| Page Range | 15019-15289 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 15289 - Delegation of Authorities Under Section 3136 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 83 FR 15179 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 15177 - Sunshine Act Meetings: National Science Board | |
| 83 FR 15191 - Notice of Opportunity: Criteria and Application Procedures for the Military Airport Program (MAP). | |
| 83 FR 15189 - Union Pacific Railroad Company-Abandonment Exemption-in McLennan County, Tex. | |
| 83 FR 15155 - International Drug Scheduling; Convention on Psychotropic Substances; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; Cannabis Plant and Resin; Extracts and Tinctures of Cannabis; Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol; Stereoisomers of Tetrahydrocannabinol; Cannabidiol; Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 15190 - Union Pacific Railroad Company-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in McLennan County, Tex. | |
| 83 FR 15131 - Request for Information Regarding Bureau Financial Education Programs | |
| 83 FR 15054 - Removal of the Office of the United States Trade Representative Rules Concerning Classification and Safeguarding of National Security Information | |
| 83 FR 15168 - Solicitation of Appointment Nominations to the Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 15165 - Meeting of the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group | |
| 83 FR 15074 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Missouri; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference; Correcting Amendments | |
| 83 FR 15067 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Jersey City, NJ | |
| 83 FR 15178 - Guidance for Developing Principal Design Criteria for Non-Light Water Reactors | |
| 83 FR 15133 - National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality Integrity; Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15125 - Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 15091 - Proposed Establishment of the Upper Hudson Viticultural Area | |
| 83 FR 15177 - Proposal Review Panel for International Science and Engineering; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15177 - Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15219 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 83 FR 15198 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 83 FR 15212 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 83 FR 15201 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing | |
| 83 FR 15138 - Application To Export Electric Energy; Emera Energy Services Subsidiaries | |
| 83 FR 15180 - New Postal Product | |
| 83 FR 15136 - Application To Export Electric Energy; Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. | |
| 83 FR 15137 - Application To Export Electric Energy; Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. | |
| 83 FR 15137 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Supercritical CO2 | |
| 83 FR 15096 - Special Local Regulation; Chesapeake Bay, between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD | |
| 83 FR 15143 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 15143 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 83 FR 15129 - Certain Uncoated Paper From Indonesia: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2017 | |
| 83 FR 15129 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Cast Iron Soil Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination | |
| 83 FR 15127 - Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 15213 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 83 FR 15221 - Hours of Service of Drivers: National Tank Truck Carriers and Massachusetts Motor Transportation Association; Application for Exemption | |
| 83 FR 15233 - General Motors LLC, Receipt of Third Petition for Inconsequentiality and Notice of Consolidation | |
| 83 FR 15216 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 83 FR 15214 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 83 FR 15195 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 83 FR 15232 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 83 FR 15225 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 83 FR 15223 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 83 FR 15202 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 83 FR 15222 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal of a Currently-Approved Information Collection Request: Application for Certificate of Registration for Foreign Motor Carriers and Foreign Motor Private Carriers | |
| 83 FR 15176 - Arts Advisory Panel Meetings | |
| 83 FR 15162 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request; NURSE Corps Loan Repayment Program, OMB #0915-0140-Revision | |
| 83 FR 15164 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; Telehealth Resource Center Performance Measurement Tool, OMB No. 0915-0361, Revision | |
| 83 FR 15236 - Art Advisory Panel-Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15237 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee | |
| 83 FR 15236 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee | |
| 83 FR 15194 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Wittman Regional Airport | |
| 83 FR 15237 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee | |
| 83 FR 15195 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Southern Utah University | |
| 83 FR 15236 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee | |
| 83 FR 15175 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: United States | |
| 83 FR 15237 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee | |
| 83 FR 15176 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: AMRI Rensselaer, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 15237 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee | |
| 83 FR 15238 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee | |
| 83 FR 15065 - Paternity Claims and Adoption Proceedings Involving Members and Former Members of the Armed Forces | |
| 83 FR 15126 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 15065 - Special Local Regulation; Wy-Hi Rowing Regatta, Detroit River, Trenton Channel, Wyandotte, MI | |
| 83 FR 15168 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0101 | |
| 83 FR 15167 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0081 | |
| 83 FR 15159 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Petition To Request an Exemption From 100 Percent Identity Testing of Dietary Ingredients: Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements | |
| 83 FR 15089 - Aker BioMarine; Filing of Color Additive Petition | |
| 83 FR 15153 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Medical Products and Dietary Supplements During an Influenza Pandemic | |
| 83 FR 15158 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Labeling Natural Rubber Latex Condoms | |
| 83 FR 15154 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Prominent and Conspicuous Mark of Manufacturers on Single-Use Devices | |
| 83 FR 15161 - Pregnant Women: Scientific and Ethical Considerations for Inclusion in Clinical Trials; Draft Guidance; Availability | |
| 83 FR 15157 - Atopic Dermatitis: Timing of Pediatric Studies During Development of Systemic Drugs; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 15125 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 15133 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 15148 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 15152 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approvals | |
| 83 FR 15147 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing, Form FDA 2830 | |
| 83 FR 15189 - 60-day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration | |
| 83 FR 15191 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 83 FR 15194 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 83 FR 15238 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Monthly Certification of On-The-Job and Apprenticeship Training | |
| 83 FR 15141 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications Public Notice | |
| 83 FR 15139 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 15140 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 15142 - Notice of Authorization for Continued Project Operation; Wisconsin Public Service Corporation | |
| 83 FR 15139 - Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Questar Southern Trail Pipeline Company Southern Trail Pipeline Abandonment Project; Navajo Tribal Utility Authority | |
| 83 FR 15170 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Did You Feel It? Earthquake Questionnaire | |
| 83 FR 15117 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area | |
| 83 FR 15175 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-UHD Alliance, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 15143 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 15146 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 15144 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 15171 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Documented Petitions for Federal Acknowledgment as an Indian Tribe | |
| 83 FR 15172 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Reindeer in Alaska | |
| 83 FR 15172 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Bureau of Indian Education Tribal Colleges and Universities; Application for Grants and Annual Report Form | |
| 83 FR 15174 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Data Elements for Student Enrollment in Bureau-Funded Schools | |
| 83 FR 15173 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Leasing of Osage Reservation Lands for Oil and Gas Mining | |
| 83 FR 15179 - Evaluating Deviations and Reporting Defects and Noncompliance | |
| 83 FR 15165 - National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15166 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15166 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15187 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Fees Charged in Connection With the Filing of Supplemental Listing Applications in Connection With the Issuance of Convertible Securities | |
| 83 FR 15181 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt BZX Rule 14.11(k) To Permit the Listing and Trading of Managed Portfolio Shares and To List and Trade Shares of the ClearBridge Appreciation ETF, ClearBridge Large Cap ETF, ClearBridge MidCap Growth ETF, ClearBridge Select ETF, and ClearBridge All Cap Value ETF | |
| 83 FR 15181 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to The Options Clearing Corporation's Trade Acceptance and Novation Rules | |
| 83 FR 15099 - Special Local Regulation; Choptank River, Cambridge, MD | |
| 83 FR 15095 - Eliminating Unnecessary Regulations | |
| 83 FR 15050 - Amendment of Class D and E Airspace for the Following Missouri Towns; Cape Girardeau, MO; St. Louis, MO; and Macon, MO | |
| 83 FR 15055 - Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines | |
| 83 FR 15068 - Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Gynecological Conditions and Disorders of the Breast | |
| 83 FR 15082 - National Poultry Improvement Plan and Auxiliary Provisions | |
| 83 FR 15127 - General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan and 44th Biennial Conference | |
| 83 FR 15052 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 83 FR 15051 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 83 FR 15019 - Real Estate Appraisals | |
| 83 FR 15043 - Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 15036 - Airworthiness Directives; XtremeAir GmbH Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 15048 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 15240 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Essential Fish Habitat | |
| 83 FR 15045 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 15038 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 15041 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 15075 - Updating the Code of Federal Regulations | |
| 83 FR 15101 - HUD Acquisition Regulation (HUDAR) |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Geological Survey
Indian Affairs Bureau
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Final rule.
The OCC, Board, and FDIC (collectively, the agencies) are adopting a final rule to amend the agencies' regulations requiring appraisals of real estate for certain transactions. The final rule increases the threshold level at or below which appraisals are not required for commercial real estate transactions from $250,000 to $500,000. The final rule defines commercial real estate transaction as a real estate-related financial transaction that is not secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property. It excludes all transactions secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property, and thus construction loans secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property are excluded. For commercial real estate transactions exempted from the appraisal requirement as a result of the revised threshold, regulated institutions must obtain an evaluation of the real property collateral that is consistent with safe and sound banking practices.
This final rule is effective on April 9, 2018.
In July 2017, the agencies invited comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking (proposal or proposed rule)
Title XI directs each federal financial institutions regulatory agency
Title XI directs the agencies to prescribe appropriate standards for Title XI appraisals under the agencies' respective jurisdictions,
Title XI defines a “federally related transaction” as a real estate-related financial transaction that is regulated or engaged in by a federal financial institutions regulatory agency and requires the services of an appraiser.
The agencies have authority to determine those real estate-related financial transactions that do not require the services of a state certified or state licensed appraiser and are therefore exempt from the appraisal requirements of Title XI. These real estate-related financial transactions are not federally related transactions under the statutory or regulatory definitions, because they do not require the services of an appraiser.
The agencies have exempted several categories of real estate-related financial transactions from the Title XI appraisal requirements.
In 1992, Congress amended Title XI, expressly authorizing the agencies to establish a threshold level at or below which an appraisal by a state certified or state licensed appraiser is not required in connection with federally related transactions if the agencies determine in writing that the threshold does not represent a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions.
Under the current thresholds, established in 1994,
For real estate-related financial transactions that are exempt from the Title XI appraisal requirement because they are at or below the applicable thresholds or qualify for the exemption for certain existing extensions of credit,
The agencies proposed to increase the commercial real estate appraisal threshold from $250,000 to $400,000. The proposal would have defined commercial real estate transaction to include all real estate-related financial transactions, except for those secured by a 1-to-4 family residential property,
The comment period closed on September 29, 2017. The agencies collectively received over 200 comments from appraisers, appraiser trade organizations, financial institutions, financial institutions trade organizations, and individuals.
As noted in the proposal, increases in commercial property values over time have required regulated institutions to obtain Title XI appraisals for a larger proportion of commercial real estate transactions than in 1994 when the current $250,000 threshold was established. This increase in the number of appraisals required may have contributed to increased burden for regulated institutions in terms of time and cost. The proposal was intended to reduce regulatory burden consistent with federal financial and public policy interests in real estate-related financial transactions. Based on supervisory experience and available data, the agencies published the proposal to accomplish these goals without posing a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions.
After carefully considering the comments and conducting further analysis, the agencies are adopting a final rule that increases the commercial real estate appraisal threshold with three modifications from the proposal. First, the agencies have decided to increase the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $500,000 rather than $400,000 as proposed. Second, the final rule also makes a conforming change to the section requiring state certified appraisers to be used for federally related transactions that are commercial real estate transactions above the increased threshold.
Third, the final rule also reflects a change to the proposed definition of commercial real estate transaction, which no longer includes construction loans secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property, regardless of whether the loan is for initial construction only or includes permanent financing. Thus, under the final rule, a loan that is secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property, including a loan for construction, will remain subject to the $250,000 threshold.
These changes are discussed in more detail below, in the order in which they appear in the rule. As described in more detail below, the effective date for the rule will be the date of its publication in the
The agencies received a range of comments regarding the proposal to increase the commercial real estate appraisal threshold. Comments from financial institutions and financial institutions trade associations generally supported an increase, although many requested a higher increase than proposed. Comments from appraisers and appraiser-related trade associations generally opposed an increase.
Commenters supporting a threshold increase stated that an increase would be appropriate, given the increases in real estate values since the current threshold was established, the cost and time savings to lenders and borrowers the higher threshold would provide, and the burden relief it would provide to financial institutions in rural and other areas where there are reported shortages of state licensed or state certified appraisers, which may have caused transaction delays and increased lending costs. Commenters supporting a threshold increase also asserted that it would provide burden relief for financial institutions, without sacrificing sound risk management principles or safe and sound banking practices, and that an increase would help justify the cost and return of originating smaller and less complex commercial real estate loans. Several commenters asserted the higher threshold could be implemented easily and would result in burden relief, for example, by reducing loan costs and minimizing delays in loan processing. One commenter asserted that the proposed increase would support local and regional economies, and another represented that it would assist small builders. This same commenter asserted that reducing burden on lenders would facilitate financing to builders generally, as they rely heavily on commercial banks for financing.
Commenters opposing an increase to the commercial real estate appraisal threshold asserted that an increase would elevate risks to financial institutions, the banking system, borrowers, small business owners, commercial property owners, and taxpayers. Several of these commenters asserted that the increased risk would not be justified by burden relief. Other commenters asserted that the proposed increase contradicts publicly stated concerns of the agencies relating to the state of the commercial real estate market and the quality of evaluation reports. Another commenter asserted that the inclusion of construction loans extended to consumers as commercial real estate transactions would magnify risk, as the commenter viewed such loans as particularly risky. One commenter expressed concern that the proposal would lead to increased use of automated valuations, which the commenter asserted are not adequate substitutes for appraisals, or would eliminate collateral verifications altogether.
Some commenters opposing the threshold raised issues unrelated to risk. A few asserted that appraisals are relatively inexpensive and, thus, that the proposed increase would not materially reduce costs. One commenter expressed the view that an increase in the commercial real estate appraisal threshold would be contrary to consumer protection objectives. Another commenter asserted that the agencies are required by Title XI to receive concurrence from the CFPB for a threshold change. In support of its opposition to the proposal, a commenter cited a 2012 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, contending that the report found no
Several commenters rejected assertions that there was an appraiser shortage warranting regulatory relief, some asserting that any shortage is caused by appraisers' unwillingness to work for appraisal management companies (AMCs) at the reduced fees being offered to appraisers by AMCs. Two commenters questioned the impact of the proposed commercial real estate appraisal threshold on appraiser shortages, one asserting that the number of commercial real estate appraisers has remained relatively steady in recent years and the other asserting that appraiser shortages are primarily related to residential property valuations.
Many commenters opposing the proposal highlighted the benefits that state licensed or state certified appraisers bring to the process of valuing real estate collateral. One of these commenters asserted that appraisers serve a necessary function in real estate lending and expressed concerns that bypassing them to create a more streamlined valuation process could lead to fraud and another real estate crisis. Several commenters highlighted that appraisers are the only unbiased party in the valuation process, in contrast to buyers, agents, lenders, and sellers, who each have an interest in the underlying transactions. One commenter asserted that appraisers have a unique vantage point during the property inspection process to provide lenders with information, in addition to a valuation, that may be critical to the lending decision and help to avoid bad loans and fraud.
Some commenters who were supportive of the proposal also discussed the role of appraisals and appraisers. One of these commenters asserted that appraisals are an integral part of the safety and soundness of the real estate industry, but believed that certain transactions are well served by alternative valuation methods. Some other commenters expressed skepticism about the value of appraisals prepared by independent appraisers. In this regard, one commenter asserted that banks have a better understanding of property values in their communities than appraisers from other areas, while another expressed concern for the reliability of appraisals and whether appraisers' valuations are keeping up with property growth trends. Another commenter expressed concern that appraisers' access to sales contracts can lead to an over-abundance of appraised values at or above the amounts in the contracts.
After carefully considering the comments received, the agencies have decided to increase the commercial real estate appraisal threshold. As discussed in the proposal and further detailed below, increasing the commercial real estate appraisal threshold will provide regulatory relief for financial institutions by removing the appraisal requirement for a material number of transactions without threatening the safety and soundness of financial institutions.
The agencies are increasing the threshold based on express statutory authority to do so if they determine in writing that the threshold does not represent a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions.
Regarding consumer protection concerns, the agencies do not expect that this increase will affect a significant number of consumer transactions. As discussed in more detail below, the final rule is only raising the threshold for commercial real estate transactions. This definition was revised to exclude construction loans secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property, which would have included construction loans to consumers. As a result of this change, the final rule will not affect a material number of consumer transactions.
