics to the general public and human and animal healthcare providers; and improve international coordination of efforts to combat antibiotic resistance.
The Advisory Council is authorized to consist of not more than 30 members, including the voting and non-voting members and the Chair and Vice Chair. The current composition of the Advisory Council consists of 15 voting members, including the Chair and Vice Chair, five non-voting liaison representative members, and 10 non-voting
This announcement is to solicit nominations to fill seven positions that are scheduled to be vacated during the 2018 calendar year in the voting member category. Voting members are appointed to serve three or four year terms.
The seven public voting members sought for this solicitation will be selected from individuals who are engaged in: Research on, or implementation of, interventions regarding efforts to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics by optimizing their use; advancing research to develop improved methods for combating antibiotic resistance and conducting antibiotic stewardship; strengthening surveillance of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; preventing the transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; advancing the development of rapid point-of-care and agricultural diagnostics; furthering research on new treatments for bacterial infections; developing alternatives to antibiotics for agricultural purposes; maximizing the dissemination of up-to-date information on the appropriate and proper use of antibiotics to the general public and human and animal health care providers; and improving international coordination of efforts to combat antibiotic resistance.
The public voting members will represent balanced points of view from human biomedical, public health, and agricultural fields to include surveillance of antibiotic-resistant infections, prevention and/or interruption of the spread of antibiotic-resistant threats, or development of rapid diagnostics and novel treatments. The public voting members may be physicians, veterinarians, epidemiologists, microbiologists, or other health care professionals (
Individuals who are appointed to serve as voting members may be allowed to receive per diem and reimbursement for any applicable expenses for travel that is performed to attend meetings of the Advisory Council as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5703, for persons employed intermittently in the Government service. The Advisory Council meets, at a minimum, two times per fiscal year depending on the availability of funds. Meetings are open to the public, except as determined otherwise by the Secretary, or other official to whom the authority has been delegated, in accordance with guidelines under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c). Every effort will be made to ensure that the membership of federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented. Detailed information on what is required in a nomination package and how to submit one is on the Advisory Council website,
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIEHS.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
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 of the NHLBI Special Emphasis Panel.
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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, 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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of 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.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice of guidance.
This Notice provides guidelines that describe the application process for grants and the criteria the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will use for awarding Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) grants in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program. It explains the differences, if any, between these guidelines and those recommended by representatives of the Nation's fire service leadership during the annual Criteria Development meeting, which was held February 28—March 3, 2017. The application period for the FY 2017 FP&S Grant Program year will be February 12, 2018—March 16, 2018, and will be announced on the AFG website (
Grant applications for the FP&S Grant Program will be accepted electronically at
Assistance to Firefighters Grants Branch, DHS/FEMA, 400 C Street SW, 3N, Washington, DC 20472-3635.
Catherine Patterson, Chief, Assistance to Firefighters Grants Branch, 1-866-274-0960.
The purpose of the FP&S Program is to reduce fire and fire-related injuries and prevent deaths among the public and firefighters by assisting fire prevention programs and supporting firefighter health and safety research and development. The FEMA Grant Programs Directorate administers the FP&S Grant Program as part of the AFG Program.
FP&S Grants are offered to support projects in two activities:
1. Activities designed to reach high-risk target groups and mitigate the incidence of death, injuries, and property damage caused by fire and fire-related hazards (“FP&S Activity”).
2. Projects aimed at improving firefighter safety, health, or wellness through research and development that reduces firefighter fatalities and injuries (“R&D Activity”).
The grant program's authorizing statute requires that DHS publish in the
Congress appropriated $345,000,000 for AFG in FY 2017 pursuant to the
From the approximately 1,000 applications that will be requesting assistance, FEMA anticipates that it will award approximately 150 FP&S Grants from available grant funding.
DHS awards grants on a competitive basis to applicants that best address the FP&S Grant Program's priorities and provide the most compelling justification. Applications that best address the Program's priorities will be reviewed by a panel composed of fire service personnel.
All applications for grants will be prepared and submitted through the AFG e-Grant application portal (
The FP&S Grant Program panels will review the applications and score them using the following criteria areas:
The applications submitted under the R&D Activity will be reviewed first by a panel of fire service members to identify those applications most relevant to the fire service. The following evaluation criteria will be used for this review:
The applications that are determined most likely to enable improvement in firefighter safety, health, or wellness will be deemed to be in the “competitive range” and forwarded to the second level of application review, which is the scientific panel review process. This panel will be comprised of scientists and technology experts who have expertise pertaining to the subject matter of the proposal.
The Scientific Technical Evaluation Panel for the R&D Activity will review the application and evaluate it using the following criteria:
Under the FY 2017 FP&S Grant Program, eligible applicants are limited to those entities described below within each activity:
The aforementioned entities are encouraged to apply, especially those that are recognized for their experience and expertise in firefighter safety, health, and wellness research and development activities. Fire departments are not eligible to apply for funding in the R&D activity. Additionally, for-profit organizations, Federal agencies, and individuals are not eligible to receive a grant award under the R&D Activity.
Awards are limited to a maximum federal share of $1.5 million dollars, regardless of applicant type, in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2229(d)(2). FP&S Research and Development applicants applying under the Early Career Investigator category are limited to a maximum federal share of $75,000 per project year.
Grant recipients must share in the costs of the projects funded under this grant program as required by 15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(1) and in accordance with 2 CFR 200.101(b)(1), but they are not required to have the cost-share at the time of application nor at the time of award. However, before a grant is awarded, FEMA may contact potential awardees to determine whether the grant recipient has the funding in hand or whether the grant recipient has a viable plan to obtain the funding necessary to fulfill the cost-sharing requirement.
In general, an eligible applicant seeking an FP&S grant to carry out an activity shall agree to make available non-Federal funds to carry out such activity in an amount equal to, and not less than, 5 percent of the grant awarded. Cash match and in-kind matches are both allowable in the FP&S Grant Program. Cash (hard) matches include non-Federal cash spent for project-related costs. In-kind (soft) matches include, but are not limited to, the valuation of in-kind services; complementary activities; and provision of staff, facilities, services, material, or equipment. In-kind is the value of something received or provided that does not have a cost associated with it. For example, where an in-kind match (other than cash payments) is permitted, then the value of donated services could be used to comply with the match requirement. Also, third party in-kind contributions may count toward satisfying match requirements provided the grant recipient receiving the contributions expends them as allowable costs in compliance with provisions listed above.
Grant recipients under this program must also agree to a maintenance of effort requirement per 15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(3) (referred to as a “maintenance of expenditure” requirement in that statute). Per this requirement, a grant recipient shall agree to maintain during the term of the grant, the grant recipient's aggregate expenditures relating to the activities allowable under the FP&S NOFO at not less than 80 percent of the average amount of such expenditures in the 2 fiscal years preceding the fiscal year in which the grant amounts are received.
In cases of demonstrated economic hardship and upon the request of the grant recipient, the FEMA Administrator may waive or reduce certain grant recipient's cost share or maintenance of expenditure requirements (15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(4)(A)). As required by 15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(4)(B), the Administrator established guidelines for determining what constitutes economic hardship and published these guidelines at FEMA's website
Per 2 CFR 25.200, all grant applicants and recipients are required to register in
Applicants may only submit one application, but may submit for up to three projects under each activity (FP&S and R&D). Any applicant that submits more than one application may have
Under the FP&S Activity, applicants may apply under the following categories:
Under the R&D Activity, applicants may apply under the following categories:
Prior to the start of the FY 2017 FP&S Grant Program application period, FEMA provided applicants with technical assistance tools (available at the AFG website:
Applicants are advised to access the application electronically at
In completing an application under this funding opportunity, applicants will be asked to provide relevant information on their organization's characteristics and existing capabilities. Those applicants are asked to answer questions about their grant request that reflect the funding priorities, described below. In addition, each applicant will complete narratives for each project or grant activity requested.
The following are the funding priorities for each category under the FP&S Activity:
•
○ Priority will be given to programs that target a specific high-risk population to conduct both door-to-door smoke alarm installations and provide home safety inspections, as part of a comprehensive home fire safety campaign.
○ Priority will be given to programs that include sprinkler awareness that affect the entire community, such as educating the public about residential sprinklers, promoting residential sprinklers, and demonstrating working models of residential sprinklers.
○ Priority will be given to programs to conduct community-appropriate comprehensive risk assessments and risk reduction planning.
•
•
•
Under the R&D Activity, in order to identify and address the most important elements of firefighter safety, FEMA looked to the fire service for its input and recommendations. In June 2005, the National Fallen Firefighters' Foundation (NFFF) hosted a working group to facilitate the development of an agenda for the Nation's fire service, and in particular for firefighter safety. In November 2015, the NFFF hosted its third working group to update the agenda with current priorities. A copy of the research agenda is available on the NFFF website at
All proposed projects, regardless of whether they have been identified by this working group, will be evaluated on their relevance to firefighter health and safety, and scientific rigor.
The electronic application process will permit the applicant to enter and save the application data. The system does not permit the submission of incomplete applications. Except for the narrative textboxes, the application will use a “point-and-click” selection process or require the entry of data (
Each year, DHS convenes a panel of fire service professionals to develop the funding priorities and other implementation criteria for AFG. The Criteria Development Panel is composed of representatives from nine major fire service organizations that are charged with making recommendations to FEMA regarding the creation of new funding priorities, the modification of existing funding priorities, and the development of criteria for awarding grants. The nine major fire service organizations represented on the panel:
The FY 2017 criteria development panel meeting occurred February 28-March 3, 2017. The content of the FY 2017 FP&S Notice of Funding Opportunity reflects the implementation of the Criteria Development Panel's recommendations with respect to the priorities, direction, and criteria for awards. All of the funding priorities for the FY 2017 FP&S Grant Program are designed to address the following:
(1) Under the Fire Prevention and Safety Activity, a new priority has been added under the Community Risk Reduction Category to add community-appropriate comprehensive risk assessments and risk reduction planning.
(2) Under the Fire Prevention and Safety Activity, clarification has been provided to the Code Enforcement/Awareness Priority to ensure inclusion of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) codes for communities with a WUI-wildfire risk.
(3) Under the Research and Development Activity, a new category has been added for Early Career Investigator projects.
(4) Under the Research and Development Activity, special emphasis topics have been added.
The program's authorizing statute requires that each year DHS publish in the
DHS will review and evaluate all FP&S applications submitted using the funding priorities and evaluation criteria described in this document, which are based on recommendations from the AFG Criteria Development Panel.
All FP&S activity applications will be evaluated by a peer review process. A panel of peer reviewers is composed of fire service representatives recommended by the Criteria Development Panel. These reviewers will assess each application's merits with respect to the detail provided in the Narrative Statement on the activity, including the evaluation elements listed in the Evaluation Criteria identified below. The panel will independently score each project within the application, discuss the merits and/or shortcomings of the application, and document the findings. A consensus is not required.
R&D applications will go through a two-phase review process. First, all applications will be reviewed by a panel of fire service experts to assess the need for the research results and the likelihood that the results would be implemented by the fire service in the United States. Applications that are deemed likely to be implemented to enable improvement in firefighter safety, health, or wellness will be deemed to be in the “competitive range” and will be forwarded to the second level of project review, which is the science review panel process. This panel will be composed of scientists and technology experts who have expertise pertaining to the subject matter of the proposal.
Scientific reviewers will independently score applications in the competitive range and, if necessary, discuss the merits or shortcomings of the project in order to reconcile any major discrepancies identified by the reviewers. A consensus is not required.
The highest ranked projects from both Activities will be deemed in the fundable range. Applications that are in the fundable range will undergo a Technical Review by the FEMA Program Office prior to being recommended for award. The FEMA Program Office will assess the request with respect to costs, quantities, feasibility, eligibility, and recipient responsibility prior to recommending any application for award.
Once the review process is complete, each project's score will be determined and a final ranking of project applications will be created. FEMA will award grants based on this final ranking. Award announcements will be made on a rolling basis until all available grant funds have been committed. Awards will not be made in any specified order. DHS will notify unsuccessful applicants as soon as it is feasible.
Funding decisions will be informed by an assessment of how well the application addresses the criteria and considerations listed below. Applications will be reviewed by the peer reviewers using weighted evaluation criteria to score the project. These scores will impact the ranking of a project for funding.
The relative weight of the evaluation criteria in the determination of the grant award is listed below.
•
•
○ The specific vulnerability (weak link) that will be addressed with the proposed project can be established through a formal or informal risk assessment. FEMA encourages the use of local statistics, rather than national statistics, when discussing the vulnerability.
○ The applicant should summarize the vulnerability (weakness) the project will address in a clear, to-the-point statement that addresses who is at risk, what the risks are, where the risks are, and how the risks can be prevented.
○ For the purpose of the FY 2017 FP&S NOFO, formal risk assessments consist of the use of software programs or recognized expert analysis that assess risk trends.
○ Informal risk assessments could include an in-house review of available data (
•
○ Goals and objectives.
○ Details regarding the methods and specific steps that will be used to achieve the goals and objectives.
○ Timelines outlining the chronological project steps.
○ Where applicable, examples of marketing efforts to promote the project, who will deliver the project (
○ Requests for props (
•
•
•
○
○
○
○
Funding decisions will be informed by an assessment of how well the application addresses the criteria and considerations listed below. All applications will be reviewed by a fire service expert panel using weighted evaluation criteria, and those projects deemed to be in the “competitive range” will then be reviewed by a scientific peer review panel evaluation using weighted evaluation criteria to score the project. Scientific evaluations will impact the ranking of the project for funding.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Awards will be made using the results of peer-reviewed applications as the primary basis for decisions, regardless of activity. However, there are some exceptions to strictly using the peer review results. The applicant's prior AFG, SAFER, and FP&S grant management performance will also be taken into consideration when making recommendations for award. All final funding determinations will be made by the FEMA Administrator, or the Administrator's designee.
Fire departments and other eligible applicants that have received funding under the FP&S Grant Program in previous years are eligible to apply for funding in the current year. However, DHS may take into account an applicant's performance on prior grants when making funding decisions on current applications.
Once every application in the competitive range has been through the technical evaluation phase, the applications will be ranked according to the average score awarded by the panel.
The ranking will be summarized in a Technical Report prepared by the AFG Program Office. A Grants Management Specialist will contact the applicant to discuss and/or negotiate the content of the application and
15 U.S.C. 2229.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), DHS.
Notice.
This notice informs the public of the extension of an earlier notice, which suspended certain requirements for F-1 nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is Syria and who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the civil unrest in Syria since March 2011. This notice extends the effective date of that notice. The extension of the suspension applies to such students whose country of citizenship is Syria and who lawfully obtained F-1 nonimmigrant student status by September 9, 2016.
This notice is effective March 15, 2018 and will remain in effect until September 30, 2019.
Rachel Canty, Director, Student and Exchange Visitor Program, MS 5600, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20536-5600; email:
The Secretary of Homeland Security is exercising her authority under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9) to extend the suspension of the applicability of certain requirements governing on-campus and off-campus employment for F-1 nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is Syria, who are lawfully present in the United States in F-1 nonimmigrant student status, obtained F-1 nonimmigrant status by September 9, 2016, and who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the civil unrest in Syria since March 2011.
F-1 nonimmigrant students granted employment authorization through the notice will continue to be deemed to be engaged in a “full course of study” for the duration of their employment authorization, provided they satisfy the minimum course load requirement described in 77 FR 20038.
This notice applies exclusively toF-1 nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is Syria and who were lawfully present in the United States in F-1 nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i), on September 9, 2016, and are—
(1) Enrolled in an institution that is Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)-certified for enrollment of F-1 students,
(2) Currently maintaining F-1 status, and
(3) Experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the ongoing civil unrest in Syria since March 2011.
ICE records show that as of January 23, 2018, there are approximately 620 Syrian F-1 visa holders in active status who would be covered by this notice. This notice applies to elementary school, middle school, high school, undergraduate, and graduate students. This notice, however, applies differently to elementary school, middle school, and high school students (see the discussion published at 77 FR 20040, available at
F-1 students covered by this notice who transfer to other academic institutions that are SEVP-certified for enrollment of F-1 students remain eligible for the relief provided by means of this notice.
DHS took action to provide temporary relief to F-1 nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is Syria and who experienced severe economic hardship because of the civil unrest in Syria since March 2011.
The conflict in Syria continues to affect the physical and economic security of its citizens. There are more than 11.7 million displaced Syrians in the region, both inside Syria and in neighboring countries, plus nearly 1 million Syrians have applied for asylum in Europe. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has reported over 2.8 million civilians displaced in 2017 alone, many for the second or third time. Since the beginning of the conflict, as many as 500,000 Syrians are dead or missing.
As a result of the civil war and conflict, food and water insecurity continues to have a major negative impact on the population of Syria. As of September 2017, the United Nations World Food Program assessed that food production in Syria was at an all-time low and that the situation was showing no sign of improving. Due to an 800 percent increase in the consumer food price index between 2010 and 2016, 90 percent of Syrian households now spend over half of their income on food, compared with 25 percent before the crisis. As of March 2017, 51 percent of Syrians lacked regular access to the public water system, relying instead on unregulated systems not tested for water purity. Schools and hospitals are significantly impacted by the lack of basic levels of sanitation, as well as the destruction of many facilities.
Furthermore, the conflict continues to negatively affect the Syrian economy. In 2017, the World Bank Group issued a report detailing the economic and social consequences of the conflict in Syria, estimating $226 billion in lost GDP since the conflict erupted, a figure equal to about four times the Syrian GDP in 2010. World Bank Grp., The Toll of War: The Economic and Social Consequences of the Conflict in Syria 83 (2017),
Given the conditions in Syria, affected students whose primary means of financial support come from Syria may need to be exempt from the normal student employment requirements to be able to continue their studies in the United States and meet basic living expenses.
The United States is committed to continuing to assist the people of Syria. DHS is therefore extending this employment authorization for F-1 nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is Syria, who lawfully obtained F-1 nonimmigrant student status by September 9, 2016, and who are continuing to experience severe economic hardship as a result of the civil unrest since March 2011.
F-1 nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is Syria who lawfully obtained F-1 nonimmigrant student status by September 9, 2016, and are experiencing severe economic hardship because of the civil unrest may apply for employment authorization under the guidelines described in 77 FR 20038. This notice extends the time period during which such F-1 students may seek employment due to the civil unrest. It does not impose any new or additional policies or procedures beyond those listed in the original notice. All interested F-1 students should follow the instructions listed in the original notice.
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
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, Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW, Room 4160, Washington, DC 20410; telephone: 202-708-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email Ms. Pollard for a copy of the proposed form and other available information.
Gloria Coates, Senior Community Planning and Development Specialist, Entitlement Communities Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, 451 7th Street, SW, Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1577 (this is not a toll-free number).
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval form OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
New York towns undertook a similar process every three years. However, after consultation with program counsel, it was determined that a requalification process for New York towns is unnecessary because the units of general local government in New York towns do not have the same statutory notice rights (under Section 102(e) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974) as units of general local government participating in an urban county. However, those New York Towns may qualify as metropolitan cities if they are able to secure the participation of all of the villages located within their boundaries. Any New York Town that is located in an urban county may choose to leave that urban county when that county is requalifying to become a metropolitan city. That New York Town will be required to notify the urban county in advance of its decision to defer participation in the urban county's CDBG program and complete the metropolitan city qualification process.