Regarding the efficacy of Title XI appraisals, the agencies recognize and are supportive of the role that appraisers play in ensuring a safe and sound real estate lending process, regardless of whether it is in connection with an appraisal or an evaluation. Indeed, the Title XI appraisal regulations, appraiser independence requirements, and the Guidelines emphasize the importance of an independent opinion of collateral value in the process of real estate lending. Through the agencies' supervisory experience with loans that were exempted by the current thresholds and an analysis of loan losses over prior credit cycles for such loans, the agencies have found that evaluations can be an effective valuation method for lower-risk transactions. Even when the transaction amount is at or below the threshold, the Evaluation Guidance encourages regulated institutions to obtain Title XI appraisals when necessary for risk management and to preserve the safety and soundness of the institution.
The commercial real estate appraisal threshold increase applies only to transactions defined as “commercial real estate transactions.” Under the proposed definition, a commercial real estate transaction would have included construction loans for 1-to-4 family residential units, but not those providing permanent financing. Accordingly, the proposed definition would have included a loan extended to finance the construction of a consumer's dwelling, but would have excluded construction loans that provide both the initial construction funding and permanent financing.
The agencies received several comments related to the proposed definition. Most comments were not supportive of the proposed treatment of loans to finance the construction of 1-to-4 family residential properties. The one commenter in support of the proposal to include 1-to-4 family construction-only loans in the definition of a commercial real estate transaction asserted that these loans are underwritten similar to commercial real estate transactions.
Some commenters supported excluding all loans to finance the construction of 1-to-4 family residential properties from the definition. Some commenters maintained that it would be safer from a risk perspective to keep construction loans for 1-to-4 family properties in the residential loan category subject to the $250,000 threshold. These commenters asserted that 1-to-4 family construction loans are riskier than conventional residential lending, and maintained that evaluations lack the market analysis needed for a phased construction project. One commenter asserted that there may be limited benefit to including transactions to finance the construction of 1-to-4 family residential properties without permanent financing in the definition of commercial real estate transaction, because an appraisal would be required prior to the permanent financing phase and prudent risk management would dictate obtaining the appraisal prior to initial funding. Another commenter asserted that the implementation of two thresholds for 1-to-4 family residential construction loans would cause
A few commenters expressed the view that all residential construction loans should be included in the definition and subject to the higher threshold. One commenter noted that an increasing percentage of 1-to-4 family properties are rental properties and that the proposed definition would have excluded a class of rent-dependent real estate that should be classified as commercial real estate. Another commenter recommended that “construction-to-permanent” loans be included in the definition of commercial real estate transaction to increase the financing available for new home construction, indicating that strict underwriting and active engagement among the bank, home builder, and home buyer alleviate risks for these loans. This commenter supported subjecting all construction loans to the same treatment, and asserted that doing so would reduce regulatory burden, provide consistency, and allow for more efficient processes. Another commenter indicated that including all 1-to-4 family construction loans in the definition would avoid creating additional complications by distinguishing such loans into two different classes.
After carefully considering the comments, the agencies have adopted a definition of commercial real estate transaction that excludes construction loans secured by single 1-to-4 family residential properties. Specifically, the final rule defines commercial real estate transaction as a real estate-related financial transaction that is not secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property. This definition eliminates the distinction between construction loans secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property that only finance construction and those that provide both construction and permanent financing. Under the definition in the final rule, neither of these types of loans will be commercial real estate transactions; they will both remain subject to the $250,000 threshold.
This approach addresses the potential confusion from subjecting two classes of construction loans secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property to different threshold levels. The revised definition also reflects comments stating that Title XI appraisals are typically conducted for loans for construction of a single 1-to-4 family residential property regardless of whether the loan provides only financing for construction or provides “construction-to-permanent” financing.
The agencies have included the term “single” in the definition to clarify that only transactions secured by one 1-to-4 family residential property are excluded from the definition of “commercial real estate transaction,” whether financing construction or for other purposes. This change addresses potential confusion about whether a loan for the construction of multiple residential properties would meet the definition of “commercial real estate transaction;” a loan that is secured by multiple 1-to-4 family residential properties (for example, a loan to construct multiple properties in a residential neighborhood) would meet the definition of commercial real estate transaction and thus be subject to the higher threshold.
This approach addresses concerns about consumer protection, because a large portion of loans to finance the purchase or initial construction of a single 1-to-4 family residential property that are secured by the property are likely to be extended to consumers who will use the property as their dwelling. By contrast, transactions secured by multiple 1-to-4 family properties are more likely to be transactions to real estate developers or investors in rental properties.
The agencies note that they proposed to treat construction-only loans to consumers as commercial real estate transactions to maintain consistency with agency reporting standards and other regulations and guidance that address construction loans to consumers in other contexts. As in the proposal, the definition being adopted generally aligns with the categories of commercial real estate transactions under the Call Report
The agencies have determined that, on balance, the benefits of adopting this definition of commercial real estate transaction outweigh the drawbacks of the limited inconsistency with other agency issuances relating to commercial real estate lending. Those issuances are for different purposes than the Title XI appraisal regulations, and a different set of considerations is relevant for determining what types of transactions are appropriately exempt from the Title XI appraisal requirement on the basis of transaction size. The definition of commercial real estate transaction in the final rule ensures that loans made to consumers are largely treated consistently, remaining subject to the $250,000 threshold. In addition, by categorizing residential construction loans more clearly, the definition of commercial real estate transaction being adopted can facilitate compliance and enhance the burden reduction benefits of the rule.
The agencies proposed increasing the commercial real estate appraisal threshold from $250,000 to $400,000. In determining the level of increase, the agencies considered the change in prices for commercial real estate measured by the Federal Reserve Commercial Real Estate Price Index (CRE Index). As described in the proposal, the CRE Index
According to the CRE Index, a commercial property that sold for $250,000 as of June 30, 1994, would be expected to sell for approximately $760,000 as of December 2016.
Most of the commenters, who supported increasing the threshold to at least $400,000, supported a higher amount. Some of these commenters also advocated for automatically increasing or reevaluating the level more frequently than every ten years as real estate prices rise and valuation technology changes. Some commenters urged the agencies to conduct further analysis to determine whether the threshold could be increased to a higher amount, but did not specify an amount. Some commenters supported increasing the threshold to $500,000 and suggested that this higher figure would avoid the need for additional changes to the threshold in the near-term due to expected increases in prices. A few commenters supported raising the threshold to $750,000 or higher, claiming the methodology in the proposal was unnecessarily conservative.
Some commenters supported lowering the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to unspecified amounts. Some of those commenters specifically objected to the methodology used by the agencies in the proposal, asserting that adjusting the previous $250,000 level for changes in prices was inappropriate because that level was not itself the result of an inflation adjustment.
After careful consideration of the comments, the agencies have increased the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $500,000, rather than the proposed $400,000 level. The proposed $400,000 threshold was based on the value of the CRE Index in March 2010, when commercial real estate prices were at their lowest point in the most recent downturn. The agencies proposed this conservative approach, due to the volatility of commercial real estate prices over time. The agencies based the beginning point of this analysis on $250,000, because supervisory experience with the $250,000 threshold has confirmed that this threshold level did not threaten the safety and soundness of financial institutions. Based on the CRE Index, a commercial property that sold for $250,000 as of June 30, 1994, would be expected to sell for $423,600 in March 2010, which was the trough of the CRE price cycle. Following this trend, that property would be expected to have a conservative value of approximately $509,000 as of December 2017 (as shown below). Based on the comments received and this further review of the CRE Index, as well as the safety and soundness analysis discussed below, the agencies have decided to finalize the threshold at $500,000.
Regarding the suggestion to raise the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $750,000 or higher, the agencies also note that $750,000 was close to the high point on the volatile CRE Index, as discussed above. Given the volatility in commercial real estate prices, raising the threshold to this amount or higher would raise safety and soundness concerns. Finally, a possible threshold increase to $750,000 or higher may pose too great a risk to smaller institutions, as such transactions may represent a higher percentage of capital for such firms than has historically been permitted under the 1994 threshold.
In the proposal, the agencies also invited comment on how having three threshold levels ($250,000 for all transactions, $400,000 for commercial real estate transactions, and $1 million for QBLs) rather than the two threshold levels applicable to Title XI appraisals ($1 million for QBLs and $250,000 for all other transactions) would affect burden on regulated institutions. Three commenters supported the proposal, noting that having three thresholds would have minimal impact on operations. One commenter opposed having three thresholds, asserting that it will increase complexity, particularly for small community banks with less rigorous compliance operations. The agencies have determined that the burden reduction associated with a higher threshold for commercial real estate transactions outweighs the potential burden of implementing three thresholds.
Under Title XI, the agencies may set a threshold at or below which a Title XI appraisal is not required if they determine in writing that such a threshold level does not pose a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions.
Multiple financial institutions trade associations, financial institutions, individuals, and home builder and realtor associations supported the agencies' analysis showing that an increase to the appraisal threshold for commercial real estate would not have a significant impact on the safety and soundness of financial institutions. A few commenters noted that appraisals are only one part of the underwriting process, one asserting that loans are primarily underwritten on borrowers' ability to repay, with collateral as a secondary consideration. Another commenter asserted that commercial borrowers tend to be larger entities, with the capital to withstand detrimental financial events and shifts in the market. This commenter also indicated that the proposal would not increase safety and soundness risk, given that the increased threshold would affect a relatively small number of transactions in the commercial real estate lending market.
Some commenters noted that evaluations would be required where appraisals were not obtained, and some asserted that the increased use of evaluations with these less complex loans would not increase risk if prepared with adequate analysis. One of these commenters asserted that evaluations for smaller transactions provide more targeted and precise data than appraisals performed by someone from another area.
The agencies received comments from appraisers, appraiser-related groups and individuals opposing the proposed increase, many of whom asserted that appraisals are key to preserving the safety and soundness of financial institutions and the economy. Several of these commenters claimed that evaluations were not an appropriate substitute for appraisals, some suggesting that they are less reliable and prepared by individuals that are not held to the same standards as appraisers. One commenter asserted that the increase would pose safety and soundness risks because commercial loans are riskier than residential loans. Another commenter suggested that entry-level properties that are lower in price and close to the threshold are more likely to have performance issues compared to more expensive properties. One commenter raised concerns that the rule focused on time and cost savings to financial institutions in selecting an appropriate valuation method, rather than risk.
Several commenters voiced concerns about recent price increases, increasing delinquencies, or volatility in the commercial real estate market, which, some asserted, may be indicative of a market “bubble.” Some commenters suggested that it is the wrong time to relax valuation standards, given their view that past market bubbles have been preceded by loosening of underwriting and appraisal standards, and that poor valuation practices contributed to losses during past financial crises. One of these commenters asserted that there is increasing risk in commercial real estate lending, particularly among smaller community and regional banks, which the commenter believed are less likely to have robust collateral risk management policies, practices and procedures.
Multiple commenters noted a 2015 appraiser trade association survey of appraisal industry professionals, including chief appraisers and appraisal managers at financial institutions, which showed that the majority of those surveyed opposed increasing the current $250,000 threshold and believed that increases to the threshold could increase risk to lenders.
The agencies received a limited number of comments in response to the request for comment on the data sources used for the agencies' safety and soundness analysis from financial institutions, financial institution trade associations and appraiser trade associations. Multiple commenters asserted that the data in the proposal supports the increase in the commercial real estate threshold, and indicated that they did not know of other sources of data that the agencies should consider. A number of commenters asserted that the agencies' analysis was too conservative, that past housing crises do not imply current volatility, and that the data suggest the threshold could be increased further than proposed without threatening safety and soundness of financial institutions. One commenter opposing the proposal suggested that the data used in the agencies' safety and soundness analysis was weak and questioned why the agencies did not provide specific numbers to support the assertion that the data related to charge-offs from 2007-2012 is “no worse than” those from the years 1991-1994, except for marked increases in construction loan charge-offs.
Based on their supervisory experiences, the agencies disagree that increasing the commercial real estate appraisal threshold would increase risks to financial institutions, including smaller institutions. As outlined earlier, the agencies closely examined a variety of data and metrics indicating that the relative risks associated with the new threshold in terms of the scope of covered transactions were similar to those presented by the 1994 threshold. The agencies specifically examined the information from smaller insured depository institutions (IDIs) from Call Reports to assess the concentration risk for institutions and concluded that these risks were similar to those presented for larger IDIs. The agencies also note that smaller IDIs are often better positioned than larger institutions to understand and quantify local real estate market values since they serve a smaller, more defined market area.
Regarding comments concerning evaluations as a valuation method, in the agencies' views, evaluations are an effective valuation method for smaller commercial real estate transactions and other transactions under the thresholds. As provided in the Title XI appraisal regulations, evaluations for each transaction must be consistent with safe and sound banking practices. The Evaluation Guidance provides guidance on appropriate evaluation practices. In adopting the increased threshold for commercial real estate transactions, the agencies note that regulated institutions have the flexibility to choose to obtain a Title XI appraisal when markets are volatile or when an appraisal is warranted for other reasons.
The agencies have no evidence that increasing the appraisal threshold to $500,000 for commercial real estate transactions will materially increase the risk of loss to financial institutions. Analysis of supervisory experience concerning losses on commercial real estate transactions suggests that faulty valuations of the underlying real estate collateral since 1994 have not been a material cause of losses in connection with transactions at or below $250,000.
In addition to considering the agencies' supervisory experience since 1994, the agencies reviewed how the coverage of transactions exempted by the threshold would change, both in terms of number of transactions and aggregate value, in order to consider the potential impact on safety and soundness of increasing the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $500,000. In the proposal, the agencies used three different metrics to estimate the overall coverage of the existing threshold and the proposed threshold: (1) The number of commercial real estate transactions at or under the threshold as a share of the number of all commercial real estate transactions; (2) the dollar volume of commercial real estate transactions at or under the threshold as a share of the total dollar volume of all commercial real estate transactions; and (3) the dollar volume of commercial real estate transactions at or under the threshold relative to IDIs' capital and the allowance for loan and lease losses, which act as buffers to absorb losses, as explained below. The agencies examined data reported on the Call Report and data from the CoStar Comps database to estimate the volume of commercial real estate transactions covered by the existing threshold and increased thresholds.
The Call Report data shows that the scope of the exemption in 1994, in terms of the number of transactions impacted, decreased significantly over time, and implies that raising the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $500,000 will not involve a greater number of transactions than when the thresholds were established in 1994.
Due to the manner in which IDIs report information on nonfarm nonresidential (NFNR) loans in the Call Report, this data set does not enable the agencies to calculate the percentage of loans that would fall under any threshold amount between $250,000 and $1 million.
The CoStar Comps database provides sales value data on specific commercial real estate transactions and allows for an analysis of the estimated coverage at any potential threshold level. As described in the proposal, the agencies used this dataset to analyze the impact of increasing the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $400,000, and have recently updated this analysis to evaluate the impact of a $500,000 threshold. An analysis of the CoStar Comps database for the most recent year available suggests that increasing the amount to $500,000 would significantly increase the number of commercial real estate transactions exempted from the Title XI appraisal requirements, but the portion of the total dollar volume of commercial real estate transactions that would be exempted by the threshold would be comparatively minimal.
At the existing $250,000 threshold and the proposed $400,000 threshold, the percentage of commercial properties with loans in the CoStar Comps database that would be exempted from the Title XI appraisal regulations would have been 16.1 percent and 26.3
The agencies have used this analysis and the Call Report analysis to determine that increasing the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $500,000 does not pose a threat to safety and soundness. In reaching this determination, the agencies also considered the fact that evaluations would be required for such transactions. The Guidelines provide regulated institutions with guidance on establishing parameters for ordering Title XI appraisals for transactions that present significant risk, even if those transactions are eligible for evaluations under the regulation.
The Title XI appraisal regulations require regulated institutions to obtain evaluations for three categories of real estate-related financial transactions that the agencies have determined do not require a Title XI appraisal, including commercial and residential real-estate related financial transactions of $250,000 or less and QBLs with a transaction value of $1 million or less.
The agencies are adopting this aspect of the proposal in the final rule without change.
The agencies requested comment on the proposed requirement that regulated institutions obtain evaluations for commercial real estate transactions at or below the proposed commercial real estate appraisal threshold. The agencies also asked related questions concerning whether additional guidance is needed by institutions to support the increased use of evaluations as well as questions concerning burden and costs related to the use of evaluations.
Several commenters generally supported the proposal that regulated institutions obtain evaluations for commercial real estate transactions at or below the threshold. Other commenters expressed concern regarding the competency and credentialing of persons performing evaluations, as well as concerns regarding difficulty in locating persons qualified to perform evaluations.
As discussed in the proposal, institutions must obtain evaluations that are consistent with safe and sound banking practices. The agencies have provided guidance to regulated institutions on evaluations.
The agencies also requested comment on the type of additional guidance, if any, regulated institutions need to support the increased use of evaluations. In response, the agencies received comments indicating concern regarding the clarity of, and the burden produced by, the existing guidance on evaluations. A few commenters requested that the agencies provide additional guidance, such as guidance relating to the adequacy of evaluation products available on the market or examples of acceptable industry practices for evaluations. Some other
The Evaluation Guidance provides information to help ensure that evaluations provide a credible estimate of the market value of the property pledged as collateral for the loan. The current Evaluation Guidance provides flexibility to regulated institutions for developing evaluations that are appropriate for the type and risk of the real estate financial transaction and does not prescribe specific valuation approaches or products to use tools in the development of evaluations. Also, in addition to various valuation approaches, the Guidelines discuss the possible use of several analytical methods and technological tools in the development of evaluations, such as automated valuation models and tax assessment values. The agencies will continue to assess the adequacy of agency guidance on evaluations.
The agencies invited comment regarding whether the use of evaluations reduces burden and cost as compared to the use of Title XI appraisals. The agencies also invited comment on whether evaluations are currently prepared by in-house staff or outsourced to appraisers or other qualified professionals.
The agencies received several comments indicating that the proposed increase in the commercial real estate appraisal threshold and the increased use of evaluations would provide cost and time savings for consumers and institutions, because evaluations tend to cost less that appraisals and take less time to prepare. One commenter asserted that third-party evaluations are approximately 25 percent of the cost of an appraisal. Another commenter indicated noted that some financial institutions prefer to conduct them in-house to maintain consistency of the product and because of staff knowledge of the marketplace. One commenter asserted that appraiser-developed evaluations are unnecessarily expensive, necessitating evaluations to be conducted in-house. Another commenter indicated that increasing the threshold would provide cost savings for portfolio loans but would not address issues related to secondary market requirements, which are outside the agencies' purview.
On the other hand, some commenters asserted that the agencies had overstated how much the proposal would reduce burden for regulated institutions, and questioned the agencies' methods for estimating the reduction in burden. Some commenters expressed concern regarding the length of time required to review an evaluation. A few commenters suggested that the agencies' cost analysis reflected a lack of precision and absence of detailed research to determine the cost differential of appraisals and evaluations between the current and proposed threshold. This same commenter asserted that evaluations lack the detail of appraisals, and, as a result, lenders are often required to perform additional research in determining whether evaluations are credible, which reduces cost and time savings produced by the proposal. One commenter implied that the limited guidance for performing evaluations creates confusion, which results in added costs. One commenter asserted that it is not true that evaluations contain less detailed information or take less time to review than appraisals.
The agencies carefully considered these comments in evaluating the rule's impact on the time to obtain and review Title XI appraisals and evaluations. The agencies conclude that there may be less delay in finding appropriate personnel to perform an evaluation than to perform a Title XI appraisal, particularly in rural areas, because evaluations are not required to be prepared by a certified or licensed appraiser. Requiring regulated institutions to procure the services of a state licensed or state certified appraiser to prepare evaluations for commercial real estate transactions at or below the threshold could impose significant additional costs on lenders and borrowers without materially increasing the safety and soundness of the transactions. The agencies' data and analysis reflect that the increase in the commercial real estate appraisal threshold and corresponding increased use of evaluations could result in a cost savings of several hundred dollars for each commercial real estate transaction, as discussed below.
Based on supervisory experience the agencies conclude that regulated institutions generally need less time to review evaluations than Title XI appraisals, because the content of the report can be less comprehensive than an appraisal report. Transactions permitting the use of an evaluation typically have a lower dollar value, often are less complex, or are subsequent to previous transactions for which Title XI appraisals were obtained. Therefore, a consolidated analysis is more likely to be used in an evaluation. The agencies estimate that, on average, the time to review an evaluation for an affected transaction under the final rule will be approximately 30 minutes less than the time to review an appraisal.
In evaluating this rule, the agencies considered the impact of obtaining evaluations instead of Title XI appraisals on regulated institutions and borrowers. As noted in the proposal, based on information from industry participants, the cost of third-party evaluations of commercial real estate generally ranges from $500 to over $1,500, whereas the cost of appraisals of such properties generally ranges from $1,000 to over $3,000. Commercial real estate transactions with transaction values above $250,000, but at or below $500,000, are likely to involve smaller and less complex properties, and appraisals and evaluations on such properties would likely be at the lower end of the cost range. This third-party pricing information suggests a savings of several hundred dollars per transaction affected by the proposal. Comments from financial institutions generally affirmed similar information presented in the proposal.
In considering the aggregate effect of this rule, the agencies considered the number of transactions affected by the increased threshold. As previously discussed, the agencies estimate that the number of commercial real estate transactions that would be exempted by
The agencies received comments from financial institutions, individuals, and a trade association representing valuation professionals, indicating concern that the proposal would put smaller banks that do not have in-house expertise to prepare evaluations at a competitive disadvantage to larger banks. Commenters asserted that these banks hire outside parties to prepare evaluations and pass the cost along to borrowers, making their loans more expensive than comparable loans at larger financial institutions.
In evaluating the final rule, the agencies considered these concerns. In response, the agencies note that the cost for completing an evaluation would be less than the cost for completing a Title XI appraisal for the same property, which thereby reduces burden. The goal of the agencies with this increase is to provide flexibility to regulated institutions in approaching property valuation. Some institutions may not currently be in a position to take advantage of this flexibility. However, raising the threshold will help those regulated institutions that choose to train in-house staff to perform evaluations and would reduce costs for those institutions that choose to outsource evaluations.
As described in the proposal, the current Title XI appraisal regulations require that “[a]ll federally related transactions having a transaction value of $250,000 or more, other than those involving appraisals of 1-to-4 family residential properties, shall require an appraisal prepared by a State certified appraiser.”
Given the change from the proposed rule from a $400,000 threshold to a $500,000 threshold, the final rule makes a corresponding change to this section. The amendment to this provision is a technical change that does not alter any substantive requirement.
The agencies proposed to make the final rule, if adopted, effective upon publication in the
The agencies received three comments on the proposed effective date. One commenter supported the proposed effective date and did not think it would pose challenges to financial institutions. The other two commenters disagreed with an immediate effective date, asserting that financial institutions required time to adjust policies and procedures to implement the proposed changes. One commenter recommended a six-month to one-year implementation period, while the other suggested an effective date 180 days after the final rule is published.
The agencies have retained the proposed effective date, which is the date of publication in the
The agencies explained in the proposal that they were not proposing any threshold increases for transactions secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property (residential transactions) or QBLs in connection with this rulemaking. The agencies requested comment on whether there are other factors that should be considered in evaluating the current appraisal threshold for residential transactions. The agencies also invited comment and supporting data on the appropriateness of raising the current $1 million threshold for QBLs and posed a number of specific questions related to regulated institutions' experiences with QBLs.
Numerous commenters, particularly financial institutions and their trade associations, encouraged the agencies to consider increasing the threshold for residential transactions, though few introduced new factors for the agencies' consideration. Many of these commenters asserted that an increase would produce cost and time savings that would benefit regulated institutions and consumers without threatening the safety and soundness of financial institutions. In support of its position that an increase would not threaten safety and soundness, one of these commenters asserted that there is less risk in the homogenous loan pool of 1-to-4 family residential loans than there is in commercial real estate. One commenter asserted that the consumer benefits of appraisals have been overstated, that appraisals are primarily for the benefit of financial institutions, and that consumers could always order their own appraisals.
Several commenters supporting an increase in the threshold for residential transactions noted that an increase in the threshold would be justified by increases in residential property values since the current threshold was established. Some commenters represented that relief would be particularly beneficial for lending in
Many commenters, particularly appraisers and appraiser trade associations, supported with the agencies' decision not to propose an increase in the threshold for residential transactions. Several commenters pointed to the safety and soundness and consumer protection benefits of obtaining appraisals in connection with residential transactions. Several commenters also asserted that the appraisal regulations already exempt a significant percentage of residential mortgage loans. One commenter suggested that the agencies should not rely on policies of other federal entities, such as the GSEs, in making decisions about the appraisal regulations. Another commenter expressed concern that the potential negative consequences of raising the threshold could be exacerbated by the loosening of appraisal standards by the GSEs for some transactions. Another commenter asserted that increasing the threshold for residential transactions could discourage entrance into the appraisal profession and cause further appraiser shortages.
Regarding an increase to the appraisal threshold for QBLs, the majority of comments received opposed an increase. These commenters, who were appraisers or their trade associations, cautioned against a loosening of standards that could raise safety and soundness concerns. Commenters supporting an increase in the QBL threshold asserted that the value of real estate offered as collateral on a QBL is a secondary consideration, because the primary source of repayment is not the income from or sale of that collateral. Some commenters also supported an increase in the threshold due to limited availability of appraisers in their states. Commenters advocated a range of increases from $1.5 million to $3 million.
Few commenters specifically addressed the agencies' questions regarding unique risks that may be posed by QBLs, data regarding QBLs, and regulated institutions' experiences in applying the current QBL threshold. Regarding risks posed by QBLs, one financial institutions trade association commented that its members consider QBLs to be higher-risk loans. An appraiser trade association that was opposed to an increase asserted that small business loans are riskier than others and that lenders with concentrations in such loans are at greater risk. The commenter also noted that such loans are usually held in portfolio, thus increasing risk. Regarding the agencies' requests for data on QBLs, a commenter expressed surprise that the agencies lack data on QBL concentrations, and asserted this lack of data further supports not increasing the threshold. In response to the agencies' question regarding regulated institutions' experiences in applying the QBL threshold, a commenter asserted that many loan officers are poorly trained in classifying loans as either real estate or business. The commenter recommended that the agencies provide examples of these types of loans. In addition, two commenters asked the agencies to clarify the QBL threshold relative to transactions secured by farmland.
The agencies appreciate the issues raised by the commenters relating to the thresholds for residential transactions and QBLs. As discussed in the proposal, the agencies decided not to propose any change to these thresholds in connection with this rulemaking. Nevertheless, the comments reflect a variety of issues that the agencies would consider if they decide to propose changes to the residential or QBL thresholds in the future.
Regarding the requests for clarification of the QBL threshold, the Title XI appraisal regulations have established a $1 million threshold that is applicable to any business loans that are not dependent on the sale of, or rental income derived from, real estate as the primary source of repayment.
The agencies received several comments suggesting additional ways the agencies could reduce burden under the Title XI appraisal regulations. One commenter urged the agencies to review the appraisal requirements of other federal agencies and pursue ways to make appraisal requirements across agencies more consistent. The agencies have publically articulated their interest in seeking ways to coordinate appraisal standards across various government agencies that are involved in residential mortgage lending.
Another commenter asserted that the agencies should focus on allowing the use by appraisers of products that streamline the valuation process, instead of exempting additional transactions from the appraisal requirements. Several commenters, including a financial institution and a financial institutions trade association, suggested that certain transactions could be added to the list of exemptions from the appraisal requirements to further reduce regulatory burden without sacrificing safety and soundness. These suggestions included exemptions for transactions secured by real estate outside the United States; loans below a threshold that a bank originates and
These comments concerning additional potential exemptions from the appraisal regulations and additional burden relieving measures are outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, the agencies appreciate the suggestions for ways to expand burden relief beyond what was proposed.
This final rule is effective on April 9, 2018. The 30-day delayed effective date required under the APA is waived pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides for waiver when a substantive rule grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction. The amendment adopted in this final rule exempts additional transactions from the Title XI appraisal requirements, which has the effect of relieving restrictions. Consequently, the amendment in this final rule meets the requirements for waiver set forth in the APA.
The OCC currently supervises approximately 956 small entities. Data currently available to the OCC are not sufficient to estimate how many OCC-supervised small entities make commercial real estate loans in amounts that fall between the current and final thresholds. Therefore, we cannot estimate how many small entities may be affected by the increase threshold. However, because the final rule does not contain any new recordkeeping, reporting, or compliance requirements, the final rule will not impose costs on any OCC-supervised institution. Accordingly, the OCC certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Board requested comment on all aspects of the initial regulatory flexibility analysis it provided in connection with the proposal. The comments received are addressed below.
In response to comments received in the EGRPRA process and in connection with the proposal, the agencies are increasing the commercial real estate appraisal threshold from $250,000 to $500,000. Because commercial real estate prices have increased since 1994, when the current $250,000 threshold was established, a smaller percentage of commercial real estate transactions are currently exempted from the Title XI appraisal requirements than when the threshold was established. This threshold adjustment is intended to reduce the regulatory burden associated with extending credit secured by commercial real estate in a manner that is consistent with the safety and soundness of financial institutions.
As discussed above, the agencies' objective in finalizing this threshold increase is to reduce the regulatory burden associated with extending credit in a safe and sound manner by reducing the number of commercial real estate transactions that are subject to the Title XI appraisal requirements.
Title XI explicitly authorizes the agencies to establish a threshold level at or below which a Title XI appraisal is not required if the agencies determine in writing that the threshold does not represent a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions and receive concurrence from the CFPB that such threshold level provides reasonable protection for consumers who purchase 1-to-4 unit single-family homes.
The Board's final rule applies to state chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System (state member banks), as well as bank holding companies and nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies that engage in lending. There are approximately 601 state member banks and 35 nonbank lenders regulated by the Board that meet the SBA definition of small entities and would be subject to the proposed rule. Data currently available to the Board do not allow for a precise estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the final rule because the number of small entities that will engage in commercial real estate transactions at or below the commercial real estate appraisal threshold is unknown.
The final rule would reduce reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for small entities. For transactions at or below the threshold, regulated institutions will be given the option to obtain an evaluation of the property instead of an appraisal. Evaluations may be performed by a lender's own employees and are not required to comply with USPAP. As discussed in detail in Section II.B of the
In addition to costing less to obtain than appraisals, evaluations also require less time to review than appraisals because they contain less detailed information. As discussed further in Section II.B of the
As previously discussed, the Board estimates that the percentage of commercial real estate transactions that would be exempted by the threshold is expected to increase by approximately 16 percent under the final rule. The Board expects this percentage to be higher for small entities, because a higher percentage of their loan portfolios are likely to be made up of small, below-threshold loans than those of larger entities. Thus, while the precise number of transactions that will be affected and the precise cost reduction per transaction cannot be determined, the final rule is expected to have a significant positive economic impact on small entities that engage in commercial real estate lending.
The Board has not identified any federal statutes or regulations that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the final rule.
The agencies considered additional burden-reducing measures, such as increasing the commercial threshold to an amount higher than $500,000 and increasing the residential and business loan thresholds, but did not implement such measures for the safety and soundness and consumer protection reasons discussed in the proposal. For transactions exempted from the Title XI appraisal requirements under the commercial real estate appraisal threshold, the final rule requires regulated institutions to get an evaluation if they do not choose to obtain a Title XI appraisal. The agencies believe this requirement is necessary to protect the safety and soundness of financial institutions, which is a legal prerequisite to the establishment of any appraisal threshold. The Board is not aware of any other significant alternatives that would reduce burden on small entities without sacrificing the safety and soundness of financial institutions or consumer protections.
The FDIC supervises 3,675 depository institutions,
The final rule will raise the appraisal threshold for commercial real estate transactions from $250,000 to $500,000. Any commercial real estate transaction with a value in excess of the $500,000 threshold is required to have an appraisal by a state licensed or state certified appraiser. Any commercial real estate transaction at or below the $500,000 threshold requires an evaluation.
To estimate the dollar volume of commercial real estate transactions the change could potentially affect, the FDIC used information on the dollar volume and number of loans in the Call Report for small institutions from two categories of loans included in the definition of a commercial real estate transaction. The Call Report data reflect that 3.92 percent of the dollar volume of NFNR loans secured by real estate has an original amount between $1 and $250,000, while 10.19 percent have an original amount between $250,000 and $1 million. The Call Report data also reflect that 7.30 percent of the dollar volume of agricultural loans secured by farmland has an original amount between $1 and $250,000, while 6.05 percent have an original amount between $250,000 and $500,000.