This total number of combined burden hours can be expected to increase annually by 220 hours, given the average of two new urban counties becoming eligible entitlement grantees each year.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Elizabeth Hendrix, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Elizabeth Hendrix at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
* Includes combined Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan and separate performance report.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
The HUD 7082 Funding Approval Form—The Grant Agreement between the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Grantee is made pursuant to the authority of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 5301
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Department of the Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the
Alternatively, you may request a CD of the Final Phase V.2 RP/SEA (see
Nanciann Regalado, at
On or about April 20, 2010, the mobile offshore drilling unit
The Trustees conducted the natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) for the
The
• U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), as represented by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management;
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce;
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA);
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
• State of Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, Oil Spill Coordinator's Office, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and Department of Natural Resources;
• State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality;
• State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and Geological Survey of Alabama;
• State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and
• State of Texas: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas General Land Office, and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Upon completion of the NRDA, the Trustees reached and finalized a
A notice of availability of the Draft Phase V.2 Restoration Plan and Supplemental Environmental Assessment was published in the
In the 2011 Framework Agreement for Early Restoration Addressing Injuries Resulting from the
The April 4, 2016, Consent Decree terminated and replaced the Framework Agreement and provided that the Trustees shall use remaining early restoration funds as specified in the early restoration plans and in accordance with the Consent Decree. The Trustees have determined that decisions concerning any unexpended early restoration funds are to be made by the appropriate TIG, in this case the Florida TIG.
The Final Phase V.2 RP/SEA/FONSI is being released in accordance with OPA, NRDA regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 15 CFR part 990, NEPA, the Consent Decree, the Final PDARP/PEIS, the Phase III ERP/PEIS and the Phase V ERP/EA. The purpose of this notice is to inform the public of the availability of the Final Phase V.2 RP/SEA and FONSI.
The Florida TIG has selected to fund the second phase of the Florida Coastal Access Project in the Final Phase V.2 RP/SEA to address lost recreational opportunities in Florida caused by the
The documents comprising the Administrative Record for the Final Phase V.2 RP/SEA can be viewed at
The authority of this action is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.
Notice of intent.
As requested by Crescent Peak Renewables, LLC, and in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Las Vegas Field Office will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which may include a Plan Amendment to the 1998 Las Vegas Resource Management Plan (RMP) or subsequent RMP, for a proposed wind energy project located on public lands 10 miles west of Searchlight in Clark County, Nevada. Publication of this Notice initiates the scoping process and opens a 90-day public comment period. The BLM is considering a Plan Amendment to change the Visual Resource Management classification of the project area. Through a separate ongoing process, the 1998 Las Vegas RMP is being revised. If the BLM issues a Record of Decision (ROD) before the RMP revision is completed, and a change to the plan is determined to be necessary, then the ROD would amend the 1998 RMP. If the ROD comes after RMP revision is completed, and a change to the plan is necessary, then the ROD would amend the revised RMP. Publication of this Notice serves to segregate the public lands from appropriation under the public land laws, including location under the Mining Law, but not the Mineral Leasing Act or the Materials Act, subject to valid existing rights. This Notice initiates the public scoping process and the segregation.
Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until June 13, 2018. The date(s) and location(s) of the scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days prior in a news release and on the BLM website at:
Comments must be received prior to the close of the scoping period or no later than 15 days after the last public
Submit comments related to the project by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For further information and/or to have your name added to the mailing list, send requests to: Gayle Marrs-Smith, Field Manager, at telephone (702) 515-5199; or address 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130-2301; or email
On November 16, 2015, Crescent Peak Renewables, LLC, submitted an application to BLM requesting authorization to construct, operate, maintain, and terminate an up-to-500 megawatt wind energy generation facility—Crescent Peak Renewables (N-94470). It would be located on four sites and constructed in two phases. The project area is 22 miles long (north and south) and 5 miles wide (east and west), covers 32,531 acres of public land and is located 10 miles west of Searchlight, Nevada.
Due to the size and potential impacts of the Crescent Peak wind project, the BLM is preparing an EIS. The purpose of the public scoping process is to identify relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and to guide the process for developing the potential Plan Amendment. The BLM has identified the following preliminary issues: biological resources, visual resources, cultural resources, tribal interests, recreation, and cumulative impacts.
The BLM will use the NEPA public commenting process to satisfy the public involvement process for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 306108), as provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the project 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 Native American tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, Executive Order 13175, and other policies. Tribal concerns will be given due consideration, including impacts on Indian Trust assets. The Federal, State, and local agencies, along with other stakeholders that may be interested or affected by the BLM's decision on this project, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate as a cooperating agency.
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.
In 2013, the BLM published a Final Rule,
As provided in the Final Rule, the segregation of lands in this Notice will not exceed two years from the date of publication of this Notice, though it can
Upon termination of segregation of these lands, all lands subject to this segregation will automatically reopen to appropriation under the public land laws.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) are proposing to renew an information collection related to requirements for coal exploration.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 16, 2018
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact John Trelease 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 provides the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of OSMRE; (2) is the estimate of burden accurate; (3) how might OSMRE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) how might OSMRE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) are proposing to renew an information collection relating to requirements for permits for special categories of mining.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 16, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact John Trelease 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 provides the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of OSMRE; (2) is the estimate of burden accurate; (3) how might OSMRE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) how might OSMRE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).
March 29, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-891 (Third Review) (Foundry Coke from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission by April 26, 2018.
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on honey from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
February 5, 2018.
Julie Duffy (202) 708-2579), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel wire garment hangers from Taiwan and Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
February 5, 2018.
Julie Duffy (202-708-2579), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
On March 9, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the lawsuit entitled
In 2009, the United States, the State, and Citizens Against Ruining the Environment filed this lawsuit under the Clean Air Act, seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of the Clean Air Act at Midwest Generation's six coal-fired electric generating power plants in Illinois. This Consent Decree resolves the litigation by requiring the Defendant to perform injunctive relief and pay a $1 million civil penalty to be split evenly by the United States and the State of Illinois.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $12.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice.
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) will be submitting the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before April 16, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimates, or any other aspect of these information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for NCUA, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission may be obtained by contacting Dawn Wolfgang at (703) 548-2279, emailing
By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on March 12, 2018.
March 9, 2018 (83 FR 10526).
1:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 14, 2018.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047; 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Closed.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in Sunshine Act” notice is hereby given that the NCUA Board gave notice on March 9, 2018 (83 FR 10526) of the closed meeting of the NCUA Board scheduled for March 14, 2018. Prior to the meeting, on March 12, 2018, the NCUA Board unanimously determined that agency business required the addition of a second item on the agenda with less than seven days' notice to the public, and that no earlier notice of the addition was possible.
2. Supervisory Action. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (8), (9)(i)(B), and (9)(ii).
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Submission for OMB review, comment request.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services announces the following information collection has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. 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 can be properly assessed.
A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
OMB is particularly interested in comments that help the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Dr. Sandra Webb, Director of Grant Policy and Management, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024-2135. Dr. Webb can be reached by Telephone: 202-653-4718 Fax: 202-653-4608, or by email at
The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the Nation's 120,000 libraries and 35,000 museums and related organizations. The Institute's mission is to inspire libraries and museums to advance innovation, lifelong learning, and cultural and civic engagement. Our grant making, policy development, and research help libraries and museums deliver valuable services that make it possible for communities and individuals to thrive. To learn more, visit
The Collections Assessment for Preservation Program (CAP) is designed to support collections assessments for small and medium-sized museums
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-463 as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research—Materials Research Science and Engineering Center Site Visit, University of Colorado (V181338) #1203
University of Colorado, Regent Drive, Boulder, CO 80309
Part-Open
Dr. Daniele Finotello, Program Director, Materials Research Science and Engineering Center, MRSEC. Division of Materials Research, Room E 9475, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone (703) 292-4676.
NSF site visit to provide advice and recommendations concerning further NSF support for the Center.
The work being reviewed during the site visit include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
The NSF management officials having responsibility for three advisory committees listed below have determined that renewing these groups for another two years is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Director, National Science Foundation (NSF), by 42 U.S.C. 1861
Effective date for renewal is March 2, 2018. For more information, please contact Crystal Robinson, NSF, at (703) 292-8687.
Notice.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) requests recommendations for membership on its scientific and technical Federal advisory committees. Recommendations should consist of the name of the submitting individual, the organization or the affiliation providing the member nomination, the name of the recommended individual, the recommended individual's curriculum vita, an expression of the individual's interest in serving, and the following recommended individual's contact information: Employment address, telephone number, fax number, and email address. Self-recommendations are accepted. If you would like to make a membership recommendation for any of the NSF scientific and technical Federal advisory committees, please send your recommendation to the appropriate committee contact person listed in the chart below.
The mailing address for the National Science Foundation is 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Web links to individual committee information may be found on the NSF website: NSF Advisory Committees.
Each Directorate and Office has an external advisory committee that typically meets twice a year to review and provide advice on program management; discuss current issues; and review and provide advice on the impact of policies, programs, and activities in the disciplines and fields encompassed by the Directorate or Office. In addition to Directorate and Office advisory committees, NSF has several committees that provide advice and recommendations on specific topics including: Astronomy and astrophysics; environmental research and education; equal opportunities in science and engineering; cyberinfrastructure; international science and engineering; and business and operations.
A primary consideration when formulating committee membership is recognized knowledge, expertise, or demonstrated ability.
The chart below is a listing of the committees seeking recommendations for membership. Recommendations should be sent to the contact person identified below. The chart contains web addresses where additional information about individual committees is available.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-463 as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research—Materials Research Science and Engineering Center Site Visit, University of Nebraska (V181336) #1203
University of Nebraska, 3835 Holdrege Street, Lincoln, NE 68583
Part-Open
Dr. Daniele Finotello, Program Director, Materials Research Science and Engineering Center, MRSEC. Division of Materials Research, Room E 9475, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone (703) 292-4676.
NSF site visit to provide advice and recommendations concerning further NSF support for the Center.
The work being reviewed during the site visit include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
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 March 9, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
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 March 9, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
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 March 9, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
On January 16, 2018, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
ICC proposed revisions to its Rules, Risk Management Model Description Document, Risk Management Framework, Stress Testing Framework, and Liquidity Risk Management Framework in order to provide for the clearing of a new transaction type, the Standard European Senior Non-Preferred Financial Corporate, and to provide for revised risk management practices.
ICC proposed amending Rule 26H-102, which sets forth the List of Eligible Standard European Financial Corporate (“STEFC”) Reference Entities, to include the Standard European Senior Non-Preferred Financial Corporate transaction type as an Eligible STEFC Reference Entity to be cleared by ICC.
ICC also proposed amending Rule 26H-102 to state that for a STEFC Reference Entity where the transaction type is the Standard European Senior Non-Preferred Financial Corporate, the STEFC Contracts Reference Obligation shall be determined in accordance with the Additional Provisions for Senior Non-Preferred Reference Obligations as published by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association. In addition, ICC proposed to incorporate certain conforming changes to Rule 26H-303 and Rule 26H-315 to add references to the new transaction type.
As currently constructed, ICC's risk management methodology takes into consideration the potential losses associated with idiosyncratic credit events, which ICC refers to as “Loss-Given Default” or “LGD.” ICC deems each Single Name (“SN”) reference entity a Risk Factor, and each combination of definition, doc-clause, tier, and currency for a given SN Risk Factor as a SN Risk Sub-Factor. ICC currently measures losses associated with credit events through a stress-based approach incorporating three recovery rate scenarios: A minimum recovery rate, an expected recovery rate, and maximum recovery rate. ICC combines exposures for Outright and index-derived Risk Sub-Factors at each recovery rate scenario.
ICC currently uses the results from the recovery rate scenarios as an input into the Profit/Loss-Given-Default (“P/LGD”) calculations at both the Risk Sub-Factor and Risk Factor levels. For each Risk Sub-Factor, ICC calculates the P/LGD as the worst credit event outcome, and for each Risk Factor, ICC calculates the P/LGD as the sum of the worst credit outcomes per Risk Sub-Factor. These final P/LGD results are used as part of the determination of risk requirements.
ICC proposed changes to its LGD framework at the Risk Factor level with respect to the LGD calculation. Specifically, ICC proposed a change to its approach by incorporating more consistency in the calculation of the P/LGD by using the same recovery rate scenarios applied to the different Risk Sub-Factors which are part of the considered Risk Factor. For each Risk
ICC also proposed to expand its LGD analysis to incorporate a new “Risk Factor Group” level. Under the proposed changes, a set of related Risk Factors would form a Risk Factor Group based on either (1) having a common majority parental sovereign ownership (
Under the proposed revisions, ICC would calculate the total quantity LGD on a Risk Factor Group level, and account for the exposure due to credit events associated with the reference entities within a given Risk Factor Group. Where a Risk Factor Group contains only one Risk Factor, ICC would compute the LGD as the risk exposure due to a credit event for a given underlying reference entity. Moreover, under the proposed approach, ICC would sum the P/LGDs for each Risk Factor in a given Risk Factor Group, with limited offsets in the event the Risk Factors exhibit positive P/LGD. Using the results of the above calculation, ICC would obtain the Risk Factor Group level LGD. The proposed approach would also include a calculation which allows for the Risk Factor Group level LGD to be attributed to each Risk Factor within the considered Risk Factor Group.
In addition to these changes, ICC also proposed changes to various components of its Risk Management Model Description Document. Specifically, the “Loss Given Default Risk Analysis” section of its Risk Management Model Description Document would be changed to incorporate the Risk Factor and Risk Factor Group LGD calculation changes described above. ICC also proposed certain conforming changes to other sections of the Risk Management Description Document to incorporate these methodology changes and reflect the Risk Factor Group analysis.
ICC also proposed further changes with respect to the `Idiosyncratic Jump-to-Default Requirements' section of the Risk Management Model Description document. As currently constructed, the portfolio jump-to-default approach collateralizes the worst uncollateralized LGD (“ULGD”) exposure among all Risk Factors. Under the proposed changes, the portfolio Jump-to-Default (“JTD”) approach will collateralize, through the portfolio JTD initial margin requirement that accounts for the Risk Factor Group-specific LGD collateralization, the worst ULGD exposure among all Risk Factor Groups. The ULGD exposure for a given Risk Factor Group would be calculated as a sum of the associated Risk Factor ULGDs.
ICC also proposed certain minor edits to the “Portfolio Level Wrong-Way Risk and Contagion Risk Analysis” section to update language and calculation descriptions to accommodate the introduction of the Risk Factor Group to the “Idiosyncratic Jump-to-Default Requirements” section.
In addition, ICC proposed changes to the “Guaranty Fund Methodology” section. ICC's current Guaranty Fund Methodology includes, among other things, the assumption that up to three credit events, different from the ones associated with Clearing Participants, occur during the considered risk horizon. ICC proposed expanding this approach to the Risk Factor Group level by assuming that credit events associated with up to three Risk Factor Groups, different from the ones associated with the Clearing Participants and the Risk Factors that are in the Risk Factor Groups as the Clearing Participants, occur during the considered risk horizon.
Other proposed changes to the Risk Management Model Description Document included clarifications to the calculation for the Specific Wrong Way Risk component of the Guaranty Fund. Currently, for a given Clearing Participant, the Specific Wrong Way Risk component of the Guaranty Fund is based on self-referencing positions arising from one or more Risk Factors. ICC proposed clarifying this approach to be based on the Risk Factor Group level instead.
ICC proposed certain conforming changes to its Risk Management Framework, Liquidity Risk Management Framework, and Stress Testing Framework, to reflect the LGD enhancements described above. With respect to the Risk Management Framework, ICC proposed revisions to the “Jump-to-Default Requirements” section to note that the worst LGD associated with a Risk Factor Group is selected to establish the portfolio idiosyncratic JTD requirement. ICC also proposed revisions to the “Guaranty Fund” section of the Risk Management Framework to reflect the Risk Factor Group LGD enhancements related to ICC's Guaranty Fund calculation.
Regarding its Stress Testing Framework, ICC proposed changes to its stress testing methodology to incorporate reference entity group level changes (also referred to by ICC as the Risk Factor Group level). Currently, ICC utilizes scenarios based on hypothetically constructed (forward looking) extreme but plausible market scenarios augmented with adverse credit events affecting up to two additional reference entities per Clearing Participant affiliate group. ICC proposed expanding its adverse credit event analysis to include up to two additional reference entity groups, and also proposed that the selected Risk Factor Group for stress testing purposes must contain one or more reference entities displaying a 500 bps or greater 1-year end-of-day spread level in order to be subjected to credit events. ICC also proposed changes to its reverse stress testing, general wrong way risk, and contagion stress testing analyses, to be at the Risk Factor Group level, and proposed removing Risk Factor level references under its Recovery Rate Sensitivity analysis to be consistent with the proposed changes related to Risk Factor Groups.
Finally, with respect to ICC's Liquidity Risk Management Framework, ICC proposed changes to base the liquidity stress testing methodology on the reference entity group level (also referred to as the Risk Factor Group
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Separately, as described above, the proposed rule change would also provide for certain revisions to ICC's risk management methodology with respect to ICC's LGD methodology. These changes entail (i) incorporating a more consistent approach with respect to ICC's recovery rate scenarios through the application of the same recovery rate scenarios to risk factors that form part of the same Risk Factor Group, (ii) combining the results of the “expected” and “extreme” P/LGD outcomes in order to calculate the total LGD for each Risk Factor, (iii) expanding ICC's LGD analysis to a new Risk Factor Group level, (iv) revising the calculation of the Uncollateralized Loss Given Default to incorporate the Risk Factor Group level LGD approach, and (v) modifying ICC's Guaranty Fund Methodology to expand the credit event analysis to include the Risk Factor Group approach.
Based on a review of the Notice, the Commission believes that the Standard European Senior Non-Preferred Financial Corporate transaction type is substantially similar to other contracts cleared by ICC. As such, the Commission believes that ICC's existing clearing arrangements, and related financial safeguards (including as further modified by the proposed rule change), protections and risk management procedures will apply to this new product on a substantially similar basis to the other contracts currently cleared by ICC.
Moreover, the Commission believes that the proposed changes to ICC's risk management framework described above will enhance the manner by which ICC considers and manages the risks particular to the range of contracts it clears, including the new Standard European Senior Non-Preferred Financial Corporate contract, because such changes will enable ICC's ability to more accurately consider the particular risks of each type of security-based swap (“SBS”) product it clears. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is intended to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions, as well as to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and is therefore consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
The Commission further finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2). Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) requires, in relevant part, a registered clearing agency that performs central counterparty services to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to use margin requirements to limit the registered clearing agency's credit exposures to participants under normal market conditions and use risk-based models and parameters to set margin requirements.
The LGD analysis would also be modified to group individual Risk Factors into Risk Factor Groups, and would result in the total LGD being the sum of the P/LGDs for each Risk Factor within the Risk Factor Group. The Commission believes that by making these changes, ICC will augment its ability to more accurately consider the risks associated with the SBS products it clears, including the Standard European Senior Non-Preferred Financial Corporate transaction type.
As a result, the Commission believes that the proposed rule changes will enable ICC to more accurately determine and collect the amount of resources necessary to limit its credit exposures under normal market conditions, including credit exposures resulting from clearing the new transaction type, through the use of risk-based models. Therefore the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2).
The Commission further finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3). Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3) requires, in relevant part, a registered clearing agency that performs central counterparty services for SBS to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to maintain sufficient financial resources to withstand, at a minimum, a default by the two participant families to which it
As with the changes to the LGD approach, the Commission believes that the proposed changes to ICC's Guaranty Fund Methodology will permit ICC to consider the particular risks associated with the products it clears, including the Standard European Senior Non-Preferred Financial Corporate transaction type that will be cleared as a result of the proposed changes to ICC's Rules described above. As a result, the Commission believes that the proposed changes will enable ICC's to more accurately measure the risks of associated with the products it clears and thereby improve ICC's ability to collect and maintain the level of financial resources necessary to address the risk of default by its participants. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 915 (Criteria for Underlying Securities). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 915 to modify the criteria for listing options on an underlying security as defined in Section 18(b)(1)(A) of the Securities Act of 1933 (each a “covered security”; collectively, “covered securities”). In particular, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 915, Commentary .01(4)(a), which currently requires that to list an option, the underlying covered security has to have a market price of at least $3.00 per share for the previous five consecutive business days preceding the date on which the Exchange submits a certificate to the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) for listing and trading. The proposal would shorten the current “look back” period of five consecutive business days to three consecutive business days.
The Exchange acknowledges that the Options Listing Procedures Plan (“OLPP”)
At the time the options industry adopted the “look back” period of five consecutive business days, it was determined that the five-day period was sufficient to protect against attempts to manipulate the market price of the underlying security and would provide a reliable test for stability.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the regulatory program operated by and overseen by NYSE Regulation includes cross-market surveillances designed to identify manipulative and other improper trading that may occur on the Exchange and other markets. In particular, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), pursuant to a regulatory services agreement and other arrangements, operates a range of cross-market equity and options surveillance patterns on behalf of the Exchange to identify a variety of potentially manipulative trading activities. These cross-market patterns incorporate relevant data from the Exchange, its affiliates (including the New York Stock Exchange), and markets not affiliated with the Exchange.
In addition, NYSE Regulation operates an array of surveillances to identify potentially manipulative trading of options on the Exchange and its affiliated markets. That surveillance coverage is initiated once options begin trading on the Exchange or an options exchange affiliated with the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the cross-market surveillance performed by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange and NYSE Regulation's own monitoring for violative activity on the Exchange and its affiliated markets comprise a comprehensive surveillance program that is adequate to monitor for manipulation of options and their underlying equity securities that could occur during the proposed three-day look back period.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the proposed listing criteria would still require that the underlying security be listed on NYSE, the American Stock Exchange (now known as NYSE American), or the Nasdaq Global Market (collectively, the “Named Markets”), as provided for in the definition of “covered security” from Section 18(b)(1)(A) of the 1933 Act.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed look back period can be implemented in connection with the other initial listing criteria for underlying covered securities. In particular, the Exchange recognizes that it may be difficult to verify the number of shareholders in the days immediately following an IPO due to the fact that stock trades generally clear within two business days (T+2) of their trade date and therefore the shareholder count would generally not be known until T+2.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that it can verify the shareholder count with various brokerage firms that have a large retail customer clientele. Such firms can confirm the number of individual customers who have a position in the new issue. The earliest that these firms can provide confirmation is usually the day after the first day of trading (T+1) on an unsettled basis, while others can confirm on the third day of trading (T+2). The Exchange has confirmed with some of these brokerage firms who provide shareholder numbers to the Exchange that they are able to provide these numbers within T+2 after an IPO. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that basing the proposed three business day look back period on the T+2 settlement cycle would allow for sufficient verification of the number of shareholders.
The proposed rule change would apply to all covered securities that meet the relevant criteria in Rule 915. Pursuant to Rule 915(b), the Exchange's Board of Directors (the “Board”) establishes guidelines to be considered in evaluating the potential underlying securities for Exchange options transactions.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to its listing standards for covered securities would allow the Exchange to more quickly list options on a qualifying covered security that has met the $3.00 eligibility price without sacrificing investor protection. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its existing trading surveillances provide a sufficient measure of protection against potential price manipulation within the proposed three consecutive business day timeframe. Furthermore, the established guidelines to be considered by the Exchange in evaluating the potential underlying securities for Exchange option transactions,
In addition, the Exchange believes that basing the proposed timeframe on the T+2 settlement cycle adequately addresses the potential difficulties in confirming the number of shareholders of the underlying covered security. Having some of the largest brokerage firms that provide these shareholder counts to the Exchange confirm that they are able to provide these numbers within T+2 further demonstrates that the 2,000 shareholder requirement can be sufficiently verified within the proposed timeframe. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendments will remove and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing an avenue for investors to swiftly hedge their investment in the stock in a shorter amount of time than what is currently in place.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change reduces the number of days to list options on an underlying security, and is intended to bring new options listings to the marketplace quicker.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.3-O (Criteria for Underlying Securities). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 5.3-O to modify the criteria for listing options on an underlying security as defined in Section 18(b)(1)(A) of the Securities Act of 1933 (each a “covered security”; collectively, “covered securities”). In particular, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 5.3-(a)(4)(A), which currently requires that to list an option, the underlying covered security has to have a market price of at least $3.00 per share for the previous five consecutive business days preceding the date on which the Exchange submits a certificate to the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) for listing and trading. The proposal would shorten the current “look back” period of five consecutive business days to three consecutive business days.
The Exchange acknowledges that the Options Listing Procedures Plan (“OLPP”)
At the time the options industry adopted the “look back” period of five consecutive business days, it was determined that the five-day period was sufficient to protect against attempts to manipulate the market price of the underlying security and would provide a reliable test for stability.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the regulatory program operated by and overseen by NYSE Regulation includes cross-market surveillances designed to identify manipulative and other improper trading that may occur on the Exchange and other markets. In particular, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), pursuant to a regulatory services agreement and other arrangements, operates a range of cross-market equity and options surveillance patterns on behalf of the Exchange to identify a variety of potentially manipulative trading activities. These cross-market patterns incorporate relevant data from the Exchange, its affiliates (including the New York Stock Exchange), and markets not affiliated with the Exchange.
In addition, NYSE Regulation operates an array of surveillances to identify potentially manipulative trading of options on the Exchange and its affiliated markets. That surveillance coverage is initiated once options begin trading on the Exchange or an options exchange affiliated with the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the cross-market surveillance performed by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange and NYSE Regulation's own monitoring for violative activity on the Exchange and its affiliated markets comprise a comprehensive surveillance program that is adequate to monitor for manipulation of options and their underlying equity securities that could occur during the proposed three-day look back period.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the proposed listing criteria would still require that the underlying security be listed on NYSE, the American Stock Exchange (now known as NYSE American), or the Nasdaq Global Market (collectively, the “Named Markets”), as provided for in the definition of “covered security” from Section 18(b)(1)(A) of the 1933 Act.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed look back period can be implemented in connection with the other initial listing criteria for underlying covered securities. In particular, the Exchange recognizes that it may be difficult to verify the number of shareholders in the days immediately following an IPO due to the fact that stock trades generally clear within two business days (T+2) of their trade date and therefore the shareholder count would generally not be known until T+2.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that it can verify the shareholder count with various brokerage firms that have a large retail customer clientele. Such firms can confirm the number of individual customers who have a position in the new issue. The earliest that these firms can provide confirmation is usually the day after the first day of trading (T+1) on an unsettled basis, while others can confirm on the third day of trading (T+2). The Exchange has confirmed with some of these brokerage firms who provide shareholder numbers to the Exchange that they are able to provide these numbers within T+2 after an IPO. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that basing the proposed three business day look back period on the T+2 settlement cycle would allow for sufficient verification of the number of shareholders.
The proposed rule change would apply to all covered securities that meet the relevant criteria in Rule 5.3-O. Pursuant to Rule 5.3-O(a), the Exchange establishes guidelines to be considered in evaluating the potential underlying securities for Exchange options transactions.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to its listing standards for covered securities would allow the Exchange to more quickly list options on a qualifying covered security that has met the $3.00 eligibility price without sacrificing investor protection. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its existing trading surveillances provide a sufficient measure of protection against potential price manipulation within the proposed three consecutive business day timeframe. Furthermore, the established guidelines to be considered by the Exchange in evaluating the potential underlying securities for Exchange option transactions,
In addition, the Exchange believes that basing the proposed timeframe on the T+2 settlement cycle adequately addresses the potential difficulties in confirming the number of shareholders of the underlying covered security. Having some of the largest brokerage firms that provide these shareholder counts to the Exchange confirm that they are able to provide these numbers within T+2 further demonstrates that the 2,000 shareholder requirement can be sufficiently verified within the proposed timeframe. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendments will remove and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing an avenue for investors to swiftly hedge their investment in the stock in a shorter amount of time than what is currently in place.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change reduces the number of days to list options on an underlying security, and is intended to bring new options listings to the marketplace quicker.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Under the Rules, security-based swap data repositories (“SDRs”) are required to register with the Commission by filing a completed Form SDR (the filing of a completed Form SDR also constitutes an application for registration as a securities information processor (“SIP”)). SDRs are also required to abide by certain minimum standards set out in the Rules, including a requirement to update Form SDR, abide by certain duties and core principles, maintain data in accordance with the rules, keep systems in accordance with the Rules, keep records, provide reports to the Commission, maintain the privacy of security-based swaps (“SBSs”) data, make certain disclosures, and designate a Chief Compliance Officer. In addition, there are a number of collections of information contained in the Rules. The information collected pursuant to the Rules is necessary to carry out the mandates of the Dodd-Frank Act and help ensure an orderly and transparent market for SBSs.
The Commission staff estimates that it will take an SDR approximately 481 hours to complete the initial Form SDR and any amendments thereto. This burden is composed of a one-time reporting burden that reflects the applicant's staff time (
The Commission staff estimates that the average initial paperwork cost of filing a Form SDR to withdraw from registration will be 12 hours per SDR with an estimated dollar cost of $4,008 to comply with the rule. The Commission estimates that an SDR will assign these responsibilities to a Compliance Attorney, calculated as follows: (Compliance Attorney at $334 per hour for 12 hours) × (1 SDR withdrawing) = $4,008.
In addition, the Commission staff estimates that the average initial paperwork cost for each non-resident SDR to comply with Rule 13n-1(f) will be 1 hour and $900 per SDR. Assuming a maximum of three non-resident SDRs, the aggregate one-time estimated dollar cost to comply with the rule will be $3,840, calculated as follows: ($900 for outside legal services + (Attorney at $380 per for 1 hour)) × (3 non-resident registrants). Finally, the Commission believes that the costs of filing Form SDR in a tagged data format beyond the costs of collecting the required information will be minimal.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Territory of American Samoa (FEMA-4357-DR), dated 03/02/2018.
Issued on 03/02/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 03/02/2018, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 154468 and for economic injury is 154470.
The Tazewell & Peoria Railroad, Inc. (TZPR), has agreed to renew overhead trackage rights to Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway Corp. (TPW). The trackage rights extend between TPW milepost 109.4 at East Peoria, Ill., and TPW milepost 113.9 at Peoria, Ill. (the Line), a distance of approximately 4.7 miles, including overhead trackage rights to handle intermodal traffic from the intermediate point of the connection between TZPR and BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) near Darst Street to TPW milepost 109.4 in East Peoria.
TPW states that the purpose of the transaction is to renew trackage rights originally granted to TPW by Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Company (PPU) in 1995.
The earliest this transaction may be consummated is March 29, 2018, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice of exemption was filed).
As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Stay petitions must be filed by March 22, 2018 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. 36165, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Erik M. Hocky, Clark Hill, PLC, One Commerce Square, 2005 Market Street, Suite 1000, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.
Notice; correction.
The FAA published a document in the
Ms. Cayla D. Morgan, (425) 227-2653.
In the
Comments must be received on or before April 16, 2018.
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 public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning information collection requirements related to qualified lessee construction allowances for short-term leases.
Written comments should be received on or before May 14, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Roberto Mora-Figueroa, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all 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 if 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.
• 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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the ICR for OMB approval of the extension of the information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
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 public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning information collection requirements related to the rules relating to registration under section 4101.
Written comments should be received on or before May 14, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Roberto Mora-Figueroa, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all 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 if 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.
• 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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the ICR for OMB approval of the extension of the information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On April 17, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) promulgated national minimum criteria for existing and new coal combustion residuals (CCR) landfills and existing and new CCR surface impoundments. The Agency is proposing a rule that will address four provisions of the final rule that were remanded back to the Agency on June 14, 2016 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Agency is also proposing six provisions that establish alternative performance standards for owners and operators of CCR units located in states that have approved CCR permit programs (participating states) or are otherwise subject to oversight through a permit program administered by EPA. Finally, the Agency is proposing an additional revision based on comments received since the date of the final CCR rule.
For information concerning this proposed rule, contact Mary Jackson, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Environmental Protection Agency, 5304P, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-8453; email address:
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or DC-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If you submit a CD-ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.
The EPA is proposing to amend the regulations for the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) in landfills and surface impoundments in order to: (1) Address provisions of the final rule that were remanded back to the Agency on June 14, 2016; (2) to provide States with approved CCR permit programs (or EPA where it is the permitting authority) under the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act the ability to set certain alternative performance standards; and (3) address one additional issue raised by commenters that has arisen since the April 2015 publication of the final rule, namely the use of CCR during certain closure situations.
EPA is proposing two categories of revisions plus one additional revision to the regulations at 40 CFR 257 subpart D. The first category is associated with a judicial remand in connection with the settlement agreement entered on April 18, 2016 that resolved four claims brought by two sets of plaintiffs against the final CCR rule. See
The Agency is proposing four changes from the CCR final rule that was promulgated on April 17, 2015 associated with the judicial remand. The proposed revisions would: (1) Clarify the type and magnitude of non-groundwater releases that would require a facility to comply with some or all of the corrective action procedures set forth in 40 CFR 257.96-257.98 in meeting their obligation to clean up the release; (2) add boron to the list of constituents in Appendix IV of part 257 that trigger corrective action and potentially the requirement to retrofit or close the CCR unit; (3) determine the requirement for proper height of woody and grassy vegetation for slope protection; and (4) modify the alternative closure provisions.
The Agency is proposing six alternative performance standards that would apply in participating states (
Under the WIIN Act, EPA is the permitting authority for CCR units located in Indian County. EPA would also serve as the permitting authority for CCR units located in nonparticipating states subject to a Congressional appropriation to carry out that function. At this time, Congress has not provided appropriations to EPA to serve as the permitting authority in nonparticipating states. EPA is therefore proposing that in those cases where it is the permitting authority, it will have the same ability as a Director of a State with an approved CCR program to apply the alternative performance standards. In addition, EPA seeks comment on whether and how these alternative performance standards could be implemented by the facilities directly (even in States without a permit program), given that the WIIN Act provided authority for EPA oversight and enforcement.
EPA is proposing to revise the current regulations to allow the use of CCR in the construction of final cover systems for CCR units closing pursuant to § 257.101 that are closing with waste-in-place. EPA is also proposing specific criteria that the facility would need to meet in order to allow for the use of CCR in the final cover system.
With this action EPA is not reconsidering, proposing to reopen, or otherwise soliciting comment on any other provisions of the final CCR rule beyond those specifically identified as such in this proposal. EPA will not respond to comments submitted on any issues other than those specifically identified in this proposal and they will not be considered part of the rulemaking record.
This action is expected to result in net cost savings amounting to between $32 million and $100 million per year when discounting at 7 percent and annualized over 100 years. It is expected to result in net cost savings of between $25 million and $76 million per year when discounting at 3 percent and annualized over 100 years. Further information on the economic effects of this action can be found in Unit V of this preamble.
This rule applies to all CCR generated by electric utilities and independent power producers that fall within the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 221112 and may affect the following entities: Electric utility facilities and independent power producers that fall under the NAICS code 221112. This discussion is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This discussion lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should
On April 17, 2015, EPA finalized national regulations to regulate the disposal of CCR as solid waste under subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) titled, “Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities,” (80 FR 21302) (CCR rule). The CCR rule established national minimum criteria for existing and new CCR landfills and existing and new CCR surface impoundments and all lateral expansions of CCR units that are codified in Subpart D of Part 257 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The criteria consist of location restrictions, design and operating criteria, groundwater monitoring and corrective action, closure requirements and post-closure care, and record keeping, notification and internet posting requirements. The rule also required any existing unlined CCR surface impoundment that is contaminating groundwater above a regulated constituent's groundwater protection standard to stop receiving CCR and either retrofit or close, except in limited circumstances.
The rule was challenged by several different parties, including a coalition of regulated entities and a coalition of environmental organizations. See,
As part of that settlement, on April 18, 2016 EPA requested the court to remand the four claims back to the Agency. On June 14, 2016 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion.
One claim, which was settled by the vacatur of the provision allowing inactive surface impoundments to close early and thereby avoid groundwater monitoring, cleanup, and post-closure care requirements, was the subject of a recent rulemaking. See, 81 FR 51802 (August 5, 2016).
The remaining claims that were remanded back to the Agency are the subject of this proposed rule. As part of the settlement, EPA committed to issue a proposed rule or rules to: (1) Establish requirements for the use of vegetation as slope protection on CCR surface impoundments; (2) Clarify the type and magnitude of non-groundwater releases for which a facility must comply with some or all of the rule's corrective action procedures; and (3) Add Boron to the list of contaminants in Appendix IV, whose detection trigger more extensive monitoring and cleanup requirements. Each of these are discussed further in Unit III of the preamble. As specified in the settlement, EPA presently intends to take final action on these proposals by June 2019. The issue of alternative closure requirements (due to lack of capacity for non-CCR wastestreams) was also remanded, but was not part of the settlement agreement. That issue is also discussed in Unit III of this preamble.
In addition, on September 13, 2017, EPA granted petitions from the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) and from AES Puerto Rico LLP requesting the Agency initiate rulemaking to reconsider provisions of the 2015 final rule.
This determination raised some questions as to how the remaining issues in the CCR litigation should be handled. In response to various motions filed with U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the court ordered EPA to submit a status report indicating which provisions of the final CCR rule were being or were likely to be reconsidered by the Agency and a timeline for this reconsideration. EPA filed that status report on November 15, 2017 indicating that the following provisions were or were likely to be reconsidered. These included issues that were before the court as well as those that were not:
EPA further stated that it anticipates it will complete its reconsideration of all provisions identified in two phases. EPA indicated that in the first phase EPA would continue its process with respect to those provisions which were remanded back to EPA in June of 2016. These provisions are: The requirements for use of vegetation as slope protection; the provisions to clarify the type and magnitude of non-groundwater releases that would require a facility to comply with some or all of the corrective action procedures set out in §§ 257.96-257.98 in meeting its obligation to clean up the release; and provisions to add Boron to the list of contaminants in Appendix IV of the final rule that trigger corrective action. As noted elsewhere, the settlement agreement associated with the remand contemplates final action on these by June 14, 2019. EPA also indicated that as part of Phase One it would review the additional provisions to determine whether proposals to revise or amend some of these could be developed quickly enough so that they could be included in this first phase, and meet the schedule set out in the settlement agreement (
EPA also indicated in its status report that it factored in two separate 90-day interagency review periods and assumed a 90-day public comment period as the minimum amount of time needed to provide comment based on the complexity of the issues involved. However, in developing this proposal, EPA now believes that a 90-day public comment period would be unnecessary. Instead, based on its assessment of the contents of the proposal, EPA will seek public comment for a period of 45 days. This proposal addresses four issues that were subject to legal challenge and included in the 2016 judicial remand. The legal authorities and policy options associated with these provisions have been addressed in comments to the 2015 CCR rule, as well as the litigation briefs filed by the United States and the industry and environmental petitioners. The remaining proposals included in this proposed rule largely reflect policy options that were discussed in the preamble to the 2015 final CCR rule and are based in large measure on the established record supporting the longstanding regulations for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills codified at 40 CFR part 258. By focusing this proposal on specific regulatory proposals that are largely rooted in existing requirements for how other nonhazardous waste is already regulated under Part 258, EPA has sought to minimize potential confusion and unnecessary burden on the public by basing many of these proposed changes to the 2015 CCR rule on well-understood legal theories and an existing scientific record.