Therefore, raising the appraisal threshold from $250,000 to $500,000 for commercial real estate transactions
The final rule is likely to reduce valuation review costs for covered institutions. The FDIC estimates that it takes a loan officer an average of 40 minutes to review an appraisal to ensure that it meets that standards set forth in Title XI, but 10 minutes to perform a similar review of an evaluation, which does not need to meet the Title XI standards for appraisals. The final rule increases the number of commercial real estate transactions that would require an evaluation by raising the appraisal threshold from $250,000 to $500,000. Assuming that 15 percent of the outstanding balance of commercial real estate transactions for small entities gets renewed or replaced by new originations each year, the FDIC estimates that small entities originate $31.8 billion in new commercial real estate transactions each year. Assuming that 2.36 to 6.05 percent of annual originations represent loans with an origination amount greater than $250,000 but not more than $500,000, the FDIC estimates that the proposed rule will affect approximately 2,003 to 5,138 loans per year,
Any associated recordkeeping costs are unlikely to change for small FDIC-supervised entities as the amount of labor required to satisfy documentation requirements for an evaluation or an appraisal is estimated to be the same at about five minutes for either an appraisal or evaluation.
The final rule also is likely to reduce the loan origination costs associated with real estate appraisals for commercial real estate borrowers. The FDIC assumes that these costs are always paid by the borrower for this analysis. Anecdotal information from industry participants indicates that a commercial real estate appraisal costs between $1,000 to over $3,000, or about $2,000 on average, and a commercial real estate evaluation costs between $500 to over $1,500, or about $1,000 on average. Based on the prior assumptions, the FDIC estimates that the final rule will affect approximately 2,003 to 5,138 transactions per year,
By lowering valuation costs on commercial real estate transactions greater than $250,000 but less than or equal to $500,000 for small FDIC-supervised institutions, the final rule could marginally increase lending activity. As discussed previously, commenters in the EGRPRA review noted that appraisals can be costly and time consuming. By enabling small FDIC-supervised institutions to utilize evaluations for more commercial real estate transactions, the final rule will reduce transaction costs. The reduction in loan origination fees could marginally increase commercial real estate lending activity for loans with an origination value greater than $250,000 and not more than $500,000.
Certain provisions of the final rule contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995.
The OCC and the FDIC submitted the information collection requirements to OMB in connection with the proposal under section 3507(d) of the PRA
These collections are available to the public at
The agencies have an ongoing interest in public comments on its burden estimates. Comments on the collection of information should be sent to:
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
•
•
•
•
•
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB desk officer for the PRA Agencies by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by fax to (202) 395-6974; or by email to
The Riegle Act requires that each of the agencies, in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on IDIs, consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the benefits of such regulations.
The final rule reduces burden and does not impose any reporting, disclosure, or other new requirements on IDIs. For transactions exempted from the Title XI appraisal requirements by the proposed rule (
Because delaying the effective date of the rule is not required, the agencies are making the threshold increase effective on the first day after publication of the final rule in the
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
The OCC has analyzed the final rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532). Under this analysis, the OCC considered whether the final rule includes a federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation).
The final rule does not impose new requirements or include new mandates. Therefore, we conclude that the final rule will not result in an expenditure of $100 million or more by state, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, in any one year.
Appraisal, Appraiser, Banks, Banking, Consumer protection, Credit, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth in lending.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Federal Reserve System, Capital planning, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Stress testing.
Banks, banking, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, the OCC amends part 34 of chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1, 25b, 29, 93a, 371, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1465, 1701j-3, 1828(o), 3331
(e)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(12) The OCC determines that the services of an appraiser are not necessary in order to protect Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate-related financial transactions or to protect the safety and soundness of the institution; or
(13) The transaction is a commercial real estate transaction that has a transaction value of $500,000 or less.
(b)
(d) * * *
(2)
For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, the Board amends part 225 of chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(13), 1818, 1828(o), 1831i, 1831p-1, 1843(c)(8), 1844(b), 1972(l), 3106, 3108, 3310, 3331-3351, 3906, 3907, and 3909; 15 U.S.C. 1681s, 1681w, 6801 and 6805.
(e)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(13) The Board determines that the services of an appraiser are not necessary in order to protect Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate-related financial transactions or to protect the safety and soundness of the institution; or
(14) The transaction is a commercial real estate transaction that has a transaction value of $500,000 or less.
(b)
(d) * * *
(2)
For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, the FDIC amends part 323 of chapter III of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1818, 1819(a)(Seventh” and “Tenth), 1831p-1 and 3331
(a)
(e)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(12) The FDIC determines that the services of an appraiser are not necessary in order to protect Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate-related financial transactions or to protect the safety and soundness of the institution; or
(13) The transaction is a commercial real estate transaction that has a transaction value of $500,000 or less.
(b)
(d) * * *
(2)
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 23, 2018.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for XtremeAir GmbH Model XA42 airplanes equipped with an engine mount part number XA42-7120-151. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracking of the diagonal strut of the engine mount frame. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 30, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 30, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by May 24, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact XtremeAir GmbH, Harzstrasse 2, Am Flughafen Cochstedt, D-39444 Hecklingen, Germany; phone: +49 39267 60999 0; fax: +49 39267 60999 20; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Policy and Innovation Divsion, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD No. 2018-0050-E, dated March 2, 2018 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for XtremeAir GmbH Model XA42 airplanes. The MCAI states:
During a scheduled maintenance inspection of an XA42 aeroplane, a crack was detected on a diagonal strut of engine mount frame P/N XA42-7120-151.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to crack growth and subsequently partial or complete failure of the structural joint, possibly resulting in in-flight detachment of the engine and consequent loss of control of the aeroplane, and/or injury to persons on the ground.
Prompted by this finding, XtremeAir issued the SB to provide inspection instructions.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive inspections of the affected part and, depending on findings, replacement.
This [EASA] AD is considered interim action and further AD action may follow.
XtremeAir GmbH has issued XtremeAir Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-XA42-2018-006, Issue A.00, dated March 2, 2018. The service information describes procedures for inspection of the engine mount for cracks and replacement of the engine mount if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
FAA's Determination and Requirements of the AD
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because cracking of the engine mount frame could lead to in-flight detachment of the engine and result in loss of control. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD will affect 13 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about .5 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $552.50, or $42.50 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 24 work-hours and require parts costing $5,000, for a cost of $7,040.00 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these 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 small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under
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 airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 30, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to XtremeAir GmbH Model XA42 airplanes, all serial numbers, that are:
(1) Equipped with an engine mount part number (P/N) XA42-7120-151; and
(2) certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 71: Power Plant.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracking of the diagonal strut of the engine mount frame. We are issuing this AD to detect and address cracking of the engine mount frame, which could lead to detachment of the engine in-flight and result in loss of control.
Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this AD.
(1) Before the next acrobatic flight after April 30, 2018 (the effective date of this AD) or within 50 hours time-in-service after the installation of P/N XA42-7120-151 engine mount on the airplane, whichever occurs later, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 acrobatic flight hours, inspect the engine mount following the Accomplishment Instructions in XtremeAir Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-XA42-2018-006, Issue A.00, dated March 2, 2018.
(2) After the initial inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, acrobatic flight hours must be recorded in the maintenance records. For the purpose of this AD, we define acrobatic flight as “flight during which a load factor of 6g is exceeded.”
(3) If a crack is found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the engine mount with a serviceable part following the Accomplishment Instructions in XtremeAir Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-XA42-2018-006, Issue A.00, dated March 2, 2018. Replacement of the engine mount does not eliminate the repetitive inspection requirement in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
(4) After the effective date of this AD, you may install a new or used P/N XA42-7120-151 engine mount on the airplane. The used P/N XA42-7120-151 engine mount must be inspected as specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and found free of cracks before installation on the airplane. The repetitive inspection requirement in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD still applies.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
A special flight permit is allowed for this AD per 14 CFR 39.23 with the following limitations: Acrobatic flights are prohibited.
Refer to MCAI, EASA AD No. 2018-0050-E, dated March 2, 2018, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) XtremeAir Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-XA42-2018-006, Issue A.00, dated March 2, 2018.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For XtremeAir service information identified in this AD, contact XtremeAir GmbH, Harzstrasse 2, Am Flughafen Cochstedt, D-39444 Hecklingen, Germany; phone: +49 39267 60999 0; fax: +49 39267 60999 20; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES D, E, F, and G airplanes; and certain Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of the collapse of the main landing gear (MLG) on touchdown. This AD requires an electrical modification of the landing gear sequence logic. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 14, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 14, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3226.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES D, E, F, and G airplanes; and certain Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 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 2017-0130, dated July 26, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES D, E, F, and G airplanes; and certain Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. The MCAI states:
An incident occurred in January 2016 on a Falcon 20-5 aeroplane where, upon touchdown, one main landing gear (MLG) collapsed, due to a sequence anomaly.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to additional events of MLG collapse, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.
Prompted by previous similar events, Dassault developed a modification, ensuring that hydraulic pressure of circuit #1 of the landing gear actuators is maintained after the extension sequence is completed. As a result, in the unlikely case of having one of the legs not properly mechanically locked down, the pressure maintained in the landing gear bracing devices will prevent landing gear from collapsing. Dassault published Service Bulletin (SB) F20-676 in 1981 (later revised in 1998) which contains the necessary instructions to modify in-service aeroplanes.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires an electrical modification of the landing gear sequence logic.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Dassault Aviation has issued Service Bulletin F20-676, Revision 1, dated March 4, 1998. This service information describes procedures for an electrical modification of the MLG sequence logic to prevent landing gear collapse on touchdown. 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 308 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes 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 May 14, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) All Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES D, E, F, and G airplanes.
(2) Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes, except serial numbers (S/Ns) 478 and 485.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of the collapse of the main landing gear (MLG) on touchdown. We are issuing this AD to prevent MLG collapse, which could result in damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 74 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish an electrical modification in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F20-676, Revision 1, dated March 4, 1998.
Although the service information identified in paragraph (g) of this AD specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0130, dated July 26, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3226.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(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) Dassault Service Bulletin F20-676, Revision 1, dated March 4, 1998.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; 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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-8 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of restricted movement of the right brake pedals after landing rollout. This AD requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) by adding an autobrake system limitation. This AD also requires modifying intercostal webs near a main entry door, which terminates the AFM limitation. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 14, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 14, 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
Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3546; 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 747-8 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comment received. Boeing stated its support for the NPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2525 RB, dated September 6, 2017. This service information describes procedures for modifying intercostal webs near main entry door 3 by drilling two drain holes in the station-18 intercostal web at door stop 8 and applying sealant at the fore-aft drain path of the upper main sill web at station 16 near door 3R and door 3L. 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 2 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 available 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 and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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 May 14, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-8 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2525 RB, dated September 6, 2017, except for airplanes having line numbers 1443, 1451, 1453, 1456, 1470, 1472, 1475, 1477, 1480, 1492, 1494, 1497, 1498, 1500, 1503, 1511, 1512, 1513, and 1514.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by a report of restricted movement of the brake pedals after landing rollout. We are issuing this AD to prevent restricted motion of the brake pedals, which can affect stopping performance and directional control of the airplane. This restricted motion can lead to high speed runway excursion or lateral runway excursion.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the airplane flight manual (AFM) by incorporating the limitation specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2525 RB, dated September 6, 2017, except where the requirements bulletin specifies applying sealant, the following type of sealant must be used: BMS 5-142, TYPE 2; BMS 5-95; PR-1826; or PR-1828. Doing the actions specified in this paragraph terminates the AFM limitation revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD. The AFM limitation required by paragraph (g) of this AD may be removed from the AFM after accomplishing the actions specified in this paragraph.
Guidance for accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-32A2525, dated September 6, 2017, which is referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2525 RB, dated September 6, 2017.
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD.
Operators who are prohibited from further flight due to the autobrake system being inoperative may perform a one-time non-revenue ferry flight to fly the airplane to a maintenance facility to either fix the autobrake system or incorporate the terminating action specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. This ferry flight must be performed without passengers, and with interior modifications to allow heated cabin air to warm the brake control cables and pulleys in the vicinity of door 3L and door 3R. These interior modifications must include, at a minimum, temporarily removing the side panels and insulation immediately aft of door 3L and door 3R.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3546; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2525 RB, dated September 6, 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), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as insufficient engagement of the couplings with the flex drive of the rudder trim drive system. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 30, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 30, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by May 24, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the
Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued CAA AD DCA/750XL/26, dated February 28, 2018 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. The MCAI states:
This [CAA] AD mandates the instructions in Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) PACSB/XL/085 issue 1, dated 8 January 2018. The MSB is issued to prevent disengagement of the rudder and/or elevator trim drive due to possible insufficient engagement of the couplings with the flex drive at fuselage stations 115.34 and 180.85, which could result in an ineffective rudder and/or elevator trim system.
Pacific Aerospace Limited has issued Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/085, Issue 1, dated January 8, 2018. The service information describes procedures for removal of the rudder and elevator drive shaft couplings and replacement with new couplings to ensure proper engagement of the drive ends. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because if the rudder and/or elevator trim drive couplings become disconnected and the rudder and elevator trim systems will become inoperable, which increases the workload for the pilot. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $400 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $20,020, or $910 per product.
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 small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation 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 airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 30, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to the following Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes, certificated in any category:
(1) All serial numbers equipped with modification PAC/XL/0582; and
(2) serial numbers 193 through 197, 199, 200, and 203.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as insufficient engagement of the couplings with the flex drive of the rudder trim drive system. We are issuing this AD to prevent disengagement of the rudder and/or elevator trim drive, which could result in increased workload on the pilot and possible loss of control.
Unless already done, within 60 days after April 30, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), remove the rudder and elevator drive shaft couplings, part number (P/N) 11-49023-1, and replace with P/N 11-49023-3 at fuselage stations 115.34 and 180.85, ensuring proper engagement of the drive ends. Follow the Accomplishment Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/085, Issue 1, dated January 8, 2018.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to the MCAI by the CAA, AD DCA/750XL/26, dated February 28, 2018, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/085, Issue 1, dated January 8, 2018.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the internet at
(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-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of a smoke-in-cabin event due to a non-sustaining electrical fire. This AD requires installation of protective sleeves on the bonding jumper wires of affected galleys and lavatories. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 14, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 14, 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
Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7301; 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-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2016-20R1, dated February 3, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:
A CRJ900 aeroplane reported a smoke in cabin event due to a non-sustaining electrical fire. The source of smoke was traced to a burnt heated water supply line behind the #2 Galley. The surrounding insulation was also found burnt.
The root cause of this electrical fire was an electrical short between an un-insulated bonding jumper and a terminal block carrying 115 volts AC. The circuit resistance was high enough and the circuit breakers that protect the wiring did not trip open.
Electrical short of a bonding jumper may result in in-flight smoke or fire events as well as failure of avionics equipment due to possible water spray or leakage from a damaged water supply line. The likelihood of this happening is increased by the removal and installation of the galley or lavatory during maintenance, allowing the bonding jumper to become wedged under the terminal block.
Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate [the installation of protective sleeves on the galley and lavatory bonding jumper wires in accordance with] Bombardier Service Bulletin (SB) 670BA-25-101 Revision B dated 12 January 2017. * * *
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International supported the NPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Bombardier, Inc., has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, Revision B, dated January 12, 2017. The service information describes procedures for installation of protective sleeves on the bonding jumper wires of affected galleys and lavatories. 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 544 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on
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 May 14, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, all certificated models.
(1) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10001 through 10344 inclusive.
(2) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 15382 inclusive.
(3) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 through 19044 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by a report of a smoke-in-cabin event due to a non-sustaining electrical fire. We are issuing this AD to prevent an electrical short of a bonding jumper wire that may result in in-flight smoke or fire events, as well as failure of avionics equipment, due to possible water spray or leakage from a damaged water supply line.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For airplanes on which the actions specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, dated December 17, 2015; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, Revision A, dated October 31, 2016, have not been done, as of the effective date of this AD: Within 6,600 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, install protective sleeves on the bonding jumper wires of affected galleys and lavatories, in accordance with Part A through Part E, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, Revision B, dated January 12, 2017.