EPA stated that it plans to complete review of all remaining matters identified on the chart and not covered in the Phase One proposal and determine whether to propose revisions to the provisions. EPA currently expects that if further revisions are determined to be warranted it will sign a Phase Two proposed rule no later than September 2018 and complete its reconsideration and take final action no later than December 2019.
Thus, this proposal includes those provisions where EPA has completed its review and has sufficient information to propose revisions. EPA continues to evaluate the other matters and will make a determination as to whether revisions are appropriate and if so anticipates signing a proposal by September of this year.
As noted in this preamble, the CCR rule was finalized in April 2015. As discussed in detail in the preamble to the final rule in the
Given the existing statutory authorities, the final rule provided very limited site-specific flexibilities and did not provide for a State program which could adopt and be authorized to implement the federal criteria.
In December 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act was enacted, establishing new statutory provisions applicable to CCR units, including: (a) Authorizing States to implement the CCR rule through an EPA-approved permit program; and (b) authorizing EPA to enforce the rule and in certain situations to serve as the permitting authority.
The legislation amended RCRA section 4005, creating a new subsection (d) that establishes a Federal permitting program similar to other environmental statutes. States may submit a program to EPA for approval and permits issued pursuant to the approved state permit program operate in lieu of the Federal requirements. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(A). To be approved, a State program must require each CCR unit to achieve compliance with the part 257 regulations (or successor regulations) or alternative State criteria that EPA has determined are “at least as protective as” the part 257 regulations (or successor regulations). State permitting programs may be approved in whole or in part. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B). States with approved CCR permitting programs are considered “participating states”.
In states without an approved program, EPA is to issue permits, subject to the availability of appropriations specifically provided to carry out this requirement. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(2)(B). In addition, EPA must issue permits for CCR units in Indian Country. The legislation also authorized EPA to use its RCRA subtitle C information gathering and enforcement authorities to enforce the CCR rule or permit provisions, both in nonparticipating and participating States subject to certain conditions. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(4).
The statute expressly provides that facilities are to continue to comply with the CCR rule until a permit (issued either by an approved state or by EPA) is in effect for that unit. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(3), (6).
These regulations are established under the authority of sections 1008(a), 2002(a), 4004, and 4005(a) and (d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) and the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act of 2016, 42 U.S.C. 6907(a), 6912(a), 6944, and 6945(a) and (d). While the 2015 final CCR rule, and today's proposed revisions, implement EPA's authority under RCRA, as amended by HSWA and the WIIN Act, EPA does not intend for these proposed revisions to impose any other separate requirements under any other statute or regulation, including under the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations.
The final CCR rule establishes a comprehensive system of groundwater monitoring and corrective action so that facilities detect and address groundwater releases. (80 FR 21396, April 17, 2015). The final rule requires facilities to employ a two-stage groundwater monitoring program. The first stage is “detection monitoring” for the constituents listed in Appendix III of the rule. Appendix III constituents are intended to provide an early detection as to whether contaminants are migrating from the disposal unit into groundwater.
If during detection monitoring, the facility determines there to be a statistically significant exceedance of any constituent over the established background level, the facility must begin the second stage of the monitoring program, “assessment monitoring,” by sampling for an expanded set of constituents, which are listed in Appendix IV of the rule. Appendix IV constituents are those that EPA has determined present risks of concern to human health or the environment. These are generally determined by risk assessment and/or damage cases, and are based on the characteristics of the wastes in the unit.
If an owner or operator determines, based on assessment monitoring, that concentrations of one or more of the constituents listed in Appendix IV have been detected at statistically significant levels above the site's established groundwater protection standards, that facility must initiate corrective action as described in the final rule. This determination (
In the proposed CCR rulemaking (June 21, 2010), EPA included boron in both the detection monitoring (Appendix III) and the assessment monitoring (Appendix IV) lists, 75 FR 35253. The parameters that EPA proposed that facilities use as early indicators of groundwater contamination (Appendix III) were boron, chloride, conductivity, fluoride, pH, sulfate, sulfide, and total dissolved solids (TDS). EPA selected these constituents because they are present in CCR and would move rapidly through the subsurface and thus provide an early detection as to whether contaminants were migrating from the disposal unit. EPA also proposed a list of constituents for inclusion on Appendix IV. The list included all of the constituents found in CCR or leachate based on the data EPA had at the time: Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chloride, chromium, copper, fluoride, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, sulfate, sulfide, thallium, and TDS. EPA then specifically asked for comment on this list and received a number of comments on these specific constituents.
In developing the final rule EPA generally relied on the same considerations it had relied on in the proposed rule. However, in response to comments, the final rule removed boron from Appendix IV, 80 FR 21500, April 17, 2015. The primary reason was that a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) had not yet been established under the Safe Drinking Water Act for boron. EPA generally preferred to include on Appendix IV only constituents that had established MCLs, as MCLs provide clear risk-based clean up levels in the event that corrective action is required. EPA also reasoned that because boron would remain on Appendix III it was unnecessary to include it on Appendix IV as facilities would be required to continue monitoring its concentration. Out of all the coal ash constituents modeled by EPA, boron has the fastest travel time, meaning that boron is likely to reach potential receptors before other constituents. Therefore, boron is expected to be one of the earliest constituents detected if releases to groundwater are occurring; consequently, EPA reasoned that retaining boron on Appendix III was more appropriate as it would function as a “signal” constituent that would ensure that assessment monitoring was quickly triggered in response to any release.
After the final rule was published, this decision was challenged as one claim in the multiparty litigation on the final rule.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to add boron to Appendix IV of part 257. This proposal is based on a number of considerations. First, the risk assessment (RA) conducted to support the final CCR rule shows that boron is one of nine constituents determined to present unacceptable risks under the range of scenarios modeled.
Second, when reviewing damage cases collected for the CCR rulemaking, EPA identified one or more “contaminants of concern” (COCs) for each damage case. Boron is a COC in more damage cases (approximately 50 percent of the total) than any Appendix IV constituent with the exception of arsenic. The damage cases reflect a range of waste types disposed in both surface impoundments and landfills. These damage cases corroborate the findings of the RA and also capture other risk scenarios that were not modeled in the RA, such as units that intersect with the groundwater table.
Third, as noted, out of all the coal ash constituents modeled by EPA, boron has one of the shortest travel times, meaning that boron is likely to reach potential receptors before other constituents. As such, including it on Appendix IV would ensure corrective action occurs soon after a potential release, prior to the appearance of slower-moving constituents hydrologically downstream from the source of contamination. Early detection and remediation would better protect human health and the environment by allowing for a response to contamination more quickly and preventing further and more extensive contamination, thereby limiting the exposures to human and ecological receptors. And although this consideration is not relevant under RCRA section 4004(a), early action will also have the benefit of reducing the costs to the facility of remediation, as the cost is necessarily greater to remediate more numerous contaminants and more extensive contamination.
Finally, inclusion of boron on Appendix IV would also be consistent with EPA's previous decisions for other constituents. EPA added cobalt, molybdenum, and lithium to Appendix IV even though these constituents do not currently have MCLs because they were found to be risk drivers in the 2014 risk assessment (80 FR 21404, April 17, 2015).
EPA included lithium on Appendix IV even though it does not have an MCL because it was detected in “several” damage cases (80 FR 21404, April 17, 2015). Lead was also detected in at least nine damage cases; and, as noted above, boron is a COC in approximately 51 percent of the total damage cases. By contrast, EPA removed aluminum, copper, iron, manganese and sulfide from Appendix IV because “they lack maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)” and were not shown to be constituents of concern based on either the risk assessment conducted for the rule or the damage cases (80 FR 21404, April 17, 2015).
In light of all of the information presented above, EPA is proposing to add boron to Appendix IV of part 257 and seeks comment on the appropriateness of including boron on Appendix IV in the absence of an MCL for the constituent.
As part of the Assessment Program
So, in the final CCR rule EPA promulgated specific requirements for all CCR surface impoundments (except incised units) to install and maintain adequate slope protection. Specifically, the final rule required facilities to document that “the CCR unit has been designed, constructed, operated, and maintained with . . . [adequate slope protection to protect against surface erosion, wave action, and adverse effects of sudden drawdown.” §§ 257.73(d)(1)(ii); and 257.74(d)(1)(ii).
In developing the specific technical requirements for the final rule, EPA relied on existing dam safety technical literature, which universally recommends that vegetative cover not be permitted to root too deeply beneath the surface of the slope. Deep roots can potentially introduce internal embankment issues such as pathways for water intrusion and piping, precipitating erosion internally, or uprooting which is the disruption of the embankment due to the sudden uplifting of the root system. Based on these data, the final rule also required a vegetative cover height limitation to prevent the establishment of rooted vegetation, such as a tree, a bush, or a shrubbery, on the CCR surface impoundment slope, 80 FR 21476, April 17, 2015, and to prevent the obscuring of the slope during routine and emergency inspection. Based on the available information, EPA concluded that a vegetative cover height limitation of six inches above the face of the embankment was adequate to achieve these dual goals of preventing woody vegetation, while allowing inspectors adequate observation of the slope.
After the final rule was published, this provision was challenged on the grounds that EPA had failed to provide adequate notice of this requirement in the proposal. See,
Slope protection is an essential element in preventing destabilization of a CCR surface impoundment. Surficial and internal erosion, wave action, and rapid drawdown are some phenomena that can destabilize a surface impoundment. Surficial erosion is the removal of surface material, typically resulting from regular, intermittent physical phenomena such as surface run-off and wind action. Internal erosion, due to seepage and piping, is the removal of material beneath the surface of an embankment through the infiltration and transmission of water into and through the embankment. Wave action can cause erosion of embankment material typically caused by wave run-up in wind or storm events. Rapid drawdown is the rapid lowering of the water level of a reservoir which may precipitate slope failure due to residual high pore-water pressure in the embankment with a lack of counteracting pressure from the reservoir. In each of these phenomena, slope protection provides mitigating effects to counteract the phenomena through cohesion of the surface of the embankment. Furthermore, slope protection is necessary to ensure that dike or embankment erosion does not occur, both from the surface of the upstream or downstream slope, crest, or adjacent areas or from internal areas of the unit. Erosion of the embankment can precipitate more significant structural or operational deficiencies, such as beaching upstream from wave action, sloughing or sliding of the crest, discharge of solids to adjacent surface waters, and increased internal erosion. Finally, slope protection is necessary to maintain the stability of the CCR surface impoundment slope under rapid drawdown events
First, EPA is proposing to modify the current regulation to require the owner or operator to ensure that both the slopes and the pertinent surrounding areas of any CCR surface impoundment (both existing and new) are designed, constructed, operated, and maintained with one or more of the forms of slope protection specified in the regulation. EPA has defined slope protection for this proposal as measures installed on the upstream or downstream slope of the CCR unit that protect the slope against wave action, erosion or adverse effects of rapid drawdown. Slope protection includes but is not limited to grassy vegetation, rock riprap, concrete revetments, vegetated wave berms, concrete facing, gabions, geotextiles, or fascines. EPA's proposed definition was developed from the available technical literature for dam safety, geotechnical engineering, and hydrology and hydraulics. The definition of slope protection includes examples of common modes of slope protection utilized in embankment dams, levees, dikes, and other engineering structures which interface with water or other impounded fluids.
EPA is proposing to define pertinent surrounding areas because adequate slope protection in surrounding areas is critical to the overall stability of the CCR surface impoundment. EPA has defined pertinent surrounding areas for this proposal as all areas immediately surrounding the CCR surface impoundment that have the potential to affect the structural stability and condition of the CCR surface impoundment, including but not limited to the toe of the downstream slope, the crest of the embankment, abutments, and unlined spillways. EPA intends this term to include all areas in the vicinity of the CCR unit that may influence the condition of the CCR unit. This would include all areas that good engineering practice dictates should be protected against adverse effects of erosion. See
However, the slope protection requirement would exclude certain areas on, adjacent, or near the CCR unit for which it is infeasible, impractical, or unsafe to maintain vegetation. These areas include specific design features of the unit that may occupy portions of the surface of the CCR unit. Such design features may include lined spillways, decant structures, access ways such as roads, paths, or stairs, or sluice pipes. Therefore, an owner or operator does not need slope protection to be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in these areas. Furthermore, by the nature of these engineered structures, the integrity of the slope or pertinent surrounding area is typically maintained through the construction of the structure or the potential adverse effects to the integrity of the slope or pertinent surrounding area are limited by the nature of the structure. For instance, a properly designed, constructed, and maintained sluice pipe or decant structure may include preventative measures, such as a collar or a boot, which prevents the infiltration of water and potential erosion of the slope at the exit-point of the structure on the slope. An additional example of limited potential adverse effects would be that of a road or path on the crest of the embankment of the impoundment. Due to regular vehicle traffic, it may prove difficult to maintain vegetative cover on the surface of the travel path. Furthermore, due to the location and typical characteristics of the road,
Similar to the original rule, EPA is proposing to require that slope protection consist of either grassy vegetation, engineered slope protection measures, or a combination of such measures. EPA is also proposing to establish specific performance standards that all slope protection measures must meet. First, the proposed rule would require that the owner or operator ensure that the slope protection measures are maintained in such a manner that allows for the adequate observation of and access to the CCR surface impoundment during routine and emergency events. Second, the regulation would require that the cover provide effective protection against surface erosion, wave action, and adverse effects of rapid drawdown.
EPA is proposing to define grassy vegetation for this proposal as vegetation which develops shallow roots that do not penetrate the slope or pertinent surrounding areas of the CCR unit to a depth that introduces the potential of internal erosion or risk of uprooting and improves on the condition of the slopes and pertinent surrounding areas of the CCR unit. This definition is being proposed to provide a distinction between grassy vegetation—which EPA acknowledges can improve embankment slope stability, provided the vegetation does not inhibit adequate observation of or access to the slope or pertinent surrounding areas of the CCR unit—and woody vegetation, which can create unacceptable adverse risk to the structural stability and operational ability of the CCR unit. EPA has based the definition of grassy vegetation on “FEMA 534: Technical Manual for Dam Owners, Impacts of Plants on Earthen Dams” (September 2005) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' “ETL 1110-2-583: Guidelines for Landscape Planting and Vegetation Management at Levees, Floodwalls, Embankment Dams, and Appurtenant Structures” (April 30, 2014).
Weeds for this proposal can be wild vegetation that develops shallow-roots and are non-woody plants that do not create a contiguous cover, inhibit adequate observation of the slope and pertinent surrounding areas of the CCR unit and do not provide an advantageous effect on the condition of the slopes and pertinent surrounding areas of the CCR unit. EPA's description of weeds is based on FEMA guidance titled “FEMA 534: Technical Manual for Dam Owners, Impacts of Plants on Earthen Dams” (September 2005). EPA intends for all non-woody, grassy vegetation that do not provide an advantageous effect to the condition of the CCR unit to fall within this definition. Some examples of commonly found species considered to be weeds are: Herbaceous plants, vines, pigweed, ragweed, and thistle.
In reviewing technical guidance from federal and state agencies and organizations, EPA found that the original 6 inch vegetative height limitation was a more conservative technical standard than is typically recommended in guidance. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's EM 1110-2-583 generally recommends that vegetation be limited to 12 inches in a “vegetation free zone” on and around embankment dams. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's EM 1110-2-583 recommends a minimum height of 3 inches to ensure the health of the grass species providing erosion protection and EPA agrees with this recommendation. The FEMA 534 technical manual does not prescribe a specific vegetative height limitation, but recommends that vegetation be maintained on the basis of achieving several dam safety goals,
In light of the above, EPA is proposing a vegetative height maximum limitation of 12 inches for grassy and woody vegetation. The 12-inch limit is drawn from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's EM 1110-2-583, which as previously noted, generally recommends that grassy vegetation be limited to 12 inches.
EPA is also proposing to define vegetative height as the linear distance measured between the ground surface where the vegetation penetrates the ground surface and the outermost growth point of the vegetation. This definition is being proposed in order to accurately identify the measurable height of vegetation for use in complying with the vegetative height limits of this rule. EPA intends this definition to reflect the maximum exposed length of the vegetative member along the main stalk of the member.
Vegetative maintenance, particularly removal of a large tree or a shrubbery, must be undertaken with care so as not to allow for the uprooting of the root system and disturbance of substantial portions of the slope or surrounding pertinent areas of the CCR unit.
The CCR final rule establishes a number of requirements related to the detection and remediation of releases from a CCR unit. First, the groundwater monitoring and corrective action regulations in § 257.90 state that in the event of a release from a CCR unit, the owner or operator must immediately take all necessary measures to control the source(s) of releases so as to reduce or eliminate, to the maximum extent feasible, further releases of contaminants into the environment. The regulation specifies detailed procedures that must be followed in such cases, requiring that the owner or operator of the CCR unit comply with all applicable requirements in §§ 257.96, 257.97, and 257.98.
Section 257.96(a) also establishes two different standards for triggering corrective action, one for groundwater releases and one for non-groundwater releases. The requirement that a facility commence corrective action “immediately upon detection of a release from a CCR unit” applies only to non-groundwater releases. By contrast, the regulation requires corrective action for groundwater releases only upon a determination that contaminants are present in concentrations exceeding the groundwater protection standards in § 257.95(h).
In a separate section, the regulations also require that if a deficiency or release is identified during an inspection of a surface impoundment or landfill, the owner or operator must remedy the deficiency or release as soon as feasible, and prepare documentation detailing the corrective measures taken. See, §§ 257.73(d)(2), 257.74(d)(2), 257.83(b)(5), and 257.84(b)(5). However, these provisions do not require the facility to follow a particular process in cleaning up such releases.
After the final rule was published, the requirement that a facility must remediate any non-groundwater release using the same procedures applicable to the corrective action of groundwater releases in §§ 257.96-257.98 was challenged on the ground that EPA had failed to provide adequate notice of this requirement in the proposal. See,
This portion of the proposed rule addresses whether the entire set of procedural requirements for corrective actions from the final CCR rule should apply to all non-groundwater releases. EPA is proposing to establish a subset of the corrective action procedures currently found in §§ 257.96-257.98 that would apply to non-groundwater releases that can be completely
EPA designed many of the specific procedural requirements for non-groundwater releases in sections §§ 257.96-257.98 based on several notable “catastrophic” releases from CCR surface impoundments in recent history, such as the release of CCR materials from CCR surface impoundments from the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Kingston Fossil Plant in Harriman, TN, and the Duke Energy Dan River Steam Station in Eden, NC. However, EPA recognizes that all non-groundwater releases are not of a “catastrophic” nature, and may in some instances, be quite minor. Consequently, EPA is proposing to establish revised provisions to facilitate the most expeditious response to a release from a CCR unit from the owner or operator, and thereby to mitigate degradation.
EPA is proposing a 180-day time limit to complete remediation of the non-groundwater release. This time frame effectively serves to limit these provisions to releases that are expected to have limited potential for harm to human health and the environment. In this regard, EPA considers that the size and magnitude of the release,
EPA has identified a number of types of releases that may occur at CCR surface impoundments, and from those, identified the subset that EPA believes could be completely remediated under the existing performance standards within 180 days. Releases that can be cleaned up within 180 days are necessarily of a minimal volume. EPA expects that these reduced procedures are most likely to apply to incidental releases (including fugitive dust) that occur from seepage through the embankment, minor ponding of seepage at the toe of the embankment of the CCR unit, seepage at the abutments of the CCR unit, seepage from slopes, or ponding at the toe of the unit, rather than releases that of a “catastrophic” nature, as catastrophic releases are normally of a magnitude that remediation cannot be completed within 180 days. EPA seeks comment on whether 180 days is the appropriate timeframe in which an owner/operator would be expected to complete remediation of a non-groundwater release under this proposed provision, or whether a shorter deadline,
On this basis, EPA has preliminarily concluded that this subset of small releases may not warrant all of the corrective action procedures specified in §§ 257.96-257.98. In these cases, it is preferable that the owner/operator focus on the rapid remediation of the release. However, EPA requests comment on whether 180-days is the appropriate time frame that best balances EPA's objective to ensure that small releases are remediated expeditiously, with the public's interest in understanding the practices occurring at the site that have the potential to affect their exposures and their groundwater.
Consistent with the proposed overall 180-day deadline for completing the cleanup, EPA is proposing to remove certain deadlines and to waive or compress certain reporting requirements found in the existing regulation, either because under the current regulation the requirement would fall due after the 180-day deadline, or because EPA considers that the benefit from the additional reporting requirement may be outweighed by the more expeditious clean-up of the site. Specifically, § 257.96 requires a facility to complete a written assessment of corrective measures within 90 days of detecting a release, place that assessment in the operating record, hold a public meeting to discuss the results of the corrective action assessment at least 30 days before selecting a remedy, and post the corrective action assessments to the publicly accessible facility website. Section 257.97 further requires a semiannual report describing the progress in selecting and designing a remedy, as well as a report upon selection of a remedy, describing the selected remedy and how it meets the standards in the regulation. Upon completion of the cleanup, section 257.98 requires the facility to prepare a report stating that the remedy has been completed, along with a certification from a qualified professional engineer attesting that the remedy has been completed in compliance with the regulation. This potentially multi-year structure was designed primarily to address releases that are large scale or that will otherwise require a substantial amount of time to remediate. It is less clear that this full process is truly necessary for smaller scale releases that could easily be completely cleaned up within a short period of time.
In lieu of the existing procedures EPA is proposing that within 15 days of discovering a non-groundwater release, the owner or operator must prepare a notification of discovery of a non-groundwater release, and place it in the facility's operating record as required by § 257.105. EPA is proposing this requirement to provide transparency, consistent with EPA's overall approach to corrective action under the existing regulations. Additionally, EPA is proposing that within 30 days of completing the corrective action of a non-groundwater release, the owner or operator must prepare a report documenting the completion of the corrective action. This report must include: (1) The facility's assessment of corrective measures to prevent further releases, to remediate any releases and to restore the affected area to original conditions; (2) the selected remedy, with an explanation of how it meets the standards specified in § 257.97; and (3) the certification by a professional engineer that the remedy has been completed in accordance with the regulation. Consistent with the existing regulation, the proposal also specifies that the remedy has been completed when the certification has been placed in the facility's operating record. The proposed rule would also require that the owner or operator comply with the recordkeeping requirements specified in § 257.105(h), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(h), and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(h). In the event the remedy has not been successfully completed within 180 days, the owner or operator must comply with the entire suite of corrective action requirements in §§ 257.96-257.98.
Under these modified procedures, EPA would compress the reporting requirements into two steps: The initial notification of a release and the documentation that the release has been remediated. Note that the same basic analytical steps would continue to apply—
EPA recognizes that requiring public notification after the fact is different than requiring public consultation before the remedy is completed, and that in some situations the difference can be quite significant. For small or contained releases, EPA generally believes that the balance of interests is best struck in ensuring that these releases are remediated as quickly as possible, because the potential impact on the public is likewise limited. That balance shifts, however, as the potential for public impact increases. EPA therefore requests comment on whether some limited public involvement prior to completion of the clean-up would be appropriate. This could be achieved, for example, by delaying the initial notification and requiring the facility to provide details about the release and the planned remediation. Another alternative would be to require some kind of brief interim report to provide that information.
As noted, under the existing requirements, remediation is considered complete when a professional engineer has certified that the corrective action has met all the requirements of the section and the certification has been placed in the facility's operating record as required by § 257.105. Following the revisions to RCRA in the WIIN Act, EPA is proposing to expand this to allow a permitting authority in a participating state to make this determination.
As also noted previously, EPA is not proposing to modify the requirement to clean up all non-groundwater releases or the substantive performance standards that all remediation actions must meet. EPA is only proposing to revise the procedures the owner/operator must follow for non-groundwater releases that can be cleaned up within 180 days. However, in the interest of clarity, EPA is considering whether to incorporate the existing performance standards into the new subsection § 257.99 or whether it is sufficient to rely on cross-references to sections §§ 257.96-257.98. EPA specifically solicits comment on which approach would be most useful.
The provisions set forth in this rulemaking are intended solely to facilitate and expedite corrective action, without modifying the existing requirements to address all releases that occur or to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy. Therefore, no risk assessment was conducted to support this provision of the rulemaking.
The current regulations require that an owner or operator of a unit closing for cause pursuant to § 257.101, cease placing CCR and non-CCR wastestreams in the unit within six months of an event triggering closure. The current regulations provide a limited exception to this requirement in two narrow circumstances. First, an owner or operator may certify that CCR must continue to be managed in a CCR unit due to the absence of alternative disposal capacity. Section 257.103(a). Second, an owner or operator may certify that the facility will cease operations of the coal-fired boilers no later than dates specified in the final rule. Section 257.103(b). Under either of these alternative closure provisions, owners or operators may continue to place CCR, and only CCR, in a unit designated to close for cause for an extended period of time. Furthermore, the facility must continue to comply with all other provisions of the rule including groundwater monitoring and corrective action.
These exemptions were challenged as part of the litigation on the final rule on the ground that the exemption was too narrow. See,
In response, EPA reexamined the record and concluded that it had failed to address these comments, and to explain the basis for its decision to restrict the exemption to the continued disposal of CCR alone. Accordingly, EPA settled this claim by agreeing to consider whether to expand this provision to situations in which a facility needs to continue to manage wastestreams other than CCR in the waste unit. The settlement of this claim was presented to the Court without challenge, and on June 14, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded “all of 40 CFR 257.103 (a) and (b)” back to EPA to allow the Agency for further consideration.
On December 12, 2016, USWAG sent EPA a letter outlining the need for § 257.103 to include non-CCR wastestreams.
USWAG followed up this letter with an executive summary of an EEI (Edison Electric Institute) reliability analysis.
EPA is not proposing to modify the alternative closure provisions of § 257.103(a) and will not respond to comments on those provisions. EPA is however, proposing to add a new paragraph (b) to allow facilities to qualify for the alternative closure provisions based on the continued need to manage non-CCR wastestreams in the unit. EPA is also not proposing to modify the alternative closure requirements of § 257.103(b) and will not respond to comments on those provisions (although EPA is proposing to redesignate § 257.103(b) as (c) as stated below). EPA is however, proposing to add a new paragraph (b) in this section to allow facilities to qualify for the alternative closure provisions based on the continued need to manage non-CCR wastestreams in a CCR unit that will cease operation of its coal-fired boilers within timeframes specified in the rule. Thus the facility, if it met the conditions, would be allowed to manage both CCR and non-CCR waste streams in the unit. EPA is also proposing to redesignate existing paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (c) and (e), respectively, and make conforming changes to this paragraph to reflect the non-CCR waste streams.
As noted previously, currently the alternative closure provisions remain unavailable for non-CCR wastestreams. The current regulation is explicit that the alternative closure provisions only allows for continued disposal of CCR, and therefore facilities must continue to comply with the current rule until an amendment is finalized.
EPA is proposing this exemption because substantial volumes of non-CCR wastestreams are generated at power plants, and may currently be managed in CCR surface impoundments. In the 2015 CCR rule, EPA discussed that the risks to the wider community from the disruption of power over the short-term outweigh the risk associated with the increased groundwater contamination from continued use of these units. 80 FR 21423, April 17, 2015. As it did for CCR in the 2015 CCR rule, this same concern would apply to non-CCR wastestreams if the CCR unit were unavailable for use and the community was left without power for an extended period of time. EPA solicits comment on ways to evaluate whether sustained loss of power to community will occur.
Based on the appendix provided in the December 12, 2016 letter from USWAG, these non-CCR wastestreams can range from insignificant (
As a result of the differences between these various non-CCR wastestreams, capacity may mean different things in different contexts. For other non-CCR wastestreams, capacity may mean the capacity to handle daily volumes of wastewater flowing between areas of the facility. Thus, EPA is proposing to provide a definition of capacity for the new section 257.103(b) which would be a basis for qualifying for the exemption. EPA solicits comment on the proposed use of this definition, as well as whether any additional clarification is warranted.
The differences discussed above also demonstrate why various non-CCR wastestreams may require more simple or more complex alternative capacity. This can impact the amount of time necessary to construct or otherwise locate that capacity. In the December 12 USWAG letter, timeframes to construct alternative capacity varied from 1.75 to 7 years. To achieve closure in the fastest practicable timeframe, owners and operators of facilities should transition each non-CCR wastestream to alternative capacity as such capacity becomes available. Thus, EPA is considering adding a condition requiring the facility to demonstrate that it lacks alternative capacity for
In developing this provision, EPA relied on information from commenters to determine that this five-year period was feasible. The December 12, 2016 USWAG letter provides construction timeframes for a further 10 alternative disposal methods. All but one of these methods takes less than five years to construct. It appears these timeframes are therefore generally consistent with the timeframes on in the existing regulation; however, EPA solicits comment on alternative technologies and associated construction timeframes that have the potential to impact this period.
As noted previously, USWAG submitted an executive summary of an EEI reliability analysis. EPA understands that this analysis indicates that in some instances there may be an impact on electric reliability caused by surface impoundment closure. Consequently, EPA is proposing to limit the new alternative closure requirements to facilities that have the potential to impact electric reliability. Specifically, EPA is proposing to limit the expanded exemption to facilities in one of the three FERC regions that the EEI analysis concludes are likely to suffer substantial reliability impacts.
EPA notes that the EEI executive summary cautioned:
“Those reviewing the EEI findings should recognize that our findings were not part of any detailed planning study and provide a very high level review of possible worst case impacts on a regional level.”
Although EPA was able to review only the executive summary of this analysis, and therefore cannot draw definitive conclusions, EPA agrees that these impacts appear to be worst-case for several reasons that were clear from the executive summary alone. First, the EEI analysis assumes that all unlined CCR impoundments leak above the groundwater protection standards and the CCR units would have to be closed for cause. Second, the analysis assumes that non-CCR wastestreams were being managed in all of those CCR impoundments. Third, the analysis assumes that alternative capacity for those non-CCR wastestreams could not be found or constructed within the six-month period for closure to commence. Finally, the analysis assumes that the lack of capacity would cause the associated coal boilers to cease operation. EPA considered each of these assumptions to be worst-case as explained below.
First, the assumption that
Similarly, not all unlined CCR units manage non-CCR wastestreams. Rather than use either the non-CBI (confidential business information) data available from the 2010 Office of Water (OW) questionnaire or some other industry-provided data set, EEI has assumed that all unlined CCR units also manage non-CCR wastestreams. A quick scan of the information available in the non-CBI OW questionnaire reveals dozens of CCR surface impoundments that do not receive non-CCR wastewaters.
Third, the assumption that no facility could construct alternative capacity within the time frames in the current regulation is contrary to other information presented in the USWAG letter. This letter documents several alternative disposal methods that take only two or three years to construct. It thus appears to generally be feasible for facilities with knowledge of leaking units to begin and complete the construction of these ponds, tanks, and other capacity in the time that the rule lays forth for closure to commence. If the facilities that believe that their units are leaking, or likely leaking, had already begun this construction when they first learned of the regulatory requirements, many would be nearing completion as of this rulemaking.
When taken as a whole, these worst-case assumptions result in an analysis may overestimate the effects to the electricity grid. In EPA's final rule Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA),
While the NERC and GAO reports both took account of numerous EPA regulations that have since been stayed, EPA nevertheless acknowledges that the impacts of environmental regulations can potentially affect reliability when deadlines are not flexible. As a result, EPA is considering restricting the alternative closure provisions to facilities in the NERC regions and sub-regions showing the potential for substantial impacts in the EEI report. The three regions are MISO, SERC-E, and SERC-N. For facilities that are located in, or regularly provide the majority of generated electricity to, those regions, the facilities may qualify for the alternative closure provisions due to non-CCR wastestreams provided the other requirements are met.
EPA solicits comment on the proposal to limit the exclusion under proposed new paragraphs (b) and (d) of § 257.103 for non-CCR wastestreams to the three specific NERC regions and sub-regions that have a demonstrated reliability need. Without the EEI analysis, EPA can only conservatively assume, as industry does, that the three regions and sub-regions showing substantial impacts in the EEI analysis have such a demonstrated need. EPA also solicits comment on the appropriateness of allowing facilities outside a NERC region to qualify if they provide electricity to that region, as well as other reasonable standards for determining which facilities qualify.
During the rulemaking for the current regulations for CCR in 40 CFR part 257, EPA received numerous comments requesting that EPA adopt alternative performance standards that would allow state regulators (or facilities) to “tailor” the requirements to particular site conditions. Many requested EPA adopt particular performance standards found in EPA's municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) regulations in 40 CFR part 258. As discussed in the preamble to the final 1991 rule establishing the part 258 requirements, EPA incorporated the concept of “differential protection of groundwater” as a basis for allowing regulatory flexibility depending on the quality of the groundwater source.
As fully explained in the preamble to the April 2015 CCR rule, the statutory structure established by Congress requires EPA to establish national minimum criteria that ensure there is “no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment.” States may, but are not required to adopt or implement these criteria; thus the national minimum criteria apply to all facilities even in the absence of a regulatory entity to implement or oversee them. EPA in establishing these national minimum criteria had to show through its rulemaking record that the final rule would achieve the statutory standard of “no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment” at all sites subject to the standards. This means that the standards must be protective of all sites, including the most highly vulnerable sites. The statute provided no mechanism for site specific flexibility as in the MSWLF program in part 258.
However, in 2016 Congress amended RCRA to establish a permit program analogous to that established for MSWLFs. See Unit II.B for additional detail. Under these new provisions, States may now apply to EPA for approval to operate a permit program to implement the CCR rule. As part of that process, a State program may also establish alternative State technical standards, provided EPA has determined they are “at least as protective as” the CCR regulations in part 257. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B), 6945(d)(1)(C).
In light of the legislation, EPA returned to the existing 40 CFR part 258 regulations to evaluate the performance standards that rely on a state permitting authority. EPA evaluated whether there was sufficient evidence in the record for those regulations to support incorporating either the part 258 MSWLF provision or an analogue into the part 257 CCR regulations. One complication is the statutory standard for the part 258 regulations is different than the standard for the CCR regulations. The CCR regulations are based on RCRA section 4004(a), which requires the regulations to ensure “there is no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment from disposal of solid waste at such facility.” 42 U.S.C. 6944(a). By contrast, EPA was authorized to “take into account the [facility's] practicable capability” in developing the part 258 regulations. 42 U.S.C. 6949a(c). As a consequence, the rulemaking record for some part 258 provisions may not fully support a determination that a particular provision meets the RCRA section 4004(a) standard or will be “at least as protective” as EPA's CCR regulations.
Based on the results of this evaluation, EPA is proposing to adopt several provisions modeled after the following in part 258: (1) The State Director may establish alternative risk-based groundwater protection standards for constituents for which Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) have not been established (see § 258.55(i) and (j)); (2) The State Director may determine that remediation of a release of an Appendix IV constituent is not necessary under certain conditions (see § 258.57(e) and (f)); (3) The State Director may determine that groundwater monitoring requirements under §§ 257.91-257.95 may be suspended if there is evidence that there is no potential for migration of hazardous constituents to the uppermost aquifer during the active life of the unit and post-closure care (see § 258.50(b)); (4) The State Director may specify an alternative length of time to demonstrate that remedies are complete (see § 258.58(e)(2)); (5) The State Director may modify the length of the post-closure care period (see § 258.61(b)); and (6) The State Director may decide to certify that the regulatory criteria have been met in lieu of the exclusive reliance on a qualified professional engineer. These part 258 provisions in the MSWLF regulations were adopted based solely on a finding that they would protect human health and the environment, which is not appreciably different from the standard under RCRA section 4004(a). See, 75 FR 35193 (June 21, 2010). Thus, in proposing these flexibilities, EPA believes that the statutory standard under RCRA section 4004(a) is met.
In addition, under the WIIN Act, EPA is the permitting authority for CCR units located in Indian County. EPA would also serve as the permitting authority for CCR units located in nonparticipating states subject to a Congressional appropriation to carry out that function. EPA is proposing that where it is the permitting authority, it will have the same authority as the Director in an approved or participating state to apply the alternative performance standards. In order to make this clear, EPA is proposing to revise the definition of State Director in § 257.53 to clarify that the term “State Director” includes EPA where EPA is the permitting authority (that is on Tribal lands and in nonparticipating states if EPA were to receive appropriations specifically for the purpose of issuing permits). EPA seeks comment on this approach or on the alternative of adding the words “or EPA where it is the permitting authority” to each of the proposed flexibilities.
Further EPA is considering further modifications to these provisions, analogous to the 2010 proposal, and is seeking comment on whether it is appropriate and consistent with the WIIN Act for these alternative performance standards to apply directly to a facility in a nonparticipating State
In addition, EPA is seeking comment on whether it would be appropriate and consistent with EPA's authority for an approved State or EPA in a nonparticipating state, or an owner or operator subject to EPA oversight, to establish alternative, risk-based location restrictions in lieu of the location restrictions found at §§ 257.60-257.64. For example, in the 2010 proposed CCR rule, EPA proposed a location restriction requiring demonstration that a CCR unit be located a minimum of two feet above the upper limit of the natural water table.
Moreover, for any adopted site specific performance standards (whether approved by the State, EPA, or implemented by the facility itself), EPA is requesting comments on whether the facility or owner operator should be required to post the specific details of the modification of the performance standard to the facility's publically accessible website or require any other recordkeeping options.
Finally, as described in Unit IV.G below, EPA is proposing one modification to the closure section in a certain situation to allow the use of CCR in construction of the cover system.
The current regulations at § 257.95(h) require the CCR unit owner or operator to set the groundwater protection standard (GWPS) at the MCL or background for all constituents from Appendix IV to part 257 that are detected at a statistically significant level above background. The GWPS must be set at the MCL for all Appendix IV constituents for which there is a promulgated level under section 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. If no MCL exists for a detected constituent, then the GWPS must be set at background. In cases where the background level is higher than the promulgated MCL for a constituent, the GWPS must also be set at the background level.