(2) For airplanes on which the actions specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, dated December 17, 2015; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, Revision A, dated October 31, 2016, have been done, as of the effective date of this AD: Within 6,600 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect, and if required, install protective sleeves on the bonding jumper wires of affected galleys and lavatories, in accordance with Part F of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, Revision B, dated January 12, 2017.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2016-20R1, dated February 3, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7301; fax: 516-794-5531.
(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 Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, Revision B, dated January 12, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A350-941 airplanes. This AD requires performing repetitive station position pick-off unit (SPPU) calibration tests, and applying the corresponding airplane fault isolation if necessary. This AD was prompted by a report indicating malfunctions of the SPPU and failures of the internal wiring due to water ingress via certain electrical connectors, inducing subsequent icing during flight. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective April 24, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 24, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by May 24, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0058, dated March 14, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A350-941 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Occurrences have been reported by Airbus A350 operators of malfunctions of Station Position Pick-Off Units (SPPU). Investigations indicated that internal wiring failures occurred due to water ingress via certain electrical connectors, inducing subsequent icing during flight.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to hidden sensor signal drift (at flap station 3) which, in combination with an independent failure of a flap down drive disconnect, might lead to in-flight detachment of the outer flap surface, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane, and/or injury to persons on the ground.
Airbus determined that the SPPU calibration test can highlight all hidden faults, but this test is only scheduled after removal/installation of the equipment. Consequently, to address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the SB [Service Bulletin A350-27-P021, dated February 13, 2018], providing instructions to accomplish the SPPU calibration test at regular intervals.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive SPPU calibration test and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s) [applying corresponding airplane fault isolation].
Pending the results of the on-going investigation, this [EASA] AD is still considered to be an interim measure and further [EASA] AD action may follow.
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A350-27-P021, dated February 13, 2018. The service information describes performing repetitive SPPU calibration tests, and applying the corresponding airplane fault isolation if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 6 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes 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 becomes effective April 24, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus Model A350-941 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating malfunctions of the station position pick-off unit (SPPU) and failures of the internal wiring due to water ingress via certain electrical connectors, inducing subsequent icing during flight. We are issuing this AD to address a hidden sensor signal drift, which, in combination with an independent failure of a flap down drive disconnect, could lead to in-flight detachment of the outer flap surface, and possibly result in damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 200 flight cycles or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, accomplish a SPPU calibration test in accordance with the Accomplishment
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0058, dated March 14, 2018, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A350-27-P021, dated February 13, 2018.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, correction.
This action corrects the final rule published in the
Effective date 0901 UTC, May 24, 2018.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA published a final rule in the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the
On page 5710, column 2, line 38, remove (lat. 38°45′44″ N, long. 90°22′56″ W) and add in its place (lat. 38°45′19″ N, long. 90°22′56″ W).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective April 9, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 9, 2018.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective April 9, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 9, 2018.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Final rule.
This rule removes part 2008 of the Office of the United States Trade Representative's (USTR) regulations, which established policy and procedure for the classification and safeguarding of national security information by USTR staff. USTR has replaced the rule, which was promulgated in 1979 and is based on a superseded Executive Order, with updated plain language guidance that is available on the USTR website.
The final rule is effective April 9, 2018.
Janice Kaye, Monique Ricker or Melissa Keppel, Office of General Counsel, United States Trade Representative, Anacostia Naval Annex, Building 410/Door 123, 250 Murray Lane SW, Washington, DC 20509,
On September 26, 1979, USTR's predecessor, the Office of the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, published a rule to establish policies and procedures for the security classification, downgrading, declassification, and safeguarding on national security information.
USTR finds good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment, and to make the rule effective immediately, because it removes an obsolete regulation that USTR has replaced with current guidance. Public input is not necessary and delaying codification is not in the public interest.
The final rule does not contain any information collection requirement that requires the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Administrative practice and procedure, Classified information.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Announcement of public stakeholder meetings.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is announcing the dates and locations of public stakeholder meetings on the Agency's standards for Examinations Of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines.
The meeting dates and locations are listed in the
Sheila A. McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
MSHA will hold six public meetings to inform and educate the mining community on the requirements of the Metal and Nonmetal Examinations of Working Places final rule, which is effective June 2, 2018. At the meetings, MSHA will provide training and compliance assistance materials to attendees. The public meetings will begin at 9 a.m. and end not later than 5 p.m., on the following dates at the locations indicated:
On January 23, 2017, the Mine Safety and Health Administration published a final rule (January 2017 rule) amending the standards then in effect on examinations of working places in metal and nonmetal mines, 30 CFR 56.18002 and 57.18002 (82 FR 7680). The January 2017 final rule, which was scheduled to become effective on May 23, 2017, was stayed until June 2, 2018 (82 FR 46411). On September 12, 2017, MSHA published a proposed rule that would make limited changes to the January 2017 final rule (82 FR 42765). The final rule, which is published elsewhere in this issue of the
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Final rule.
On January 23, 2017, the Mine Safety and Health Administration published a final rule (January 2017 rule) amending provisions regarding examinations of working places in metal and nonmetal mines which were later stayed. MSHA is further amending the affected provisions following expiration of the stay. These additional amendments provide mine operators additional flexibility in managing their safety and health programs and reduces regulatory burdens without reducing the protections afforded miners. A document announcing stakeholder meetings is published concurrently with this rule in the
Effective June 2, 2018.
Sheila A. McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), mine operators, with the assistance of miners, have the primary responsibility to prevent the existence of unsafe and unhealthful conditions and practices. Operator compliance with safety and health standards and implementation of safe work practices provide a substantial measure of protection against hazards that cause accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Effective working place examinations are a fundamental accident prevention tool used by operators of metal and nonmetal (MNM) mines. They allow operators to identify and correct adverse conditions that may affect the safety and health of miners and violations of safety and health standards before they cause injury or death to miners.
MSHA's final rule makes changes to §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a), § 56.18002(b) and (c), and § 57.18002(b) and (c) as amended by the Agency's final rule on examinations of working places that was published on January 23, 2017 (January 2017 rule) (82 FR 7680 at 7695). MSHA's changes to §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) require that a competent person examine each working place at least once each shift before work begins, or as miners begin work in that place, for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health. This final rule also amends §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) to require that the working place examination record include a description of each condition found that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners and is not corrected promptly. Lastly, MSHA's final rule makes a conforming change and amends §§ 56.18002(c) and 57.18002(c) to require that when a condition that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners is not corrected promptly, the examination record shall include, or be supplemented to include, the date of the corrective action.
This final rule does not address longstanding concepts, definitions in existing MNM standards, and clarifications related to competent person, working place, promptly, and adverse conditions, as noted in the preamble to the January 2017 rule.
After consideration of comments received on the September 12, 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking, the Agency concludes that the final rule will reduce the regulatory burden and increase flexibility for mine operators without reducing protections for miners and is consistent with the Administration's initiatives to reduce and control regulatory costs.
On January 23, 2017, MSHA published a final rule, Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines, amending the Agency's standards for the examinations of working places in MNM mines, 30 CFR 56.18002 and 57.18002 (82 FR 7680). The January 2017 rule was scheduled to become effective on May 23, 2017. On May 22, 2017, MSHA published a final rule delaying the effective date to October 2, 2017 (82 FR 23139).
On September 12, 2017, MSHA proposed to further delay the effective date of the final rule from October 2, 2017 to March 2, 2018 (82 FR 42765). On October 5, 2017, MSHA published a final rule that stayed the amendment from the January 2017 rule until June 2, 2018 (82 FR 46411). Also, the October 5, 2017 final rule reinstated, as 30 CFR 56.18002T and 57.18002T, the provisions of the working place examination standards that were in effect as of October 1, 2017; these temporary provisions expire June 2, 2018 (82 FR 46411). (Sections 56.18002T and 57.18002T are subsequently referenced in this document as the “standards in effect”.) Also, on September 12, 2017, MSHA proposed a limited reopening of the rulemaking record for the January 2017 rule and proposed amendments to the January 2017 rule. The proposed changes that MSHA published for comment were limited to: (1) When working place examinations must begin; and (2) the adverse conditions and corrective actions that must be included in the working place examinations record (82 FR 42757). Specifically, MSHA proposed amending the introductory text of §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) to require that an examination of a working place be conducted before work begins, or as miners begin work in that place. The Agency also proposed amending §§ 56.18002(b) and (c) and 57.18002(b) and (c) to require that the examination record include descriptions of adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly, and the dates of corrective action. MSHA held four public hearings from October 24, 2017, to November 2, 2017, at various locations, to provide the members of the public an opportunity to present their views on the limited proposed changes. These hearings were held in Arlington, Virginia; Salt Lake City, Utah; Birmingham, Alabama; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The comment period for the proposed limited changes closed on November 13, 2017.
Based on its evaluation of the costs and benefits, MSHA has determined that this final rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy and, therefore, will not be an economically significant regulatory action pursuant to section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. MSHA estimates that the total undiscounted costs (using 2016 dollars) of the final rule over a 10-year period will be approximately -$276 million, -$235.4 million at a 3 percent rate, and -$193.8 million at a 7 percent rate. The same annual cost savings occur in each of the 10 years so the cost annualized over 10 years will be approximately -$27.6 million for all discount rates. This final rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Negative cost values are cost savings that result in a positive net benefit. MSHA estimates that this final rule results in annual cost savings of $27.6 million. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.
On October 5, 2017, MSHA published a final rule staying the amendments from the January 2017 rule and temporarily reinstating the working place examinations standards that were in effect as of October 1, 2017, until June 2, 2018 (82 FR 46411). MSHA is confirming that both the stay and temporary provisions expire June 2, 2018.
After further review of the rulemaking record in the September 12, 2017
MSHA received many comments related to issues other than those that were proposed. For example, commenters indicated that amendments to standards in effect are not needed or are not justified. Many stated the working place examination standards in effect which have been in effect since 1979 are sufficient and effective in identifying and correcting conditions that may adversely affect the safety and health of miners and in reducing accidents and injuries in the work place. In some cases, commenters suggested alternatives that included, for example, better mine and miner training, and work place inspection programs and plans.
MSHA has not considered or addressed comments on issues other than those proposed because they are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The Agency's purpose for the limited reopening of the rulemaking record for the January 2017 rule, and for issuing a proposed rule, was to reconsider issues related to the timing of the examination and the recording of adverse conditions and corrective actions in the examination record.
Many commenters generally indicated that the changes in the proposed rule were improvements to the January 2017 rule, but several expressed concerns that the proposal did not go far enough in reducing mine operators' regulatory and cost burdens. Some also maintained that the proposal would not increase miners' protections at MNM mines, but would increase mine operators' administrative and paperwork burdens.
One commenter stated that the proposed changes offer additional flexibility for operators to manage their safety and health programs more efficiently, while reducing burden without compromising miners' safety and health.
MSHA agrees that the proposed changes to the January 2017 rule would reduce mine operators' burdens without compromising the safety and health of miners. Under the final rule, like the proposal, mine operators will have more flexibility on when to conduct their working place examinations. Furthermore, compared to the January 2017 rule, the examination record will be less burdensome for operators since only those adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly, and dates of corrective actions for those conditions, must be included in the record. MSHA concludes that the final rule changes will reduce the regulatory burden and provide operators flexibility, without reducing the safety and health protections afforded miners.
This final rule, consistent with the proposed rule, amends the introductory text of §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) and requires a competent person to examine each working place at least once each shift before work begins or as miners begin work in that place for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health. This final rule amends the January 2017 provisions to allow miners to enter a working place at the same time that the competent person conducts the examination. The January 2017 rule required the examination of each working place to be conducted before miners begin work in that place.
Many commenters, including some who stated the proposed change to the timing of the examination is an improvement, stated that the proposed rule continues to unnecessarily constrain when operators can conduct their examinations. The reasons commenters gave included that shifts vary and that circumstances and conditions often change during the shift. Some commenters expressed concern that operators need flexibility to conduct examinations at any time during the shift as circumstances dictate, particularly to address changing conditions and hazards that can occur at any time throughout the shift. One of these commenters stated that requiring work place exams to be performed before miners begin working implicitly means that exams would take place before conditions start to change. One commenter commented that, generally, it is a good practice to conduct the exam before anybody enters the work area, whether at the start of the shift or later in the day. This same commenter acknowledged that unsafe conditions can occur throughout the shift and that operators are not relieved from their ongoing obligation to provide a safe and healthy work environment under the Mine Act simply because a work place exam was done. Another commenter stated that the industry's existing practice of conducting these examinations during the shift constitutes a best safety practice. According to the commenter, operators know their work processes best, and are in the best position to tailor their examination practices to occur at a time that would provide the maximum safety benefit to miners. The majority of commenters expressed their support for retaining the standards in effect which, as previously noted in this preamble, is not within the scope of this rulemaking.
In response to commenters' concerns, MSHA does not believe this final rule restricts operators' ability to conduct their examinations, or restricts their ability to conduct as many examinations as they need, depending on work place conditions. The final rule provides operators more flexibility in scheduling examinations than the January 2017 rule. Rather than requiring that examinations occur only before work begins in a working place, the final rule provides the option for a competent person to perform the examination at the same time that miners begin working in that place. With this option available, operators will be better able to manage work schedules to comply with examination requirements without incurring additional costs and burden.
In addition, MSHA recognizes that mining operations have dynamic work environments where conditions are always changing. For that reason, mine operators and miners need to be aware of conditions that may occur at any time that could affect the safety and health of miners. The final rule requires that examinations be conducted at least once per shift before work begins or as miners begin work in that place. As a best practice, operators should perform examinations, consistent with what one commenter stated, to identify and correct adverse conditions as they occur throughout the shift. Other commenters indicated that their companies' practices already include work place examinations that continue during the shift.
Furthermore, as stated in the preamble to the January 2017 rule, MSHA acknowledges that for mines with consecutive shifts or those that operate on a 24-hour, 365-day basis, it may be appropriate to conduct the examination for the next shift at the end
One commenter noted that the change in the proposed rule to allow workers to enter an area at the same time as the competent person does not consider the geographic differences between surface and underground mines and how surface mine supervision differs between the two. The commenter explained that in many cases, due to the geographic locations of crews starting at a surface mine, a competent person would not be able to examine all areas of the mine where several crews of miners would be starting work at the same time.
As indicated in the preamble to the January 2017 rule, it is not MSHA's intent that the mine operator examine the entire mine, unless work is beginning in the entire mine. An examination is only required in those areas where work will be performed. If miners are not scheduled for work in a particular area or place at the mine, that place does not need to be examined.
MSHA also recognizes that there are mines where several crews start work at the same time in different areas of the mine. The competent person designation is not restricted to supervisors and foremen. If designated by the operator as having the required experience and ability, a non-supervisory miner on the crew starting work also may be “competent” to conduct the examination. MSHA believes that existing requirements for competent persons provide flexibility for operators while requiring the level of competency necessary to conduct adequate examinations.
Some commenters did not support the proposed changes stating that allowing examinations as miners begin work in a potentially hazardous area would be less protective than the January 2017 amendments; one commenter stated the proposed revision is contrary to Section 101(a)(9) of the Mine Act. The commenters supported implementing the January 2017 requirement that the examination must occur before miners begin work in a working place. One commenter further questioned how sending miners into their work place before an examination has been conducted can be safer than identifying those hazards beforehand, correcting them, and informing the miners of such hazards before they begin their work. This commenter stated that examinations are particularly effective in the discovery and correction of hazardous conditions and practices before they lead to injuries or fatalities, that is, if they are conducted before miners are exposed. The commenter further stated the standard should not be changed to allow examinations after miners are already exposed. Another commenter did not support the changes, describing them as cutbacks in safety regulations, stating that lives will be lost and that the money saved is insignificant.
While this final rule allows miners to enter a working place at the same time a competent person examines for adverse conditions, as stated in the preamble to the January 2017 rule, MSHA intends for adverse conditions to be identified and miner notification provided before miners are potentially exposed to the conditions. Under this final rule, a competent person will identify adverse conditions that can be corrected promptly and the operator will be responsible for correcting them. Miners will be promptly notified of adverse conditions found that cannot be corrected promptly, and operators will be required to include them in the examination record. This final rule, like the January 2017 rule, will promote early identification and improve communication of adverse conditions. MSHA believes that prudent operators will correct many adverse conditions as competent persons perform examinations, or as soon as possible after the completion of examinations. For these reasons, MSHA concludes that the requirements in this final rule are as protective as those in the January 2017 rule. Under this final rule, adverse conditions will be identified and miners will be notified of those adverse conditions that are not promptly corrected, before they are potentially exposed.