In the 2010 proposal, EPA proposed allowing an owner or operator to establish an alternative GWPS for constituents for which an MCL has not been established provided that the alternative GWPS has been certified by an independent registered professional engineer and placed in the operating record and on the owner's or operator's publicly available website. In finalizing the GWPS requirements, EPA declined to allow a qualified professional engineer to establish alternative GWPS because EPA determined it was “inappropriate in a self-implemented rule, as it was unlikely that a facility would have the scientific expertise necessary to conduct a risk assessment, and was too susceptible to potential abuse.”
In this rulemaking EPA is proposing to adopt a provision analogous to 40 CFR 258.55(i), the regulations applicable to MSWLFs. Under the existing part 258 provision, the Director of a state permitting authority in a state with an approved MSWLF permitting program may establish an alternative GWPS for constituents without an MCL, provided that it is an appropriate health-based level established in accordance with the specific criteria in this regulation. The only constituents listed in Appendix IV of the final CCR rule that currently have no MCL (and therefore, the only ones that fall under this proposal) are cobalt, lead, molybdenum and lithium. Boron, which is proposed for addition to Appendix IV, also does not have an MCL. First, these are “health based levels,” which means that the only relevant consideration is whether the alternate standard will protect potential receptors (both human and environmental); costs or any similar considerations may not be considered. In addition, 40 CFR 258.55(i) specifies that all of the following criteria must be met: (1) The level is derived in a manner consistent with Agency guidelines for assessing the health risks of environmental pollutants (51 FR 33992, 34006, 34014, 34028, Sept. 24, 1986); (2) The level is based on scientifically valid studies conducted in accordance with the Toxic Substances Control Act Good Laboratory Practice Standards (40 CFR part 792) or the equivalent; (3) For carcinogens, the level represents a concentration associated with an excess lifetime cancer risk level (due to continuous lifetime exposure) within the 1×10
The Agency is proposing to allow participating states to set an alternative groundwater protection standard that is largely based on the four criteria specified in this part 258 provision. However, the criteria specified under the proposed revisions to § 257.95(h) would not be identical to those in 40 CFR 258.55(i). Rather EPA is proposing to use modified criteria in the CCR rule that would account for more recent science policies and for the specific characteristics of these wastes. EPA requests comments on the use of the modified criteria for CCR. These proposed modifications are described below.
As in the part 258 MSWLF regulation, EPA is proposing to allow the Director of a state with an EPA-approved CCR permitting program (and EPA where it is the permitting authority) to establish an alternative GWPS “health-based level” for constituents without an MCL. Consistent with part 258, this alternative GWPS is to be a health-based standard that will be protective of potential receptors (both human and ecological) and is not based on any non-
The current § 257.95 establishes the requirements for an assessment monitoring program, including a series of 90-day time periods in which an owner or operator has to perform the required analysis and demonstrations. The 90-day time periods are based on similar requirements and time periods in the part 258 requirements. However, EPA seeks comment on whether 90 days is an appropriate time period for the assessment monitoring requirements for CCR in light of the WIIN Act or whether alternative time periods, e.g., 120 days or 150 days, are necessary to perform the required analysis and demonstrations for CCR and whether such alternative time periods would be more appropriate to facilitate implementation of the WIIN Act and any changes as a result of this rulemaking.
EPA is also proposing to adopt the part 258 provision that requires an alternative groundwater protection standard to be derived in a manner consistent with Agency guidelines. However, some of the guidelines cited in part 258 have since been replaced or supplemented. Therefore, EPA is proposing to replace the citations with the updated versions. Specifically, EPA is proposing to cite to the
EPA is also proposing to adopt, without modification, the part 258 provision that requires the alternative standard to be based on scientifically valid studies conducted in accordance with the Toxic Substances Control Act Good Laboratory Practice Standards (40 CFR part 792) or the equivalent. EPA requests comment on this approach.
EPA is proposing to adopt, with modifications, the part 258 provisions specifying that the alternative standard is set at a level that is associated with an excess lifetime cancer risk within the 1 × 10
In addition, EPA is considering requiring that for systemic toxicants (i.e., for chemicals that cause effects other than of deleterious effects during a lifetime. This is largely the same as the current part 258 requirement; however cancer), the alternate level represents a concentration to which potential receptors (including sensitive subgroups) could be exposed to on a daily basis that is likely to be without appreciable risk, EPA seeks comment on whether it should revise the relevant target from “human population” to “potential receptors.”
Although this proposed rulemaking sets a target risk based on a risk range of 1 × 10
Because any alternate GWPS will be based on established risk levels, it is reasonable that a state may set a level above background so long that it is equal to or lower than this alternate threshold. Thus, any alternate GWPS that meets the requirements specified in this proposal would still protect potential receptors from the reasonable
Once corrective action is triggered, the current regulations at § 257.97 require the CCR unit owner or operator to select a remedy for corrective action. In addition, § 257.98 requires the CCR unit owner or operator to begin implementing that remedy within 90 days of remedy selection.
EPA is proposing to adopt a provision analogous to 40 CFR 258.57(e) for municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLF). This part 258 provision allows the Director of a state permitting authority in participating states to determine that remediation of a release of an Appendix II to part 258 constituent from a MSWLF unit is not necessary if the owner or operator can make certain demonstrations to the satisfaction of the Director. Specifically, § 258.57(e) specifies that the Director may determine that remediation is not necessary if the owner or operator demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of a participating State that:
(1) The groundwater is additionally contaminated by substances that have originated from a source other than a MSWLF unit and those substances are present in concentrations such that cleanup of the release from the MSWLF unit would provide no significant reduction in risk to actual or potential receptors; or
(2) The constituent is present in groundwater that:
a. Is not currently or reasonably expected to be a source of drinking water; and
b. Is not hydraulically connected with waters to which the hazardous constituents are migrating or are likely to migrate in a concentration that would exceed the groundwater protection standards; or
(3) Remediation of the release is technically infeasible; or
(4) Remediation would result in unacceptable cross-media impacts.
Part 258 also states that even if the Director of a participating state does determine that remediation of the release is not necessary, this shall not affect the authority of the State to require the owner or operator to undertake source control measures or other measures that may be necessary to eliminate or minimize further releases to the groundwater, to prevent exposure to the groundwater, or to remediate the groundwater to concentrations that are technically practicable and significantly reduce threats to human health or the environment. 40 CFR 258.57(f).
EPA is proposing to adopt this same provision into part 257 with one modification. EPA is proposing that a State Director may, on a site-specific basis, decide not to require cleanup of part 257 Appendix IV constituents released to groundwater from a CCR disposal unit where: (1) The groundwater is contaminated by multiple sources and cleanup of the CCR release would provide no significant reduction of risk; or (2) the contaminated groundwater is not a current or potential source of drinking water and is not hydraulically connected with waters to which the part 257 Appendix IV constituents are migrating or likely to migrate in a concentration(s) that would exceed the groundwater protection standards; or (3) remediation is not technically feasible; or (4) remediation would result in cross-media impacts. In part 258, an owner or operator is not required to undertake source control measures unless ordered by a State Director to do so. Although today's proposal includes § 257.97(g), which would make source control measures mandatory in a departure from part 258, EPA is considering making the source control measures for CCR units discretionary, similar to part 258, and seeks comment on this approach. For example, while the Director may determine that total remediation is not required, EPA seeks comment on whether source control measures (
As noted, the Agency is proposing that participating states may waive the clean-up requirements where the groundwater is already contaminated by multiple sources and clean-up of the CCR release would provide no significant reduction of risk. In some cases, CCR units releasing part 257 Appendix IV constituents to the groundwater may be located in areas that already are significantly contaminated by other sources. Where releases from the CCR units are minor compared to the overall area-wide contamination, or where remedial measures aimed at the CCR unit would not significantly reduce risk, EPA believes that remediation of releases from the CCR unit would not be necessary or appropriate. Proposed § 257.97(f) is intended to address such situations.
Section 258.57(e)(1) applies only where sufficient evidence exists that the groundwater is contaminated by a source other than the CCR unit. In such cases, the owner or operator must demonstrate that cleanup of a release from its unit would provide no significant reduction in risk to receptors due to concentrations of constituents from the other source. EPA has previously characterized this provision as requiring facilities to make a robust demonstration that other sources are significant contributors to the contamination; this provision is not intended to provide facilities with a general opportunity to seek a waiver from the existing cleanup requirements under part 257.
The Agency is not proposing to define “significant reductions” in risk in this rulemaking, but consistent with the MSWLF rules, believes the decision is best made on a case-by-case basis by the State. The Agency understands and anticipates that states may have difficulties in defining “significant reduction of risk” but expects that States will be able to draw from their experience in implementing the analogous requirement in § 258.57(e)(1). Consistent with that provision, participating states should take a protective approach when evaluating requests for such a waiver. As one potential example, EPA considers that where the facility could document that the risks to potential receptors from non-CCR constituents would still exceed acceptable levels of concern (
Under proposed § 257.97(f)(2), the State may also determine that a hazardous constituent that has been released from a CCR unit to groundwater does not pose a threat to human health and the environment and, therefore, does not require remediation if: (1) The groundwater is not a current or potential source of drinking water and (2) the groundwater is not hydraulically connected with waters that could be a current or potential source of drinking water or are not likely to migrate in a concentration(s) that would exceed the groundwater protection standards established under § 257.95(h). EPA generally interprets this to require a determination that the quality of the water in the aquifer is such that it could not reasonably be expected to be used as drinking water, even if treated to remove the contaminants. The provision does not allow a waiver on the grounds that the cost of treating the water to remove the contaminants is too high. EPA realizes that it is difficult to predict future improvements in treatment technologies, or to determine hydraulic connection. In interpreting whether the aquifer meets these regulatory criteria, States may use the approach outlined in the Agency's Ground-Water Protection Strategy (August 1984) as guidance.
EPA is also proposing under § 257.97(f)(3) and (4) to allow the State to determine that remediation of a release is not required when remediation is not technically feasible or when remediation presents unacceptable cross-media impacts. Such a determination may be made, for example, in some cases where the nature of the hydrogeologic setting would prevent installation and operation of an effective groundwater pump and treat system (or other effective cleanup technology),
A successful demonstration that remediation is not technically feasible must document specific facts that attribute to this demonstration. Technical infeasibilities may be related to the accessibility of the groundwater to treatment, as well as the treatability of the groundwater using existing treatment technologies. If the owner or operator can demonstrate that unacceptable cross-media impacts are uncontrollable under a given remedial option (e.g., movement in response to groundwater pumping) and that the no action option is a less risky alternative, then the Director of approved participating state may determine that remediation is not necessary.
As noted, EPA is generally relying on the factual record developed for the part 258 regulations to support this rule. However, the record for that rule does not contain information that would demonstrate that removing the existing regulatory requirement that all CCR units impose source control would meet the RCRA section 4004(a) protectiveness standard. These existing CCR requirements were established to address the well-documented risks associated with CCR units, as detailed in the risk assessment and the numerous damage cases in the rulemaking record.
The current regulations at § 257.90 require all CCR units, without exception, to comply with the groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements of §§ 257.90-257.98. The final CCR rule at § 257.91(a)(2) requires the installation of groundwater monitoring wells at the waste boundary of the CCR unit.
EPA is proposing to adopt a provision analogous to 40 CFR 258.50(b), which allows the Director of an approved participating state to suspend the groundwater monitoring requirements under § 258.51 through § 258.55 if the
(1) Site-specific field collected measurements, sampling, and analysis of physical, chemical, and biological processes affecting contaminant fate and transport, and
(2) Contaminant fate and transport predictions that maximize contaminant migration and consider impacts on human health and environment.
The Agency recognizes that certain hydrogeologic settings may preclude the migration of hazardous constituents from CCR disposal units to groundwater resources. Requiring groundwater monitoring in these settings would provide little or no additional protection to human health and the environment. Therefore, EPA is proposing to incorporate a nearly identical provision into the part 257 regulations. This would allow the Director of a participating state to suspend the groundwater monitoring requirements in § 257.91 through § 257.95 for a CCR unit upon demonstration by the owner or operator that there is no potential for migration of hazardous constituents from the unit to the uppermost aquifer during the active life, closure, or post-closure periods. However, the requirements of § 257.96 through § 257.98 would not be suspended. As discussed below, the provision being proposed for the part 257 regulations would be identical to that in the part 258 regulations with the exception for the requirement to periodically demonstrate that conditions have not changed, that is, there is still no migration of Appendix III or IV constituents from the CCR unit to the uppermost aquifer.
EPA recognizes it may be difficult for many facilities to meet the “no potential for migration” standard in the regulations. The suspension of monitoring requirements is intended only for those CCR units that are located in hydrogeologic settings in which hazardous constituents will not migrate to groundwater during the active life of the unit, closure, and post-closure periods. The Agency reminds readers that the “no migration” waiver has been a component of both the part 258 and the RCRA subtitle C groundwater monitoring programs for many years, and; based on its experience under these programs, the Agency expects that cases where these criteria are met will be rare.
The part 258 requirements allow the Director of a state program to establish the relevant point of compliance; in an unapproved state, the point of compliance is set by regulation at the waste management unit boundary. EPA does not believe the record for the part 258 requirements would support an alternative means for establishing the relevant point of compliance for CCR groundwater monitoring wells under RCRA section 4004(a). EPA requests comment on whether a State Director or EPA in a nonparticipating state, or an owner/operator subject to EPA oversight and public notice, could establish an alternative point of compliance consistent with the flexibility already allowed under the part 258 rules that would satisfy the standard of no reasonable probability of adverse effect on human health or the environment under section 4004(a).
In this action, EPA is not proposing to provide waivers from groundwater monitoring requirements except where the owner or operator in a participating state can demonstrate no potential for migration of hazardous constituents to the uppermost aquifer during the active life of the unit, closure, or post-closure periods. Consistent with the part 258 regulation, the Agency is proposing to allow this waiver only under the following conditions. EPA seeks comment on the use of each of these conditions. First, the suspension of groundwater monitoring requirements in § 257.91 through § 257.95 is available only for owners and operators of CCR units located in participating states or in those instances where EPA is the permitting authority. The Agency has limited the availability of the waiver because the Agency recognizes the need for the State to review a no-migration demonstration prior to granting a waiver from groundwater monitoring. However, the Agency seeks comment on an approach where a technical expert could make this demonstration (under the criteria described in the following paragraphs) and the facility could implement without the intervention of a permitting authority. In such an approach, the facility would keep records and post its determination on its web site and EPA would use the authorities in the WIIN act to oversee such a determination.
Second, the rule requires demonstrations of no potential for migration to be supported by both predictions that maximize contaminant migration and actual field data collected at the site. Field testing is necessary to establish the site's hydrogeological characteristics and must include an evaluation of unsaturated and saturated zone characteristics to ascertain the flow rate and pathway by which contaminants will migrate to groundwater. Any demonstration must be based on site-specific field measurements and sampling and analyses to determine the physical, chemical, and biological processes affecting the fate and transport of hazardous constituents. Site-specific information must include, at a minimum, the information necessary to evaluate or interpret the effects of the following properties or processes on contaminant fate and transport:
(1) Aquifer Characteristics, including hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient, effective porosity, aquifer thickness, degree of saturation, stratigraphy, degree of fracturing and secondary porosity of soils and bedrock, aquifer heterogeneity, groundwater discharge, and groundwater recharge areas;
(2) Waste Characteristics, including quantity, type, and origin;
(3) Climatic Conditions, including annual precipitation, leachate generation estimates, and effects on leachate quality;
(4) Leachate Characteristics, including leachate composition, solubility, density, the presence of immiscible constituents, Eh, and pH;
(5) Engineered Controls, including liners, cover systems, and aquifer controls (e.g., lowering the water table). These should be evaluated under design and failure conditions to estimate their long-term residual performance.
(6) Attenuation of contaminants in the subsurface, including adsorption/desorption reactions, ion exchange organic content of soil, soil water pH, and consideration of possible reactions causing chemical transformation or chelation.
(7) Microbiological Degradation, which may attenuate target compounds or cause transformations of compounds, potentially forming more toxic chemical species.
Modeling may also be useful for assessing and verifying the potential for migration of hazardous constituents. However, any models used should be based on actual field collected data to adequately predict potential groundwater contamination. When owners or operators prepare a no migration demonstration, they must use transport predictions that are based on the maximum contaminant migration (i.e., worst case scenario) both from the unit and through the subsurface media. Assumptions about variables affecting transport should be biased toward over
Third, the proposed rule would require the demonstrations to be certified by a qualified professional engineer and approved by the Director of a participating state to ensure that there is a high degree of confidence that no contamination will reach the uppermost aquifer.
Finally, the proposed rule would require the owner or operator of the CCR unit to make periodic demonstrations every 10 years in order to retain the suspension of groundwater monitoring. The Agency received comments on suspending the groundwater monitoring requirements for MSWLFs in part 258 that suggested EPA require periodic demonstrations every five or ten years. See, 56 FR 51061 (October 9, 1991). The Agency decided against requiring periodic demonstrations for MSWLFs because the demonstration required must be extremely rigorous and because of the additional costs associated with the continual reapplication for the suspension. As mentioned earlier in this proposed rulemaking, the statutory standard for the part 258 regulations is different than the standard for the CCR regulations: The CCR regulations are based on RCRA section 4004(a), which requires that the regulations ensure “there is no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment from disposal of solid waste at such facility.” 42 U.S.C. 6944(a). This is a risk-only standard. By contrast, EPA was authorized to “take into account the [facility's] practicable capability” in developing the part 258 regulations. 42 U.S.C. 6949a(c). Also, the part 258 regulations apply only to landfills, while the CCR regulations apply to both landfills and surface impoundments, the latter being of particular concern. Surface impoundments by their very nature pose a potential for releases to groundwater that is different than landfills (
Further guidance for conducting these evaluations can be found in the OSWER Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria Technical Manual for MSWLFs (EPA530-R-93-017, 1993) and the Ground-Water Monitoring Guidance Document for Owners and Operators of Interim Status Facilities (1983).
The current regulations at § 257.98(c)(2) require that facilities demonstrate that compliance with the groundwater protection standards (GWPS) established under § 257.95(h) have been achieved by monitoring results documenting that concentrations of constituents listed in Appendix IV to part 257 have not exceeded the groundwater protection standard(s) for a period of three consecutive years using the statistical procedures and performance standards in § 257.93(f) and (g). EPA is proposing to modify this by adopting a provision analogous to 40 CFR 258(e)(2). Both the part 258 regulation and the proposed § 257.98(c)(4) counterpart allow the Director of a participating state to specify an alternative length of time during which the owner or operator must demonstrate that concentrations of Appendix II to part 258 constituents (or in the case of the proposed part 257 counterpart, Appendix IV to part 257 constituents) have not exceeded the groundwater protection standard(s). Under the current part 258 regulations, the State must make this determination after taking into consideration: (1) The extent and concentration of the release(s); (2) behavior characteristics of the hazardous constituents in the groundwater; (3) accuracy of monitoring or modeling techniques, including any seasonal, meteorological, or other environmental variabilities that may affect the accuracy; and (4) characteristics of the groundwater.
When establishing an alternative compliance period, the proposed regulation would require a State to consider the following site-specific conditions under § 257.98(c)(4): (1) The extent and the concentration of the release; (2) the behavior characteristics (fate and transport) of the part 257 Appendix IV constituents in the groundwater (e.g., mobility, persistence, toxicity); (3) the accuracy of monitoring or modeling techniques, including any seasonal, geotechnical/geophysical, meteorological, or other environmental variabilities that may affect the accuracy; and (4) the characteristics of the groundwater (e.g., flow rate, pH). These are the same factors included in part 258; consideration of these factors will allow the State to set an appropriate time period for demonstrating compliance with the groundwater protection standards rather than relying on an arbitrary time period for all facilities or all situations at the same facility. In large part, EPA is relying on the longstanding experience with these criteria under part 258 for municipal solid waste landfills.