Also, this final rule, like the January 2017 rule, does not require a specific time frame for the examination to be conducted. However, whether conducted before work begins in a working place or as work begins in that place, the examination should be conducted within a time frame sufficient to assure any adverse conditions would be identified before miners are potentially exposed.
Some commenters supported the option to allow examinations to be performed as miners begin work in a working place. One commenter noted that it is best to train miners to perform examinations of their own working areas, and thus appropriate to allow examinations as they begin work. Another commenter stated that the change would maintain safe working conditions and provide sufficient flexibility for operators to conduct an examination while not interrupting the transition of shifts. This commenter pointed out that if only a pre-shift exam were required, as in the January 2017 rule, the start of the shift would be delayed to provide time for completion of the exam and communication of adverse conditions, or require personnel to arrive before the shift, resulting in overtime pay and/or delay of work.
The final rule allows mine operators to perform examinations at the same time miners begin work. This provides operators with additional flexibility in scheduling working place examinations.
Sections 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b), like the proposal, require mine operators to make a record of the working place examination and to include, among other information, a description of each condition found that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners that is not corrected promptly. The January 2017 rule required that each adverse condition be listed in the examination record. This final rule reduces the mine operator's recordkeeping burden by requiring that the examination record include only a description of each adverse condition that is not corrected promptly. A similar conforming change to §§ 56.18002(c) and 57.18002(c) requires that the examination record include the dates of corrective actions for only those adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly. In response to comments, the Agency concludes that providing a mine operator an exception to the recordkeeping requirement for conditions that are corrected promptly provides increased incentive to correct conditions promptly, without reducing protections for miners' safety and health. The Agency also believes that this action will likely result in operators' correcting adverse conditions more quickly, and thereby improving protections for miners.
Consistent with the explanation in the preamble to the January 2017 rule regarding miner notification requirements in §§ 56.18002(a)(1) and 57.18002(a)(1), MSHA interprets promptly to mean before miners are potentially exposed to adverse conditions. In the preamble, MSHA stated that if adverse conditions in the work area are corrected before miners are potentially exposed, notification is
In addition, the purpose of the working place examinations rulemaking is to ensure that adverse conditions will be timely identified, communicated to miners, and corrected, thereby improving miners' safety and health. This final rule reduces the mine operator's recordkeeping burden but does not reduce the protections afforded miners under the January 2017 rule. Consistent with industry best practices, and with comments, MSHA recognizes that prudent mine operators routinely correct many adverse conditions during the examination, or as soon as possible after the completion of the working place examination, and that the corrective action may be taken by the competent person or someone else. For these reasons, the final rule requires the mine operator to record only those conditions that are not promptly corrected and that may expose miners to adverse conditions affecting their safety and health.
In the preamble to the January 2017 rule, MSHA explained that recording all adverse conditions, even those that are corrected promptly, would be useful in identifying trends and areas that could benefit from an increased safety emphasis. While this may be true, MSHA also believes that a recording exception for adverse conditions that are corrected promptly will yield as much or more in safety benefits, because it encourages prompt correction of adverse conditions.
Some commenters opposed the proposed changes to the examination record provisions and expressed their support for implementing requirements of the January 2017 rule. These commenters suggested that all adverse conditions identified during a working place examination must be recorded to encourage mine operators to explore the possible causes of those conditions and to take appropriate corrective actions.
Consistent with the purpose of the January 2017 rule, amending §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) reduces the mine operator's burden in recording each adverse condition and encourages prompt correction by requiring that the record include only those conditions that are not corrected promptly and may affect the safety and health of miners.
Most commenters, however, were generally receptive to the proposed changes to the examination record requirements. They expressed that the changes were an improvement over the January 2017 rule and provided more flexibility for operators. Some noted that many adverse conditions are found and corrected during the examination. Others pointed out that requiring all adverse conditions be recorded in the examination record would overwhelm the record with minor housekeeping issues, and the proposed change would reduce the regulatory burden on the operator. Another commenter stated that removing the requirement to record all adverse conditions will provide an incentive for operators to take corrective actions immediately.
MSHA agrees with these commenters and concludes that requiring mine operators to record only those adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly is as protective as the January 2017 rule. When a mine operator is not required to record an adverse condition which is corrected promptly in the examination record, the mine operator is incentivized to correct these conditions.
Many commenters suggested that MSHA revise the examination record requirement to include only those adverse conditions not corrected during the shift, instead of the proposed requirement to include those not corrected promptly. They articulated that the reason for the record is to document adverse conditions that were not corrected timely and still need to be corrected. Some indicated that their recommended exception is consistent with the requirement that the mine operator make the record before the end of the shift.
Recording adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly, rather than those corrected anytime during the shift as suggested by commenters, provides increased incentive for the mine operator to correct the adverse conditions sooner and reduces the risk of accidents, injuries, or illnesses.
MSHA's change to the examination record requirements will reduce the operators' regulatory burden, while continuing to provide equivalent protection to miners' safety and health.
Executive Orders (E.O.) 13563 and 12866 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 13771 directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs by eliminating at least two existing regulations for each new regulation, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process. This final rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. MSHA believes that this rule reflects industry best practices and the estimated cost savings will likely be realized. As discussed in this section, MSHA estimates that this final rule results in annual cost savings of $27.6 million.
Under E.O. 12866, MSHA must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Based on its evaluation of the costs and benefits, MSHA has determined that this final rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy and, therefore, will not be an economically significant regulatory action pursuant to section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
The final rule applies to all MNM mines in the United States. In 2016, there were approximately 11,624 MNM mines employing 140,631 miners,
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) estimated the value of the U.S. mining industry's MNM output in 2016 to be $74.6 billion.
MSHA estimated that the January 2017 rule would have resulted in $34.5 million in annual costs for the MNM industry. The Agency estimated that the total undiscounted cost over 10 years would have been $345.1 million; at a 3 percent discount rate, $294.4 million; and at a 7 percent discount rate, $242.4 million.
For the January 2017 rule, MSHA estimated costs associated with conducting an examination before miners begin work, the additional time to make a record, and providing miners' representatives a copy of the record. In the preamble to the January 2017 rule, MSHA concluded that MNM mine operators will use a variety of scheduling methods to conduct an examination of a working place before miners begin work (82 FR 7690). In addition, MSHA considered the following variables: (1) Percent of mine operators currently conducting workplace examinations before miners begin work; (2) number of shifts by mine size; (3) average time to conduct a workplace examination by mine size; (4) hourly wage rate; and (5) number of days a mine operates, on average, by mine size. The hourly wage rate used in MSHA's analysis assumes an average rate for all MNM mines. Like the January 2017 rule, wage rates for this final rule are from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Occupation Employment Statistics (OES). For this final rule, MSHA applied 2016 wage and employment data to the January 2017 rule cost estimate to calculate a baseline. In the January 2017 rule, MSHA estimated that a mine operator would pay overtime for a competent person to arrive before the shift begins to conduct the working place examination. MSHA also estimated the cost for overtime as time and a half (52.92/hr = $35.28 × 1.5). MSHA retained the calculations and assumptions used in the January 2017 rule to conduct the examination before miners begin work. The revised annual cost base is $27.6 million, or an approximate $0.7 million increase. The updated annual cost consists of:
• $5.13 million = 10,428 mines with 1-19 employees × 15 percent × 20 minutes × 1 hr/60 min × $52.92 wage × 1.1 shifts per day × 1 exam × 169 workdays per year;
• $20.72 million = 1,174 mines with 20-500 employees × 65 percent × 1 hour × $52.92 wage × 1.8 shifts per day × 1 exam × 285 workdays per year; and
• $1.75 million = 22 mines with 501+ employees × 85 percent × 2.5 hours × $52.92 wage × 2.2 shifts per day × 1 exam × 322 workdays per year.
In the January 2017 rule, MSHA estimated the cost of making a record of each examination before the end of the shift for which the examination was conducted. MSHA retained the calculations and assumptions used for this cost estimate (82 FR 7691). The revised annual cost base, which was updated for wage inflation and final 2016 data on the number of mines in operation, is $7.516 million, an approximate $216,000 increase. The updated annual cost consists of:
• $5.70 million = 10,428 mines with 1-19 employees × 1.1 shift per day × 1 exam record × 169 workdays per year × 5 additional minutes × 1 hr/60 min × $35.28 per hour;
• $1.77 million = 1,174 mines with 20-500 employees × 1.8 shifts per day × 1 exam record × 285 workdays per year × 5 additional minutes × 1 hr/60 min × $35.28 per hour; and
• $45,816 = 22 mines with 501+ employees × 2.2 shifts per day × 1 exam record × 322 workdays per year × 5
MSHA also retained the calculations and assumptions used to estimate the costs of making a copy of the examination record and providing it to miners' representatives. The annual costs, which were also updated for wage inflation and the number of mines in operations, consist of:
The revised annual cost base is $.361 million, an approximate $15,000 increase.
Net benefits are the result of subtracting costs from benefits. As detailed in the Benefits and Compliance Cost sections below, no monetized benefits minus the cost savings of −$27.6 million results in a net benefit of $27.6 million annually undiscounted as well as the same value at discount rates of 7 and 3 percent.
As previously stated, this final rule modifies §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) that required the examination be conducted before miners begin work in that place to also allow an examination to be as miners begin work in that place. In addition the final rule modifies §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) to require a description of each adverse condition found that is not corrected promptly. MSHA's final rule also modifies §§ 56.18002(c) and 57.18002(c) to require that the examination record include, or be supplemented to include, the date of the corrective action for conditions that are not corrected promptly.
MSHA does not believe the changes to the January 2017 rule reduce the protections afforded miners. As MSHA stated in the preamble to the January 2017 rule, the Agency was unable to separate quantifiable benefits from the January 2017 rule from those benefits attributable to conducting a workplace examination under the standards in effect. MSHA continues to anticipate, however, that there will be benefits from more effective and consistent working place examinations that help to ensure that adverse conditions will be timely identified, communicated to miners, and corrected. MSHA anticipates that the record requirements will improve accident prevention by helping mine operators identify any patterns or trends of adverse conditions and preventing these conditions from recurring. Since MSHA was unable to quantify benefits for this rulemaking, MSHA is not claiming a monetized benefit for this final rule.
The costs of this final rule are associated with conducting examinations of a working place as miners begin work in that place. For the January 2017 rule estimate, MSHA assumed that operators could have incurred overtime costs, hiring costs, or experience rescheduling costs to comply with the requirement that an examination occur before miners began work. Under this rulemaking, MSHA estimated that mine operators would not incur these costs. MSHA solicited comments, but did not receive specific data or information on the Agency's assumptions or costs saving estimate.
MSHA did not change the longstanding definition related to “competent person.” Many commenters recognized that MSHA did not propose changing this definition and, that in many mines, miners are trained and perform as competent persons. However, other commenters considered the requirement that a competent person perform the examination to be a new cost. In addition, the standards in effect require a competent person designated by a mine operator to examine each working place at least once per shift. Therefore, requiring a competent person to perform the examination is not a new cost.
Some commenters suggested that mine operators would incur other costs related to the January 2017 rule due to differences in physical mine sizes, or differences between underground and surface mining operations, and these amendments did not eliminate all of the timing costs attributable to the 2017 rule. However, these commenters did not provide MSHA sufficient data or information for the Agency to quantify the costs associated with the differences in mine size or mining operations. Further, MSHA's estimates represent averages; individual mines have costs above and below the average.
The January 2017 rule also specified the contents of the examination record, which included a requirement that the record include a description of all adverse conditions found. Under this final rule, MSHA reduces the mine operators' burden by modifying the required contents of the examination record. The final rule requires that the examination record include a description of each adverse condition that is not corrected promptly, and no longer requires a record of adverse conditions that are corrected promptly. MSHA solicited information and data on the number of instances adverse conditions are promptly corrected and, on average, how much time would be saved by not requiring corrected conditions to be included in the record. MSHA did not receive data or information in response to this request; therefore, the Agency has estimated no change in costs related to the change to the recordkeeping requirements. The following table reports the published January 2017 rule costs, updates to the baseline, and the final rule's cost savings (cost reductions have a negative sign and are a cost savings). As the table reports, only the timing of the examination has a cost impact for this rulemaking.
MSHA did not include an overhead labor cost in the economic analysis for this final rule. It is also important to note that there is not one broadly accepted overhead rate, and the use of overhead rate to estimate the marginal costs of labor raises a number of issues that should be addressed before applying overhead costs to analyze costs of any regulation. There are several approaches to look at the cost elements that fit the definition of overhead and there are a range of overhead estimates currently used within the federal government—for example, the Environmental Protection Agency has used 17 percent,
For E.O. 13771 deregulatory actions that revise or repeal recently issued rules, agencies generally should not estimate cost savings that exceed the costs previously projected for the relevant requirements, unless credible new evidence show that costs were previously underestimated.
The cost estimate for the January 2017 rule did not include overhead. If, for this rule, MSHA had included an overhead rate when estimating the marginal cost of labor and adopted for these purposes an overhead rate of 17 percent on base wages, the overhead costs would increase cost savings from $27.6 million to $32.3 million at all discount rates, 17 percent more than costs previously projected. This increase in savings of $4.7 million is the same as the 17 percent overhead rate because all rule costs are labor costs and therefore total costs change in direct proportion to the overhead rates selected. MSHA will continue to study overhead costs to ensure regulatory costs are appropriately attributed without double counting or showing savings for concepts not previously considered as costs.
Discounting is a technique used to apply the economic concept that the preference for the value of money decreases over time. In this analysis, MSHA provides cost totals at zero, 3, and 7 percent discount rates. The zero percent discount rate is referred to as the undiscounted rate. MSHA used the Excel® Net Present Value (NPV) function to determine the present value of costs and computed an annualized cost from the present value using the Excel PMT function.
MSHA estimates that the total undiscounted costs of the final rule over a 10-year period will be approximately −$276 million, −$235.4 million at a 3 percent rate, and −$193.8 million at a 7 percent rate. Negative cost values are cost savings. The same annual cost savings occurs in each of the 10 years so the cost annualized over 10 years will be approximately −$27.6 million.
The final rule contains examination timing and recordkeeping requirements and is not technology-forcing. MSHA concludes that the final rule will be technologically feasible.
MSHA established the economic feasibility of the January 2017 rule using its traditional revenue screening test—whether the yearly impacts of a regulation are less than one percent of revenues—to establish presumptively that the January 2017 rule was economically feasible for the mining community. This final rule creates a cost savings of −$27.6 million annually compared to the January 2017 rule. Although the associated revenues decreased slightly from the January 2017 rule estimate of $77.6 billion in 2015 to approximately $74.6 billion for 2016, the costs retained from the January 2017 rule of approximately $7.9 million per year remain well less than one percent of revenues and the net decrease in costs (−$27.6 million annually) is even more supportive of the Agency's conclusion. MSHA concludes that the final rule will be economically feasible for the MNM mining industry.
In the proposed rule, Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines, MSHA requested comments on its proposed certification. MSHA has reviewed comments pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). For the RFA considerations and certification, MSHA has included
Under the RFA, in analyzing the impact of a rule on small entities, MSHA must use the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) definition for a small entity, or after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish an alternative definition for the mining industry by publishing that definition in the
On February 26, 2016, SBA's revised size standards became effective. SBA updated the small business thresholds for mining by establishing a number of different levels. MSHA used the SBA standards, definitions, and the 2017 NAICS updates for the screening analysis of the final rule. To align MSHA's data with the SBA definitions, the Agency used the largest value of total mine employment identified by total employment reported to MSHA by the mine operators, total controller employment, or total employment identified from MSHA's research.