In summary, § 257.98(c)(2) and (4) of this proposal requires that the groundwater protection standard be achieved for a period of three consecutive years at all points within the plume of contamination unless an alternative period of time is established by a participating state. Those states may set an alternative period of compliance after taking site-specific conditions into consideration. In demonstrating compliance with the groundwater protection standard, the owner or operator would be required to use the statistical procedures in § 257.93.
The current regulations at § 257.104(c)(1) state that the owner or operator of a closed CCR unit must conduct post-closure care for 30 years unless at the end of the 30 years corrective action is on-going, or the CCR unit is operating under assessment monitoring, in which case the owner or operator must continue to conduct post-closure care until the unit has returned to detection monitoring.
EPA is proposing to adopt a provision analogous to 40 CFR 258.61(b), which allows the Director of a participating state to decrease the length of the post-closure care period if the owner or operator demonstrates that the reduced period is sufficient to protect human health and the environment and this demonstration is approved by the
The Agency is proposing this provision to account for situations where a 30-year post-closure care period may be inappropriate based on site-specific conditions. Overall, providing for variances in the post-closure care period in these states allows the flexibility to accommodate differences in geology, climate, topography, resources, demographics, etc. In all cases, however, these decisions must be reviewed carefully by the State to ensure units are monitored and maintained for as long as is necessary to protect human health and the environment.
In determining whether a revised post-closure care period is warranted, one critical factor is ensuring that the cover will continue to function effectively. EPA recognizes that no final cover, however well-constructed, will last forever. In 1988, EPA stated that “even the best liner and leachate collection system will ultimately fail due to natural deterioration . . . .”
Though this wear-out phase may take thousands of years, the wear-in phase for waste management unit covers is much shorter. In the context of CCR units, the wear-in phase of a closed unit would be due to imperfections in covers, either from a manufacturing defect or faulty installation. Manufacturing defects may include items such as pin holes, whereas faulty installation may be the result of a tear or failure to properly seal joints (Bonaparte et al, 1989).
Settlement resulting from factors, such as the gradual dissolution of more soluble components within the ash mixture, is also a potential issue. Depressions caused by settlement may lead to ponding and should be filled with soil. Excessive settlement may warrant reconstructing or adding to portions of the infiltration layer. Settlement can also damage the cover through tension cracks and tears in the synthetic membrane. For example, topographic surveys of the unit(s) may be used every few years until settlement behavior is established, to determine whether settlement has occurred.
Consequently, EPA is proposing to require that part of determining whether a shorter post-closure care period will protect human health and the environment, a state must ensure that the post-closure care period is long enough to detect such issues. This would require the state to consider not only the type of cover placed on the unit (
In addition, under the current CCR regulations, once detection monitoring yields a statistically significant increase above background levels of any Appendix III constituent, assessment monitoring is triggered, and the unit continues to be subject to the rule's post-closure care requirements so long as the CCR unit is operating under assessment monitoring. Section 257.104(c)(2). EPA is not proposing to amend this requirement, or to allow States to do so as part of this new provision. Thus, the State could not allow a facility to end the post-closure care period, once the detection of contamination above background triggers assessment monitoring. This would hold, even if the State had previously authorized a shorter post-closure care period. EPA is proposing to include language in this provision that clarifies how these two requirements interact.
To ensure that the RCRA subtitle D requirements would achieve the statutory standard of “no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health and the environment” in the absence of regulatory oversight, the current CCR regulations require facilities to obtain third party certifications and to provide enhanced state and public notifications of actions taken to comply with the regulatory requirements. Specifically, in the final CCR rule EPA required numerous technical demonstrations made by the owner or operator be certified by a qualified professional engineer (PE) in order to provide verification of the facility's technical judgments and to otherwise ensure that the provisions of the rule were properly applied. While EPA acknowledged that relying upon a third party certification was not the same as relying upon a state or federal regulatory authority and was not expected to provide the same level of independence as a state permit program, the availability of meaningful third party verification provided critical support that the rule would achieve the statutory standard, as it would provide a degree of control over a facility's discretion in implementing the rule. However, the situation has changed with the passage of the WIIN Act, which offers the opportunity for State oversight under an approved permit program. To reflect that, EPA is proposing to revise the regulations to allow the Director of a state with an approved CCR permit program (a participating state) to certify that the regulatory criteria have been met in lieu of the exclusive reliance on a qualified PE. EPA expects that States will generally rely on the expertise of its own engineers to evaluate whether the technical criteria have been met. Alternatively, States might choose to retain the required certification by a qualified PE and use its own expertise to evaluate that certification. Finally, EPA notes that under the existing regulations, a facility may already rely on a certification provided by a qualified PE in a State agency, who reviews the facility actions as part of a purely State-law mandated process. Thus, EPA is confident that the
EPA is proposing to revise the current regulations to allow the use of CCR in the construction of final cover systems for CCR units closing pursuant to § 257.101 that are closing with waste-in-place. EPA is also proposing specific criteria that the final cover system must meet in order to allow for the placement of CCR in the final cover system. EPA is proposing two performance standards: One that applies directly to facilities in any “non-participating state” and a second that applies to facilities that operate in states with an approved CCR permit program (“participating” state). Specifically, EPA is proposing to allow for the continued placement of CCR in units triggered for closure to construct a cover system under the following conditions: (1) Only CCR generated on-site may be used in the construction of the cover system; (2) CCR may be used exclusively for the purposes of grading and contouring of the cover system; (3) CCR must be placed within the vertical plane of the boundary of the unit; and (4) must be at either no steeper than a 5 percent grade or at a steeper grade, as determined by the Director of an approved program based on a stability analysis. These criteria are intended to ensure that the CCR utilized in construction of the final cover system does not exceed the necessary amount for grading and contouring.
The current CCR rules require that certain units must close for cause, as laid forth in § 257.101(a)-(c). As written, the regulation expressly prohibits “placing CCR” in any units required to close for-cause pursuant to § 257.101. This includes unlined CCR surface impoundments whose groundwater monitoring shows an exceedance of a groundwater protection standard (§ 257.101(a)(1)); existing CCR units that do not comply with the location criteria (§ 257.101(b)(1)); and CCR surface impoundments that are not designed and operated to achieve minimum safety factors (§ 257.101(b)(2) and (c)(1)). Note that the rule does not distinguish between placement that might be considered beneficial use and placement that might be considered disposal. All further placement of CCR into the unit is prohibited once the provisions of § 257.101 are triggered. By contrast, the regulations do not restrict further placement or use of CCR when the unit is closing under other provisions.
After publication of the final rule, EPA received numerous requests that EPA clarify whether use of CCR in completing the closure of a unit was permitted under the regulation, either as part of a closure plan or under the theory that such an activity was “beneficial use.” After evaluating the issue, EPA is proposing an exemption that would allow further placement of CCR in a CCR unit closing pursuant to § 257.101 for the purposes of construction of the final cover system. EPA is not proposing any other revisions to the existing closure requirements; therefore, owners and operators who choose to place CCR as part of the final cover system as part of closure “for cause” will still need to comply with all of the existing closure requirements in §§ 257.101-104.
EPA is proposing this revision because there are environmental and health benefits in allowing use of CCR in this fashion, and as discussed below in more detail, provided the conditions outlined in this rule are met, the existing information demonstrate that the use of CCR in this fashion would not measurably affect the risks from the unit. Allowing the use of on-site CCR in lieu of other material to construct the cover furthers the general goal in § 257.102(d)(1)(v) of closing as quickly as possible. As EPA identified in the final rule, the process for procuring at-specification earthen material in the volumes necessary for the final cover system construction can complicate completion of closure requirements within the required time frames. This was explicitly described as a factor that could support an extension of the closure deadlines under § 257.102(f)(2)(i)(C). Thus, this proposed revision is expected to allow facilities to complete closure more quickly, and accordingly realize reduced risks more quickly.
This proposal is a narrow modification of the § 257.101 prohibition on CCR placement, and contains four requirements to ensure that the use of CCR is to accelerate closure rather than merely allow the facility continue the disposal of CCR in a deficient unit. First, the material placed under this exemption must have been generated on-site and be present at the time of closure. Second, the material may only be used for the grading and contouring of the cover system, not to fill up a partially full unit. Third, the placement of the material must be within the boundary or the vertical plane of the boundary of the waste management unit. Finally, the material may only be used to construct a cover at either no steeper than a 5 percent grade or at a steeper grade, as determined by the Director of an approved program (or EPA where it is the permitting authority). Each of these requirements is discussed further below.
This proposal would not allow placement of CCR for the purposes of waste stabilization or to otherwise fill
EPA intends for this requirement to account for the preexisting topography in the area where the incised CCR unit was constructed. The owner or operator would be responsible for determining the preexisting topography of the CCR unit through means of historical documentation or by identifying the highest point of the perimeter of the excavated portion of the unit.
A primary purpose of a final cover system is to encourage free surface drainage in order to limit infiltration from precipitation into the underlying waste. CCR units with incised portions can present an issue with free drainage of liquids because much of the unit is located below the surrounding grade and does not allow for drainage by gravity,
For all other units, including CCR surface impoundments that consist of a diked portion,
These requirements are designed to establish clear and objective geometric boundaries for the permissible placement of CCR. With these two performance standards, EPA is effectively establishing a “lowest bound” plane; placement below that elevation would be considered to be disposal, and would still be prohibited. EPA is also proposing to establish an upper bound to ensure that only the amount of CCR necessary for grading and contouring is used. The “upper bound” is represented by the maximum final grade of the final cover system of 1:20,
Collectively, these criteria are designed to ensure owners and operators place only the amount of CCR necessary to achieve adequate grading and contouring for free drainage.
For example, this proposal would not allow the owner or operator to raise the breached invert elevation and place CCR material above the previously placed “waste-in-place” CCR and effectively raise the invert elevation for drainage. EPA intends for the final level of CCR within the CCR unit to essentially be the ultimate height of the surface of the final cover system, with allowance for limited addition of material to ensure effective drainage from the unit. EPA does not intend for this proposal to allow the facility to unnecessarily raise the invert elevation of the breached portion of the embankment, as a means of further disposal of CCR in the interim space between initial invert and adjusted invert elevations.
However, in rare instances it may be possible that a cover requires a steeper grade. Consequently, EPA is proposing that the Director of a participating state may approve a grade steeper than 5 percent in a permit if such a grade is necessary for the proper function of the cover system. To support a steeper grade, a stability analysis must be performed to evaluate possible erosion potential. A stability analysis looks at the ability of soil to resist sliding on itself on the slope. The analysis, at a minimum, must evaluate: (1) The site geology, (2) characterize soil shear strength, (3) construct a slope stability model, (4) establish groundwater and seepage conditions, if any, (5) select loading conditions, (6) locate critical
Finally, EPA recently issued an interpretation that under the current regulations, the prohibition on the placement a unit closing for cause did not preclude the movement of additional wastes (stormwater and associated/accompanying CCR) between the units that operate as part of a multiunit treatment system. The current regulations allow the facility to treat such units as a single unit. See,
EPA has not determined whether allowing such a practice meets the statutory standard, and is therefore soliciting comment on two potential alternatives. Under one approach EPA would rely on its longstanding interpretation to allow the consolidation of CCR from units operating within a multi-unit system, when the facility treats the system as a single unit for purposes of closure (
U.S. EPA (2009)
As seen in the table above, the groundwater to drinking water exposure pathway had more input parameters that were highly sensitive (seven) than the groundwater to surface water exposure pathways (three). The most sensitive parameters for the groundwater to drinking water pathways were parameters that impact flux (infiltration rate and leachate concentration) and groundwater flow (hydraulic conductivity and gradient). When modeling strongly sorbing constituents, the K
Depth to groundwater was a sensitive parameter for strongly sorbing constituents. However, the sensitivity analysis did not find total waste depth (
The risks EPA sought to further evaluate were those from surface impoundments closed for cause with waste in place. In Appendix K of the final risk assessment, EPA modeled dewatered surface impoundments post-closure with waste in place as
EPA used the probabilistic model inputs for waste depth to calculate 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile waste depths. These cutoffs were used to filter the model runs into four quartiles. For each quartile EPA calculated a 90th percentile As(III) cancer risk. Below are the As(III) cancer risk results EPA obtained when filtering the landfill risk results for the depth of the waste. As waste depth changed, EPA did not see significant changes in risk for any liner type. This confirms the findings of the sensitivity analysis where depth was not shown to be a sensitive parameter.
EPA also notes that the volume of infiltration from precipitation relative to the volume of waste present in a unit is very small. This would lead to a low liquid-to-solid (L/S) ratio for water passing through landfills and dewatered surface impoundments. The low L/S ratio ensures that the leachate is saturated with constituent mass before it exits the bottom of the landfill or surface impoundment. Because the leachate is in equilibrium with the waste, the addition of more mass would not further increase leachate concentrations. Instead, the increased total mass would affect the time necessary for constituent mass to fully deplete from the waste. A majority of the model runs for arsenic already reached a steady state concentration at the well within the modeled timeframe. Therefore, an increase in leaching duration would not substantially alter long-term risks.
The addition of larger volumes of ash for purposes other than expediting closure would result in a greater amount of time without a cap and other appropriate controls in place. This would result in greater opportunity for precipitation to infiltrate into the unit prior to closure. The additional volume of water would increase the hydraulic head within the unit and, ultimately, the rate of infiltration down to the groundwater table. EPA identified infiltration to groundwater as one of the most sensitive variables when modeling risks. Thus, EPA concludes that the addition of ash for purposes other than expediting closure has the potential to increase the transport of constituent mass to groundwater and the associated risks.
Under this proposal, utilities could add ash to construct the cover system for closure of a unit for the purpose of achieving the necessary grade to safely close with waste in place. A review of both the 2009 sensitivity analysis and the final risk assessment found that the comparatively minor addition of CCR mass applied solely for grading purposes would not alter potential risks to receptors. Therefore, EPA finds that the use of ash for grading would remain protective of human health and the environment.
EPA estimated the costs and benefits of this action in a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) which is available in the docket for this action. The RIA estimates costs and cost savings attributable to the provisions of this action against the baseline costs and cost savings of the 2015 CCR final rule. The RIA estimates that the net annualized impact of these eleven provisions over a 100 year period of analysis will be cost savings of between $32 million and $100 million when discounting at 7 percent and cost savings between $25 million and $76 million when discounting at 3 percent. This action is considered an economically significant action under Executive Order 12866.
The universe of affected entities for this rule consists of the same entities affected by EPA's 2015 CCR final rule. These entities are coal-fired electricity generating plants operated by the electric utility industry. They can be identified by their North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) designation 221112 “Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation”. The RIA estimates that there are 414 coal-fired electricity generating plants operating 922 CCR management units (landfills, disposal impoundments, and storage impoundments) that will be affected by this rule.
The baseline costs for this rule are the costs of compliance with EPA's 2015 CCR final rule, as the provisions of this rule modify the provisions of the 2015 CCR final rule or modify the implementation of the 2015 CCR rule by WIIN Act participating states. The RIA for the 2015 CCR final rule estimated these costs at an annualized $509 million when discounting at 7 percent and an annualized $735 million when discounting at 3 percent.
The RIA estimates costs and costs savings for the four proposals associated with the 2015 CCR rule judicial remand as well as the six alternative performance standards that will apply in participating states under the WIIN Act, and the use CCR during certain closure situations. The RIA estimates that the net annualized impact of these eleven provisions over a 100 year period of analysis will be an annualized cost savings of between $32 million and $100 million when discounting at 7 percent, and an annualized cost savings of between $25 million and $76 million when discounting at 3 percent.
The RIA also estimates potential adjustments to the baseline costs of the CCR final rule due to plant closures that occurred after the rule was published but before the effective date of the rule. The RIA accompanying the 2015 CCR final rule assigned compliance costs to these plants, which they are exempt from because they closed before the final rule's effective date. In all, 23 plants closed before the effective date of the final rule that were not accounted for in 2015 final rule RIA. The annualized compliance costs avoided for these plants equals between $22 million and $25 million per year when discounting at 7 percent and between $22 million and $31 million when
EPA is soliciting comments on the following aspects of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. The Agency is soliciting comment primarily on the assumptions and the data sources used in the analysis.
• Do you have information that would refine the RIA assumptions about the number of facilities both in and serving affected NERC regions that would request alternative closure under Additional Provision 1 (the amendment discussed in Unit III.D of this preamble)?
• Do you have information that would refine the RIA assumption that facilities seeking alternative closure requirements under Additional Provision 1 (the amendment discussed in Unit III.D of this preamble) would delay closure by five years (the maximum allowed under the rule)?
• Do you have information that would refine the RIA assumptions about the maximum or minimum number of states that would likely adopt alternative performance standards under the WIIN Act?
• Do you have information that would refine the RIA assumptions about the changes in total corrective action costs for a release due to the Alternative Performance Standard 1 (the amendment discussed in Unit IV.A of this preamble)?
• Do you have information that would refine the RIA assumptions about the total number of CCR units that may avoid corrective action costs due to the Alternative Performance Standard 2 (the amendment discussed in Unit IV.B of this preamble)?
• Do you have information that would refine the RIA assumptions about the number of units that will receive a “no migration” waiver under Alternative Performance Standard 3 (the amendment discussed in Unit IV.C of this preamble)?
• Do you have information that would refine the RIA assumption that states adopting Alternative Performance Standard 4 (the amendment discussed in Unit IV.D of this preamble) would on average reduce the post-remedy monitoring from three years to one year?
• Do you have information that would refine the RIA assumption that states adopting Alternative Performance Standard 5 (the amendment discussed in Unit IV.E of this preamble) would on average reduce the period from 30 years to five years?
• Do you have information that would refine the RIA assumptions about the total number of CCR units that would use CCR as allowed under Additional Provision 2 (the amendment discussed in Unit IV.G of this preamble)?
• Do you have information that would refine the RIA assumptions about the average annual number of CCR units closing (RIA page 4-14)?
• Do you have information that would refine the RIA assumptions about the estimated tonnage of CCR that could be used for closure (RIA page 4-14)?
• Do you have information that would refine the RIA description and estimates of impacts related to interactions among CCR Remand Rule provisions (RIA pp. 5-1 through 5-3)?
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), entitled
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1189.27, OMB control number 2050-0053. This is an amendment to the ICR approved by OMB for the Final Rule: Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities published April 17, 2015 in the
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 OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. The costs involved in this action are imposed only by participation in a voluntary federal program. UMRA generally excludes from the definition of “federal intergovernmental mandate” duties that arise from participation in a voluntary federal program.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. For the “Final Rule: Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities” published April 17, 2015 in the
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in the document titled “Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Residuals” which is available in the docket for the final rule as docket item EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-11993.
As ordered by EO 13045 Section 1-101(a), for the “Final Rule: Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities” published April 17, 2015 in the
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. For the 2015 CCR rule, EPA analyzed the potential impact on electricity prices relative to the “in excess of one percent” threshold. Using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM), EPA concluded that the 2015 CCR Rule may increase the weighted average nationwide wholesale price of electricity between 0.18 percent and 0.19 percent in the years 2020 and 2030, respectively. As the proposed rule represents a cost savings rule relative to the 2015 CCR rule, this analysis concludes that any potential impact on wholesale electricity prices will be lower than the potential impact estimated of the 2015 CCR rule; therefore, this proposed rule is not expected to meet the criteria of a “significant adverse effect” on the electricity markets as defined by Executive Order 13211.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the CCR rule which is available in the docket for the 2015 CCR final rule as docket item EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-12034.