MSHA initially evaluates the impacts on small entities by comparing the estimated compliance costs of a rule for small entities in the sector affected by the rule to the estimated revenues for the affected sector. When this threshold analysis shows estimated compliance costs have been less than one percent of the estimated revenues, the Agency has concluded that it is generally appropriate to conclude that there is no significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Additionally, there is the possibility that a rule might have a positive economic impact. To properly apply MSHA's traditional criteria and consider the positive impact case, MSHA adjusted its traditional threshold analysis criteria to consider the absolute value of one percent rather than only the adverse case. This slight change means when the absolute value of the estimated compliance costs exceeds one percent of revenues, MSHA investigates whether further analysis is required. For small entities impacted by this final rule, MSHA used the average per mine cost savings and average revenues per mine (See Table 2) to estimate the revenue at $40.4 billion and costs savings at $17.2 million (subtracting negative costs results in a positive).
As a percentage, the absolute value of the impact is approximately 0.04 percent ($17.2 million/$40.4 billion); therefore, using the threshold analysis, MSHA concludes no further analysis is required and concludes the final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Table 4 shows the estimate of impact by NAICS code.
The final changes due to this rulemaking are unlikely to change the number of collections or respondents in the currently approved collection 1219-0089. The recordkeeping change from the January 2017 rule may reduce the burden slightly, but MSHA concludes that any small decrease in the time needed to make the record may not be measurable. MSHA requested comments on this issue in the September 2017 proposed rule preamble (82 FR 42761). MSHA received a comment accepting the conclusion and other comments stating the requirement to record all adverse conditions was overly burdensome. MSHA revised the regulatory requirement to reduce the burden but did not receive any comments with information that would help MSHA decrease the burden estimate. MSHA concludes that the previously approved collection 1219-0089 remains representative and is not requesting any change to the burden estimate in the approved collection.
MSHA has reviewed the final rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) requires agencies to assess the impact of Agency action on family well-being. MSHA has determined that this final rule will have no effect on family stability or safety, marital commitment, parental rights and authority, or income or poverty of families and children. Accordingly, MSHA certifies that this final rule will not impact family well-being.
Section 5 of E.O. 12630 requires Federal agencies to “identify the takings implications of proposed regulatory actions . . .” MSHA has determined that this final rule does not include a regulatory or policy action with takings implications. Accordingly, E.O. 12630 requires no further Agency action or analysis.
Section 3 of E.O. 12988 contains requirements for Federal agencies promulgating new regulations or reviewing existing regulations to minimize litigation by eliminating drafting errors and ambiguity, providing a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, promoting simplification, and reducing burden. MSHA has reviewed this final rule and has determined that it will meet the applicable standards provided in E.O. 12988 to minimize litigation and undue burden on the Federal court system.
MSHA has determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications because 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. Accordingly, E.O. 13132 requires no further Agency action or analysis.
MSHA has determined that this final rule does not have tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Accordingly, E.O. 13175 requires no further Agency action or analysis.
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to publish a statement of energy effects when a rule has a significant energy action that adversely affects energy supply, distribution, or use. In its January 2017 rule, MSHA reviewed the rule for its energy effects. The impact on uranium mines is applicable in this case. MSHA data show only two active uranium mines in 2016. Because this final rule will have a net cost savings, MSHA has concluded that it will not be a significant energy action because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Accordingly, under this analysis, no further Agency action or analysis is required.
Metals, Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, MSHA is amending parts 56 and 57 of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
30 U.S.C. 811.
(a) A competent person designated by the operator shall examine each working place at least once each shift before work begins or as miners begin work in that place, for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health.
(1) The operator shall promptly notify miners in any affected areas of any conditions found that may adversely affect safety or health and promptly initiate appropriate action to correct such conditions.
(2) Conditions noted by the person conducting the examination that may present an imminent danger shall be brought to the immediate attention of the operator who shall withdraw all persons from the area affected (except persons referred to in section 104(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977) until the danger is abated.
(b) A record of each examination shall be made before the end of the shift for which the examination was conducted. The record shall contain the name of the
(c) When a condition that may adversely affect safety or health is not corrected promptly, the examination record shall include, or be supplemented to include, the date of the corrective action.
(d) The operator shall maintain the examination records for at least one year, make the records available for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary and the representatives of miners, and provide these representatives a copy on request.
30 U.S.C. 811.
(a) A competent person designated by the operator shall examine each working place at least once each shift before work begins or as miners begin work in that place, for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health.
(1) The operator shall promptly notify miners in any affected areas of any conditions found that may adversely affect safety or health and promptly initiate appropriate action to correct such conditions.
(2) Conditions noted by the person conducting the examination that may present an imminent danger shall be brought to the immediate attention of the operator who shall withdraw all persons from the area affected (except persons referred to in section 104(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977) until the danger is abated.
(b) A record of each examination shall be made before the end of the shift for which the examination was conducted. The record shall contain the name of the person conducting the examination; date of the examination; location of all areas examined; and description of each condition found that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners and is not corrected promptly.
(c) When a condition that may adversely affect safety or health is not corrected promptly, the examination record shall include, or be supplemented to include, the date of the corrective action.
(d) The operator shall maintain the examination records for at least one year, make the records available for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary and the representatives of miners, and provide these representatives a copy on request.
Department of Defense.
Final rule.
This final rule removes DoD's regulation concerning paternity claims and adoption proceedings involving members and former members of the Armed Forces. The DoD policy that corresponds with this rule is not required by law and was rescinded. This part is not necessary, therefore, it can be removed from the CFR.
This rule is effective on April 9, 2018.
LTCOL Reggie Yager, 703-571-9301.
It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it seeks to remove DoD policy from the CFR that has already been rescinded.
This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” therefore, E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” does not apply.
Claims, Infants and children, Military personnel.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation for certain navigable waters of the Detroit River, Trenton Channel, Wyandotte, MI. This action is necessary and is intended to ensure safety of life on navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the Wy-Hi Rowing Regatta event.
This temporary final rule is effective from 7:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on May 5, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone 313-568-9564, or email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) (B), the Coast Guard finds that
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that the likely combination of recreation vessels, commercial vessels, and an unknown number of spectators in close proximity to a youth rowing regatta along the water pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property. Therefore, the COTP is establishing a special local regulation around the event location to help minimize risks to safety of life and property during this event.
This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation from 7:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on May 05, 2018. In light of the aforementioned hazards, the COTP has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and participants. The special local regulation will encompass the following waterway: All waters of the Detroit River, Trenton Channel between the following two lines going from bank-to-bank: The first line is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11.0′ N, 083°09.4′ W (NAD 83); the second line, to the north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11.7′ N, 083°08.9′ W (NAD 83).
An on-scene representative of the COTP may permit vessels to transit the area when no race activity is occurring. The on-scene representative may be present on any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement vessel assigned to patrol the event. Vessel operators desiring to transit through the regulated area must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9560.
The COTP or his designated on-scene representative will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule by all appropriate means, including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this special local regulation zone which will impact a small designated area of the Detroit River from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. May 05, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the special local regulation and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation lasting ten hours that will prohibit entry into a designated area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[61] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Vessel operators desiring to enter, transit through, anchoring in, remaining in, or operate within the regulated area must contact the CTOP Detroit or his designated representative to obtain permission to do so. The COTP Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9560. Vessel operators given permission to operate within the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Route 1 & 9 (Lincoln Highway) Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 1.8, at Jersey City, New Jersey. The deviation is necessary to limit and control bridge openings during the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the Pulaski Skyway Bridge.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from April 9, 2018 through 11:59 p.m. on July 31, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on April 2, 2018, until April 9, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0226, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy K. Leung-Yee, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4336, email
The owner of the bridge, the New Jersey Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation in order to complete the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the adjacent Pulaski Skyway Bridge. The Route 1 & 9 Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 1.8, at Jersey City, New Jersey is a vertical lift bridge with a vertical clearance of 35 feet at mean high water and 40 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.5.
This temporary deviation will allow the Route 1 & 9 Bridge to open on signal from April 2, 2018 to July 31, 2018, except that the draw will not open to vessel traffic, Monday through Friday, between 6 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. and between 2:30 p.m. and 6 p.m., except holidays. On Federal holidays, the Route 1 & 9 Bridge will open on signal. Tide dependent deep draft vessels may request bridge openings during the rush hour closure periods, provided that at least a six hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
The waterway is transited by recreational vessels and commercial vessels. Coordination with waterway users has indicated no objections to the proposed closure of the draw. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass, but the bridge will be able to open
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.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
This document amends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) by revising the portion of the rating schedule that addresses gynecological conditions and disorders of the breast. The effect of this action is to ensure that this portion of the rating schedule uses current medical terminology and to provide detailed and updated criteria for evaluation of gynecological conditions and disorders of the breast.
Ioulia Vvedenskaya, M.D., M.B.A., Medical Officer, Part 4 VASRD Regulations Staff (211C), Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9700. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.)
VA published a proposed rule in the
Several commenters expressed their support for the proposed rule and thanked VA for promoting gender equality in the rating schedule.
One commenter demanded compensation for his multiple debilitating health issues, which he attributed to exposure to toxic substances at Fort McClellan. He also urged VA to pass the Fort McClellan Health Registry Act, H.R. 411, 113th Cong. (2013). Several commenters stated their belief that their multiple medical conditions are due to exposure to toxic substances at Fort McClellan and asked to be considered for service connection. Another commenter provided information about his medical conditions, which he stated he developed after his reservist's training at Fort McClellan that involved chemical agent training. These comments focus on issues of service connection, rather than the appropriate rating for already service-connected disabilities, and individual claims for VA benefits, which are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Regarding the commenter's request that VA “pass” the Fort McClellan Health Registry Act, VA notes that this act is a Congressional act and not before VA. This comment is also beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, VA makes no changes to the proposed rule based on these comments.
One commenter had a question about the proposed note to diagnostic code 7615 “Ovary, disease, injury, or adhesions of” asking if the note would create a narrow category for disability evaluation by identifying dysmenorrhea and secondary amenorrhea. The commenter's concern is not entirely clear. To the extent the commenter is asking whether VA considers dysmenorrhea and secondary amenorrhea disabilities for rating purposes, the note to diagnostic code 7615 provides that dysmenorrhea and secondary amenorrhea shall be rated under that diagnostic code. To the extent the commenter is asking whether identification of dysmenorrhea and secondary amenorrhea in the note limits the application of diagnostic code 7615 to those diseases, it does not. Dysmenorrhea and secondary amenorrhea are only examples of diseases that would be rated under diagnostic code 7615. Other impairments associated with disease, injury, or adhesions of the ovaries will continue to be rated under diagnostic code 7615. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on this comment.
One commenter wanted to include premature hysterectomy secondary to menorrhagia as an additional gynecological disability in the rating schedule. VA evaluates service-connected hysterectomy under diagnostic codes 7617 and 7618. The cause of the hysterectomy may be a factor in determining service connection, but is not important in evaluating the condition. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on this comment.
One commenter suggested adding a new diagnostic code or adjusting an existing code for infertility due to the loss or loss of use of other organs besides the uterus and ovaries, specifically fallopian tubes. The commenter asserted that, with respect to the uterus and ovaries, the minimum rating for a condition that causes infertility is 20 percent and that this rating does not take into account symptoms, only whether the organs are able to function reproductively. Therefore, the commenter asserts that any damage to any part of the female reproductive system that causes infertility should result in at least a 20 percent evaluation.
While tubal damage may be associated with infertility, infertility is not in itself a disability for VA rating purposes. It does not result in the loss of average earning capacity.
The same commenter proposes to add the diagnosis of repeated miscarriages to the list of presumptive conditions for female veterans who have been exposed to radiation, herbicides, or other environmental factors that could negatively impact the ability of a fetus to properly develop and carry to full term. The commenter also suggested VA provide for an award of special monthly compensation under the provisions of § 3.350(a) for repeated miscarriages of an unknown etiology while on active duty. Miscarriages themselves are not
The same commenter asked how powerful a diagnosis of female sexual arousal disorder would be as supporting evidence for military sexual trauma (MST). This rulemaking concerns the rating schedule in part 4, specifically 38 CFR 4.116, and the evaluations that VA assigns for physiological impairment due to disorders of the gynecological system and disorders of the breasts. The evidentiary criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder are listed in 38 CFR 3.304(f). Further, mental disabilities due to MST are evaluated under the rating schedule for mental disorders in § 4.130. This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on this comment.
One commenter was supportive of the overall changes and additions to this section of the rating schedule. However, the commenter expressed concern that the proposed rating criteria for diagnostic code 7621 do not adequately measure disability affecting multiple body systems. Specifically, the commenter stated that the proposed rule was unclear as to whether a veteran would obtain evaluations under other body systems for the complications of pelvic organ prolapse, or whether the mild, moderate, or severe rating under proposed amended diagnostic code 7621 is meant to encompass all symptoms due to one or multiple pelvic organ prolapses. The commenter stated that, if these manifestations in different body systems are meant to be compensated under diagnostic code 7621, there is great potential for undercompensating the veteran, as separate ratings under the genitourinary and digestive system may afford a higher combined evaluation. The commenter further questioned whether rating the manifestations separately would constitute “pyramiding” under 38 CFR 4.14.
The same commenter also indicated that the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) scoring system upon which proposed diagnostic code 7621 was based does not correlate with the severity of symptoms affecting multiple body systems. In addition, the same commenter suggested that VA add a note to diagnostic code 7621 to clarify that functional impairment of other body systems, including the urinary and the digestive systems, as a result of pelvic organ prolapse, shall be evaluated under the appropriate diagnostic codes.
Evaluations under proposed diagnostic code 7621 were intended to represent the average severity of symptoms, including gynecological, urinary, and digestive symptoms, and level of impairment as contemplated by the POP-Q system. Therefore, assigning separate ratings under proposed diagnostic code 7621 and the genitourinary or digestive systems would have violated pyramiding principles under 38 CFR 4.14 by allowing evaluations for urinary and/or digestive symptoms twice.
First, VA amends diagnostic code 7621 to provide a 10 percent disability rating in all cases of complete or incomplete pelvic organ prolapse due to injury, disease, or surgical complications of pregnancy. This minimum level of compensation recognizes the disabling effects of the alteration to a woman's normal anatomy, such as a feeling of vaginal fullness or heaviness or pressure in the pelvis, that are not generally included in the compensable levels of disability in other body systems. The higher disability ratings in originally proposed diagnostic code 7621 took into consideration genitourinary, digestive, and skin symptoms, which will now be evaluated separately as described in the revised note to diagnostic code 7621.
Second, VA agrees with the commenter that information should be added to the proposed note under diagnostic code 7621 to clarify how rating personnel should evaluate urinary and digestive symptoms associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Specifically, VA is adding information to the note under diagnostic code 7621 to clarify that rating personnel should separately evaluate any genitourinary, digestive, or skin symptoms under the appropriate diagnostic code(s) and combine all evaluations with the 10 percent evaluation under diagnostic code 7621. With this clarification, VA ensures that women with pelvic organ prolapse will receive adequate levels of compensation based on the functional impairment associated with their prolapse, regardless of any anatomical differences. The discussion by the commenter identified another potential approach of considering the greater evaluation under either proposed diagnostic code 7621 or the appropriate system. Under that approach, however, a veteran whose evaluation was based on a diagnostic code under a different body system would not be compensated for the disabling effects of prolapse specific to the gynecological system. The revised rule ensures that the disabling effects associated with multiple body systems are fully captured.
The same commenter also suggested VA amend VA Form 21-0960K-2, Gynecological Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) to add questions regarding the effects of any diagnosed gynecological condition on the digestive system and consideration of whether the veteran has loss of use of a creative organ. The commenter noted that the DBQ already asks the examiner to comment on whether the gynecological conditions impact the genitourinary system. Currently, VA Form 21-0960K-2 asks an examiner to report any complications resulting from obstetrical or gynecological conditions or procedures. Additionally, VA Form 21-0960K-2 asks the examiner if the veteran has any other pertinent findings, complications, conditions, signs and/or symptoms related to any conditions listed in the diagnosis section of the form. Therefore, VA has an adequate mechanism to capture each and every condition related to the effects of any diagnosed gynecological condition, including the digestive system and loss of use of a creative organ. VA also notes that all affected DBQs will be updated upon issuance of this final rule and will
Lastly, the same commenter suggested VA add a separate diagnostic code in § 4.116 for loss of coital function due to removal of the vagina by colpectomy and a note to consider special monthly compensation under 38 CFR 3.350(a) to increase rating consistency. VA appreciates this comment, but notes that the VASRD, in accordance with 38 CFR 4.1, is “a guide in the evaluation of disability” in terms of occupational impairment and is not an exhaustive list of all potential diseases or conditions. This is further reinforced by 38 CFR 4.20, which specifically provides for analogous evaluations for unlisted conditions according to closely related diseases or injuries based on function affected, anatomical location, and symptomatology.