EPA's risk assessment did not separately evaluate either minority or low income populations. However, to evaluate the demographic characteristics of communities that may be affected by the CCR rule, the RIA compares the demographic characteristics of populations surrounding coal-fired electric utility
For the population as a whole 24.8 percent belong to a minority group and 11.3 percent falls below the Federal Poverty Level. For the population living within one mile of plants with surface impoundments 16.1 percent belong to a minority group and 13.2 percent live below the Federal Poverty Level. These minority and low-income populations are not disproportionately high compared to the general population. The percentage of minority residents of the entire population living within the catchment areas downstream of surface impoundments is disproportionately high relative to the general population,
Comparing the population percentages of minority and low income residents within one mile of landfills to those percentages in the general population, EPA found that minority and low-income residents make up a smaller percentage of the populations near landfills than they do in the general population,
The CCR rule is risk-reducing with reductions in risk occurring largely within the surface water catchment zones around, and groundwater beneath, coal-fired electric utility plants. Since the CCR rule is risk-reducing and this action does not add to risks, this action will not result in new disproportionate risks to minority or low-income populations.
Environmental protection, Beneficial use, Coal combustion products, Coal combustion residuals, Coal combustion waste, Disposal, Hazardous waste, Landfill, Surface impoundment.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6907(a)(3), 6912(a)(1), 6944(a), 6945(d); 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(1) The vegetation develops shallow roots which both do not penetrate the slopes or pertinent surrounding areas of the CCR unit to a substantial depth and do not introduce the potential of internal erosion or risk of uprooting; and
(2) The vegetation creates a continuous dense cover that prevents erosion and deterioration of the surface of the slope or pertinent surrounding areas, thereby preventing deterioration of the surface.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) The slopes and pertinent surrounding areas of the CCR unit must be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained with one of the forms of slope protection specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section that meets all of the performance standards of paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section.
(i) Slope protection must consist of one of the following:
(A) A vegetative cover consisting of grassy vegetation;
(B) An engineered cover consisting of a single form or combination of forms of engineered slope protection measures; or
(C) A combination of the forms of cover specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A) or (a)(4)(i)(B) of this section.
(ii) Any form of cover for slope protection must meet all of the following performance standards:
(A) The cover must be installed and maintained on the slopes and pertinent surrounding areas of the CCR unit;
(B) The cover must provide protection against surface erosion, wave action, and adverse effects of rapid drawdown;
(C) The cover must be maintained to allow for the observation of and access to the slopes and pertinent surrounding areas during routine and emergency events;
(D) Woody vegetation must be removed from the slopes or pertinent surrounding areas. Any removal of woody vegetation with a diameter greater than
(E) The vegetative height of grassy and woody vegetation must not exceed 12 inches.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Slope protection consistent with the requirements under paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) The slopes and pertinent surrounding areas of the CCR unit must be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained with one of the forms of slope protection specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section that meets all of the performance standards of paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section.
(i) Slope protection must consist of one of the following:
(A) A vegetative cover consisting of grassy vegetation;
(B) An engineered cover consisting of a single form or combination of forms of engineered slope protection measures; or
(C) A combination of the forms of cover specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A) or (a)(4)(i)(B) of this section.
(ii) Any form of cover for slope protection must meet all of the following performance standards:
(A) The cover must be installed and maintained on the slopes and pertinent surrounding areas of the CCR unit;
(B) The cover must provide protection against surface erosion, wave action, and adverse effects of rapid drawdown;
(C) The cover must be maintained to allow for the observation of and access to the slopes and pertinent surrounding areas during routine and emergency events;
(D) Woody vegetation must be removed from the slopes or pertinent surrounding areas. Any removal of woody vegetation with a diameter greater than
(E) The vegetative height of grassy and woody vegetation must not exceed 12 inches.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Slope protection consistent with the requirements under paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(b) * * *
(5) If a deficiency or release is identified during an inspection, the owner or operator must remedy the deficiency or release in accordance with applicable requirements in §§ 257.96 through 257.99.
(b) * * *
(5) If a deficiency or release is identified during an inspection, the owner or operator must remedy the deficiency or release in accordance with applicable requirements in §§ 257.96 through 257.99.
(a) All CCR landfills, CCR surface impoundments, and lateral expansions of CCR units are subject to the groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements under §§ 257.90 through 257.99, except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section.
(d) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with all applicable
(g)
(i) Site-specific field collected measurements, sampling, and analysis of physical, chemical, and biological processes affecting contaminant fate and transport; and
(ii) Contaminant fate and transport predictions that maximize contaminant migration and consider impacts on human health and the environment.
(2) The owner or operator of the CCR unit may secure an additional ten years for the suspension of the groundwater monitoring requirements provided the owner or operator provides written documentation that there continues to be no potential for migration of the constituents listed in appendices III and IV to this part. The documentation must be supported by, at a minimum, the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this section and must be certified by a qualified professional engineer and approved by the State Director. The owner or operator must submit the documentation of their re-demonstration for the state's review and approval of their extension one year before their groundwater monitoring suspension is due to expire. If the existing groundwater monitoring extension expires, the owner or operator must begin groundwater monitoring according to paragraph (a) of this section within 90 days. The owner or operator may obtain additional ten-year groundwater monitoring suspensions provided the owner or operator continues to make the written demonstration. The owner or operator must place each completed demonstration, if more than one ten-year suspension period is sought, in the facility's operating record.
(h) * * *
(2) For constituents for which an MCL has not been established, the background concentration for the constituent established from wells in accordance with § 257.91, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this section; or
(j) The State Director of a participating state may establish an alternative groundwater protection standard for constituents listed in appendix IV to this part for which MCLs have not been established.
(1) The alternative groundwater protection standards must be appropriate health-based levels that are protective of potential receptors (both human and ecological) and satisfy all of the following criteria:
(i) The alternative groundwater protection standard is at a level derived in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines for assessing the health risks of environmental pollutants, including “Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures”, “Guidelines for Developmental Toxicity Risk Assessment”, and “Reference Dose, (RfD): Description and Use in Health Risk Assessments” (incorporated by reference);
(ii) The alternative groundwater protection standard is at a level based on scientifically valid studies conducted in accordance with the Toxic Substances Control Act Good Laboratory Practice Standards (40 CFR part 792) or equivalent; and
(iii) For systemic toxicants, the level represents a concentration to which the human population could be exposed to on a daily basis that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime; this must be the level that ensures a Hazard Quotient no greater than 1. For purposes of this subpart, systemic toxicants are toxic chemicals that cause effects other than cancer.
(2) In establishing alternative groundwater protection standards under paragraph (j)(1) of this section, the State Director may consider the following:
(i) Multiple contaminants in the groundwater;
(ii) Exposure threats to sensitive environmental receptors; and
(iii) Other site-specific exposure or potential exposure to groundwater.
(3) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must document in the annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action report required by § 257.90(e) or § 257.100(e)(5)(ii) the constituent(s) and level(s) for which an alternative groundwater protection standard has been established by the State Director.
(f) The State Director of a participating state may determine that remediation of a release of a constituent listed in appendix IV to this part from a CCR unit is not necessary if the owner or operator demonstrates to the satisfaction of the State Director that:
(1) The groundwater is additionally contaminated by substances that have originated from a source other than a CCR unit and those substances are present in concentrations such that cleanup of the release from the CCR unit would provide no significant reduction in risk to actual or potential receptors; or
(2) The constituent(s) is present in groundwater that:
(i) Is not currently or reasonably expected to be a source of drinking water; and
(ii) Is not hydraulically connected with waters to which the constituent(s) is migrating or are likely to migrate in a concentration(s) that would exceed the groundwater protection standards established under § 257.95(h) or (i); or
(3) Remediation of the release(s) is technically impracticable; or
(4) Remediation results in unacceptable cross-media impacts.
(g) A determination by the Director of approved participating state pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section shall not affect the requirement under § 257.90(d) and § 257.97(b) for the owner or operator to undertake source control measures or other measures (including closure if triggered) that may be necessary to eliminate or minimize further releases to the groundwater, to prevent exposure to the groundwater, or to remediate the groundwater to concentrations that are technically feasible and significantly reduce threats to human health or the environment.
(c) Remedies selected pursuant to § 257.97 shall be considered complete when:
(1) The owner or operator of the CCR unit demonstrates compliance with the groundwater protection standards established under § 257.95(h) has been achieved at all points within the plume of contamination that lie beyond the groundwater monitoring well system established under § 257.91;
(2) Except as provided by paragraph (c)(4) of this section, compliance with the groundwater protection standards established under § 257.95(h) has been achieved by demonstrating that concentrations of constituents listed in appendix IV to this part have not exceeded the groundwater protection standard(s) for a period of three consecutive years using the statistical procedures and performance standards in § 257.93(f) and (g); and
(3) All actions required to complete the remedy have been satisfied.
(4) The Director of a participating state may specify an alternative length of time to that specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section during which the owner or operator must demonstrate that concentrations of constituents listed in appendix IV to this part have not exceeded the groundwater protection standard(s) taking into consideration:
(i) Extent and concentration of the release(s);
(ii) Behavior characteristics of the constituents in the groundwater;
(iii) Accuracy of monitoring or modeling techniques, including any seasonal, meteorological, or other environmental variabilities that may affect the accuracy; and
(iv) Characteristics of the groundwater.
(a)
(b)
(1) Meet the requirement in § 257.90(d) to “immediately take all necessary measures to control the source(s) of releases so as to reduce or eliminate, to the maximum extent feasible, further releases of contaminants into the environment;”
(2)(i) Determine the corrective measures that will meet the substantive standards in §§ 257.96(a) to prevent further releases, to remediate any releases and to restore the affected area to original conditions; and
(ii) Analyze the effectiveness of potential corrective measures in meeting all of the requirements and objectives of the remedy as described in § 257.96(c);
(3) Select the corrective action that will remedy the non-groundwater release, taking into account, at a minimum, the results of the assessment in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section and the factors specified in § 257.97(c); and
(4) Remediate the non-groundwater release to meet the standards specified in § 257.97(b)(1), (3), (4), and (5).
(5) Complete remedy within 180 days of the date of discovery of the release.
(c)
(1) Within 15 days of discovering a non-groundwater release, the owner or operator must prepare a notification of discovery of a non-groundwater release. The owner or operator has completed the notification when it has been placed in the facility's operating record as required by § 257.105(h)(15).
(2) Within 15 days of completing the analysis of the effectiveness of potential corrective measures as required by paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, place the completed analysis in the facility's operating record.
(3) Within 30 days of completion of a corrective action of a non-groundwater release, the owner or operator must prepare a report documenting the completion of the corrective action. The report must, at a minimum, describe the nature and extent of the non-groundwater release, the CCR unit(s) responsible for the non-groundwater release, and how the remedy selected achieves the corrective action requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section. The notification must include a certification by a qualified professional engineer that the corrective action has been completed in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. The owner or operator has completed the notification when it has been placed in the facility's operating record as required by § 257.105(h)(16).
(d) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping requirements specified in § 257.105(h), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(h), and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(h).
(d) * * *
(4)
(A) A determination by the Director of a participating state that the criteria in paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section have been met; or
(B) The certification by a qualified professional engineer that the criteria in (d)(4)(ii) of this section have been met, as required in paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section.
(ii)
(A) The owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to § 257.101 may continue to place CCR in the unit after initiating closure in order to construct the final cover system required under paragraph (d)(3) of this section but only for the following activities:
(B) The owner or operator of a CCR unit must meet all of the following criteria when placing CCR within a CCR unit for the purposes of grading or contouring:
(iii) If required by paragraph (d)(4)(i)(B) of this section, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must also include in the notification required by § 257.102(h) a certification by a qualified professional that the CCR unit was closed in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
The owner or operator of a CCR landfill, CCR surface impoundment, or any lateral expansion of a CCR unit that is subject to closure pursuant to § 257.101(a), (b)(1), or (d) may continue to receive CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams in the unit provided the owner or operator meets the requirements of either paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of this section.
(b)
(i) No alternative disposal capacity is available. An increase in costs or the inconvenience of existing capacity is not sufficient to support qualification under this section;
(ii) The owner or operator has made, and continues to make, efforts to obtain additional capacity. Qualification under this subsection requires that efforts to obtain additional capacity were made at the earliest date that an owner or operator knew, or had reason to know, that such a unit may become subject to closure under § 257.101(a), (b)(1), or (d). Qualification under this subsection lasts only as long as no alternative capacity is available. Once alternative capacity is identified, the owner or operator must arrange to use such capacity as soon as feasible;
(iii) The owner or operator must certify that the facility generating any wastestream that continues to be placed into a CCR unit pursuant to this section would need to cease generating power and is located in or regularly provides the majority of generated electricity to, one of the following three North American Electric Reliability Corporation regions and sub-regions: the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council-East, and/or the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council-North;
(iv) The owner or operator must remain in compliance with all other requirements of this subpart, including the requirement to conduct any necessary corrective action; and
(v) The owner or operator must prepare an annual progress report documenting the continued lack of alternative capacity and the progress towards the development of alternative capacity for the given wastestream.
(2) Once alternative capacity is available for a given wastestream, the CCR unit must cease receiving that wastestream, and in the case that alternate capacity has been found for all wastestreams, the facility must initiate closure of the CCR unit following the timeframes in § 257.102(e) and (f).
(3) If no alternative capacity is identified within five years after the initial certification as required under (b)(1) of this section, the CCR unit must cease receiving all wastestreams and close in accordance with the timeframes in § 257.102(e) and (f).
(d)
(i) No alternative capacity is available. An increase in costs or the inconvenience of existing capacity is not sufficient to support qualification under this section.
(ii) The owner or operator must certify that the facility is located in or regularly provides the majority of generated electricity to one of the following three North American Electric Reliability Corporation regions and sub-regions: The Midcontinent Independent System Operator, the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council-East, and/or the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council-North.
(iii) The owner or operator must remain in compliance with all other requirements of this subpart, including the requirement to conduct any necessary corrective action; and
(iv) The owner or operator must prepare an annual progress report documenting the continued lack of alternative capacity and the progress towards the closure of the coal-fired boiler.
(2) For a CCR surface impoundment that is 40 acres or smaller, the coal-fired boiler must cease operation and the CCR surface impoundment must have
(3) For a CCR surface impoundment that is larger than 40 acres, the coal-fired boiler must cease operation, and the CCR surface impoundment must complete closure no later than October 17, 2028.
(c)
(2) If at the end of the post-closure care period the owner or operator of the CCR unit is operating under assessment monitoring in accordance with § 257.95, the owner or operator must continue to conduct post-closure care until the owner or operator returns to detection monitoring in accordance with § 257.95.
(3)(i) The Director of a participating state may establish an alternate post-closure period upon a determination that the alternate period is sufficient to protect human health and the environment.
(ii) To reduce the post closure care period, the Director must ensure that the post-closure care period is long enough to establish settlement behavior and to detect to wear-in defects in the cover system. At a minimum, the Director must consider the type of cover placed on the unit (
(iii) A determination that a reduced post-closure care period is warranted does not affect the obligation to comply with paragraph (b) of this section.
(h) * * *
(14) The demonstration, including long-term performance data, supporting the suspension of groundwater monitoring requirements as required by § 257.90(g).
(15) The notification of discovery of a non-groundwater release as required by § 257.99(c)(1).
(16) The report documenting the completion of the corrective action as required by § 257.99(c)(2).
(i) * * *
(14) The demonstration, including long-term performance data supporting the reduced post-closure care period as required by § 257.104(c)(3).
(h) * * *
(11) Provide the demonstration supporting the suspension of groundwater monitoring requirements specified under § 257.105(h)(14).
(12) Provide notification of discovery of a non-groundwater release specified under § 257.105(h)(15).
(13) Provide notification of the availability of the report documenting the completion of the corrective action specified under § 257.105(h)(16).
(i) * * *
(14) Provide the demonstration supporting the reduced post-closure care period specified under § 257.105(i)(14).
(h) * * *
(11) The demonstration supporting the suspension of groundwater monitoring requirements specified under § 257.105(h)(14).
(12) The notification of discovery of a non-groundwater release specified under § 257.105(h)(15).
(13) The report documenting the completion of the corrective action specified under § 257.105(h)(16).
(i) * * *
(14) The demonstration supporting the reduced post-closure care period specified under § 257.105(i)(14).
(b) The Secretary shall continue to monitor imports of aluminum articles and shall, from time to time, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the USTR, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to
(b) The Secretary shall continue to monitor imports of steel articles and shall, from time to time, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the USTR, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and such other senior Executive Branch officials as the Secretary deems appropriate, review the status of such imports with respect to the national security. The Secretary shall inform the President of any circumstances that in the Secretary's opinion might indicate the need for further action by the President under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended. The Secretary shall also inform the President of any circumstance that in the Secretary's opinion might indicate that the increase in duty rate provided for in this proclamation is no longer necessary.
(b) Provisions of law, other than section 721 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701
(a) The proposed takeover of Qualcomm by the Purchaser is prohibited, and any substantially equivalent merger, acquisition, or takeover, whether effected directly or indirectly, is also prohibited.
(b) All 15 individuals listed as potential candidates on the Form of Blue Proxy Card filed by Broadcom and Broadcom Corporation with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2018 (together, the Candidates), are hereby disqualified from standing for election as directors of Qualcomm. Qualcomm is prohibited from accepting the nomination of or votes for any of the Candidates.
(c) The Purchaser shall uphold its proxy commitments to those Qualcomm stockholders who have returned their final proxies to the Purchaser, to the extent consistent with this order.
(d) Qualcomm shall hold its annual stockholder meeting no later than 10 days following the written notice of the meeting provided to stockholders under Delaware General Corporation Law, Title 8, Chapter 1, Subchapter VII, section 222(b), and that notice shall be provided as soon as possible.
(e) The Purchaser and Qualcomm shall immediately and permanently abandon the proposed takeover. Immediately upon completion of all steps necessary to terminate the proposed takeover of Qualcomm, the Purchaser and Qualcomm shall certify in writing to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) that such termination has been effected in accordance with this order and that all steps necessary to fully and permanently abandon the proposed takeover of Qualcomm have been completed.
(f) From the date of this order until the Purchaser and Qualcomm provide a certification of termination of the proposed takeover to CFIUS pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, the Purchaser and Qualcomm shall certify to CFIUS on a weekly basis that they are in compliance with this order and include a description of efforts to fully and permanently abandon the proposed takeover of Qualcomm and a timeline for projected completion of remaining actions.
(g) Any transaction or other device entered into or employed for the purpose of, or with the effect of, avoiding or circumventing this order is prohibited.
(h) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstances, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstances, is held to be invalid because of the lack of certain procedural requirements, the relevant executive branch officials shall implement those procedural requirements.
(i) This order supersedes the Interim Order issued by CFIUS on March 4, 2018.
(j) The Attorney General is authorized to take any steps necessary to enforce this order.
(b) I hereby direct the Secretary of the Treasury to transmit a copy of this order to Qualcomm and Broadcom.
| 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 |