Colpectomy, also known as vaginectomy, is a surgical procedure that obliterates the vaginal canal in order to alleviate the symptoms of advanced pelvic organ prolapse or to treat gynecological malignancies. Such obliterative procedure is reserved for women who are not candidates for more extensive surgery or do not plan future vaginal intercourse. Colpectomy is generally deemed appropriate for elderly patients with medical comorbidities or for patients with previous failed prolapse surgery or pessary trials who are not sexually active. Evans, J., Karram, M., “Step by step: Obliterating the vaginal canal to correct pelvic organ prolapse,” OBG Manag. 2012 February;24(2):30-41
Accordingly, the vast majority of colpectomy procedures involve associated partial or complete hysterectomy, currently addressed in diagnostic code 7618 and a new, separate diagnostic code for colpectomy is unnecessary; functional impairment due to the colpectomy/total vaginectomy is adequately addressed under diagnostic code 7618 for partial and/or total hysterectomy. In rare cases, colpectomy is performed without any form of hysterectomy; VA will evaluate these circumstances analogously to diagnostic code 7618, and, in the absence of functional impairment or other findings, apply the provisions of 38 CFR 4.31 to establish service connection at a noncompensable rate. This approach provides VA with adequate criteria to evaluate functional impairment associated with colpectomy, with or without hysterectomy, and to establish service connection for a disability for purposes of an award of special monthly compensation under 38 CFR 3.350(a). We note that while vaginal damage due to colpectomy may be associated with loss of coital function, coital function is not in itself a disability for VA rating purposes. It does not result in the loss of earning capacity. See 38 CFR 4.1.
Entitlement to special monthly compensation for anatomical loss or loss of use of a creative organ may not be awarded more than once per creative organ. In the case of colpectomy with loss of coital function, the presence or absence of partial/total hysterectomy does not entitle a female veteran to additional awards of special monthly compensation based on further anatomical loss of a creative organ; in either scenario the veteran has met the statutory criteria for anatomical loss or loss of use of the female creative organ with varying degrees of functional disability associated with the loss/loss of use. Accordingly, establishing a separate diagnostic code for colpectomy would not create entitlement to additional special monthly compensation under 38 CFR 3.350. For these reasons, VA makes no changes based on these comments at this time.
One commenter was supportive of the proposed addition of the new diagnostic code 7632, Female sexual arousal disorder (FSAD). The commenter noted that the title used, “Female sexual arousal disorder,” is not the current medical term used in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). In DSM-5, gender-specific sexual dysfunctions have been added, and, for females, sexual desire and arousal disorders have been combined into one disorder: Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder.
VA's proposed diagnostic code 7632 differs from the DSM-5 diagnosis because it only addresses the physiologic form of FSAD, which is caused in part by decreased blood flow to the genital area and peripheral nerve damage due to micro trauma or disease process. This form of FSAD does not include the psychological features of Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder outlined in DSM-5 such as lack of, or significantly reduced, sexual interest or desire. If an individual is diagnosed with Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder as outlined in DSM-5 that is service connected, she will be rated under the appropriate diagnostic code under 38 CFR 4.130, which pertains to mental disorders. Furthermore, if her disability picture includes FSAD, defined as the continual or recurrent inability to accomplish or maintain an ample lubrication-swelling reaction during sexual intercourse, then separate compensation under diagnostic code 7632 would be appropriate. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on this comment.
VA appreciates the comments submitted in response to the proposed rule. Based on the rationale stated in the proposed rule and in this document, the proposed rule is adopted as a final rule with the changes noted above. Additionally, VA notes that it is making a technical correction to its proposed changes to Appendix B to Part 4—Numerical Index of Disabilities. Specifically, VA inadvertently left out instructions to delete references to diagnostic codes 7622 and 7623 which, as discussed in the proposed rule, are being removed.
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) personnel utilize the Veterans Benefit Management System for Rating (VBMS-R) to process disability compensation claims that involve disability evaluations made under the VASRD. In order to ensure that there is no delay in processing veterans' claims, VA must coordinate the effective date of this final rule with corresponding VBMS-R system updates. As such, this final rule will apply effective May 13, 2018, the date VBMS-R system updates related to this final rule will be complete.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule will not affect any small entities. Only certain VA beneficiaries could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
This final rule contains provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Specifically, this final rule is associated with information collections related to the filing of disability benefits claims (VA Form 21-526EZ) as well as Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs) which enable a claimant to gather the necessary information from his or her treating physician as to the current symptoms and severity of a disability (VA Forms 21-0960K-1, Breast Conditions and Disorders DBQ, and 21-0960K-2, Gynecological Conditions DBQ). Both information collections are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB control numbers 2900-0747 and 2900-0778, respectively. VA has reviewed the impact of this final rule on these information collections and determined that the information collection burden is de minimis.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for this rule are 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.104, Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans; 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability; and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Service-Connected Death.
Disability benefits, Pensions, Veterans.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jacquelyn Hayes-Byrd, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on April 3, 2018, for publication.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 4 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 1155, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
The revisions and additions read as follows:
The revisions and additions read as follows:
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; correcting amendments.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in a final rule action published in the
This rule is effective on April 9, 2018.
Jan Simpson at (913) 551-7089, or by email at
The August 6, 2015 (80 FR 46804),
On October 21, 2014 (79 FR 62844), in a direct final rule, EPA approved a revision to “10-6.400”. The state effective date is 6/27/13.
On March 3, 2015 (80 FR 11323), in a final rule, EPA approved a revision to remove the chapter titled “Missouri Department of Public Safety, Division 50-State Highway Patrol, Chapter 2—Motor Vehicle Inspection” and its entries for “50-2.010 through 50-2.420”. This final rule also approved the addition of “10-5.381”.
On March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11577), EPA approved in a direct final rule a revision to remove the entry for “10-5.240” and approved revisions to Missouri regulations “10-6.010”, “10-6.020” and “10-6.040”. The state effective date of “10-6.010” is 7/30/14; the state effective date of “10-6.020” is 3/30/14; and the state effective date of “10-6.040” is 11/30/14.
Therefore, we are correcting the EPA's regulations to remove “10-5.240”; add “10-5.381”; remove the chapter titled “Missouri Department of Public Safety, Division 50-State Highway Patrol, Chapter 2—Motor Vehicle Inspection” and its entries for “50-2.010 through 50-2.420”; and revise “10-6.010”, “10-6.020” and “10-6.040” to reflect the most currently approved dates and citations.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds,
Accordingly, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
Surface Transportation Board.
Final rules.
The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is updating its regulations to reflect certain statutory changes enacted in the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015 and to replace certain obsolete or incorrect references in the regulations.
This rule is effective May 2, 2018.
Sarah Fancher: (202) 245-0355. Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: (800) 877-8339.
In this decision, the Board is revising, correcting, and updating its regulations in 49 CFR ch. X. Some of these revisions are necessitated by changes made by the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-110, 129 Stat. 2228 (2015) (STB Reauthorization Act).
This decision makes the following changes to the Board's regulations:
• Eliminates or changes obsolete agency and/or office titles (
• corrects obsolete contact information (
• corrects references to United States Code or Code of Federal Regulations sections that have been moved
• revises URL references to reflect the Board's new website
• revises the Board's regulations to reflect that the STB Reauthorization Act sec. 4 expanded the Board from three members to five members (49 CFR 1011.3); and
• corrects an omitted subheading (49 CFR pt. 1248).
Because these revisions are not substantive and/or relate to rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice, the Board finds good cause that notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) are unnecessary. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) & (B).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the Board has determined that notice and comment are not required under the APA for this rulemaking, the requirements of the RFA do not apply.
These final rules do not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Freedom of information.
Common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Motor carriers.
Claims, Freight, Investigations, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Railroads.
Privacy.
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Sunshine Act.
Common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Trusts and trustees.
Claims, Equal access to justice, Lawyers.
Claims, Income taxes.
Conflict of interests.
Railroads.
Railroads.
Maritime carriers, Railroads.
Claims, Grains, Railroads.
Freight, Intermodal transportation, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Railroads.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure, Lawyers.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Environmental impact statements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Federal Railroad Administration, Railroad safety.
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Freight, Motor carriers, Uniform System of Accounts.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Claims, Freight.
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Railroads.
Railroads.
Railroads.
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads.
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uniform System of Accounts.
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Waste treatment and disposal.
Administrative practice and procedure, Archives and records, Maritime carriers, Railroads.
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Motor carriers.
Administrative practice and procedure, Motor carriers.
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Railroads.
Freight forwarders, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Railroads, Uniform System of Accounts.
Freight forwarders, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Moving of household goods, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Railroads, Taxes.
Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Freight, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Railroad employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
Railroad employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Freight, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Freight, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.
Freight forwarders, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Pipelines, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Freight forwarders, Motor carriers, Moving of household goods.
Freight forwarders, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Moving of household goods, Pipelines, Railroads.
Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Forests and forest products, Railroads.
Freight forwarders.
Buses, Freight forwarders, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Moving of household goods, Pipelines, Railroads.
Penalties, Railroads.
1. The rule modifications set forth below are adopted as final rules.
2. This decision is effective May 2, 2018.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman and Miller.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 1321, title 49, chapter X, parts 1001, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1007, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1016, 1018, 1019, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1037, 1090, 1100, 1101, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1108, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1117, 1119, 1120, 1132, 1133, 1135, 1141, 1144, 1146, 1147, 1150, 1152, 1155, 1177, 1180, 1182, 1184, 1185, 1200, 1220, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1253, 1305, 1310, 1312, 1313, 1319, 1331, and 1333 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552; 49 U.S.C. 1302, and 49 U.S.C. 1321.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 13301(f).
49 U.S.C. 1321.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 11706, 14706, 15906.
5 U.S.C. 552, 49 U.S.C. 1321.
5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 49 U.S.C. 1301, 1321, 11123, 11124, 11144, 14122, and 15722.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) In the Chairman's absence, the Vice Chairman is acting Chairman, and has the authority and responsibilities of the Chairman. In the Vice Chairman's absence, the Chairman, if present, has the authority and responsibilities of the Vice Chairman. In the absence of both the Chairman and the Vice Chairman, the Board may temporarily designate one of its members to act as Chairman and to have the authority and responsibilities of the Chairman and Vice Chairman.
5 U.S.C. 552b(g), 49 U.S.C. 1301, 1321.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 13301(f).
5 U.S.C. 504(c)(1), 49 U.S.C. 1321.
31 U.S.C. 3701, 31 U.S.C. 3711
49 U.S.C. 1321.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 11121, 11122.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 11123.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 11706, 14706.
49 U.S.C. 1321.
49 U.S.C. 1321.
49 U.S.C. 1321.
49 U.S.C. 1321.
21 U.S.C. 862; 49 U.S.C. 1303(c), 1321.
5 U.S.C. 553 and 559; 18 U.S.C. 1621; and 49 U.S.C. 1321.
16 U.S.C. 1456, and 1536; 42 U.S.C. 4332 and 6362(b); 49 U.S.C. 1301 note (1995) (Savings Provisions), 1321(a), 10502, and 10903-10905; 54 U.S.C. 306108.
(b) * * *
For information regarding the names and addresses of the agencies to be contacted, interested parties may contact the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis.
5 U.S.C. 553; 5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 1321; 49 U.S.C. 10101; 49 U.S.C. 11323-11325; 42 U.S.C. 4332.
49 U.S.C. 11708, 49 U.S.C. 1321(a), and 5 U.S.C. 571
49 U.S.C. 1321.
5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 1321.
5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 1321.
5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 1321.
49 U.S.C. 1321.
49 U.S.C. 1321.
49 U.S.C. 1321.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 13701, 13703.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 13301(f), and 13703.
49 U.S.C. 1321.
5 U.S.C. 553, and 49 U.S.C. 1321, 10701, 10704, 10708, and 11145.
49 U.S.C. 1321.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 10703, 10705, and 11102.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 11101, and 11123.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 10705, 11101, and 11102.
49 U.S.C. 1321(a), 10502, 10901, and 10902.
11 U.S.C. 1170; 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) and 1248; 45 U.S.C. 744; and 49 U.S.C. 1301, 1321(a), 10502, 10903-10905, and 11161.
49 U.S.C. 1321(a), 10908, 10909, 10910.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 11301.
5 U.S.C. 553 and 559; 11 U.S.C. 1172; 49 U.S.C. 1321, 10502, 11323-11325.
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) The Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation (Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
5 U.S.C. 559; 21 U.S.C. 862; and 49 U.S.C. 13501, 13541(a), 13902(c), and 14303.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 14302.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 10502, and 11328.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 11142, 11143, 11144, 11145.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 11144, 11145.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 11142.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 11145.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 10707, 11144, 11145.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 11145.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 11145.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 10707, 11144, 11145.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 11144 and 11145.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 10706, 13703, 11144, and 11145.
49 U.S.C. 1321(a) and 15701(e).
49 U.S.C. 1321(a), 13702(a), 13702(c) and 13702(d).
49 U.S.C. 1321(a), 13702(a), 13702(b) and 13702(d).
49 U.S.C. 1321(a) and 10709.
49 U.S.C. 1321(a) and 13541.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 10706 and 13703.
49 U.S.C. 1321.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the regulations governing the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) by updating and clarifying several provisions, including those concerning NPIP participation, voting requirements, testing procedures, and standards. These proposed changes were voted on and approved by the voting delegates at the NPIP's 2016 National Plan Conference.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 9, 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
Dr. Denise Heard, DVM, Senior Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, USDA, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094-5104; (770) 922-3496.
The National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP, also referred to below as “the Plan”) is a cooperative Federal-State-industry mechanism for controlling certain poultry diseases. The Plan consists of a variety of programs intended to prevent and control poultry diseases. Participation in all Plan programs is voluntary, but breeding flocks, hatcheries, and dealers must first qualify as “U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean” as a condition for participating in the other Plan programs.
The Plan identifies States, independent flocks, hatcheries, dealers, and slaughter plants that meet certain disease control standards specified in the Plan's various programs. As a result, customers can buy poultry that has tested clean of certain diseases or that has been produced under disease-prevention conditions.
The regulations in 9 CFR parts 145, 146, and 147 (referred to below as the regulations) contain the provisions of the Plan. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS or the Service) amends these provisions from time to time to incorporate new scientific information and technologies within the Plan. The changes we are proposing, which are discussed below, were approved by the voting delegates at the Plan's 2016 Biennial Conference.
Participants and voting delegates at the Biennial Conference represented the poultry industry, flockowners, breeders, hatcherymen, slaughter plants, poultry veterinarians, diagnostic laboratory personnel, Official State Agencies from cooperating States, and other poultry industry affiliates. The proposed amendments are discussed in the order they would appear in the regulations.
The term
In § 145.4, paragraph (d) states that participants in the Plan may not buy or receive products for any purpose from nonparticipants unless they are part of an equivalent program, as determined by the Official State Agency. The regulations do, however, make an exception to that requirement by allowing participants to buy or receive products from flocks that are neither participants nor part of an equivalent program, for use in breeding flocks or for experimental purposes, with the permission of the Official State Agency (OSA) and the concurrence of APHIS and after first segregating the birds before introducing them into the breeding flock, and introducing them only after they have reached sexual maturity and have been tested and found negative for pullorum-typhoid.
We are proposing to amend that testing requirement so that it includes testing not only for pullorum-typhoid, but also for any other disease for which
The regulations in § 145.14 regarding testing state that for Plan programs in which a representative sample may be tested in lieu of an entire flock, except the ostrich, emu, rhea, and cassowary program in § 145.63(a), the minimum number tested shall be 30 birds per house, and when a house contains fewer than 30 birds, all the birds in the house must be tested. However, over the years a number of Plan programs have been amended to allow for alternative sampling and testing approaches. In order for the text of § 145.14 to not be at odds with the provisions governing those Plan programs, we would amend the introductory text of the section to include the caveat “unless otherwise specified within the Plan program.”
We are also proposing to amend § 145.14(d) to add provisions for the use of real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RRT-PCR) testing for avian influenza (AI) by primary breeder authorized laboratories. The current regulations provide that RRT-PCR testing must be conducted using reagents approved by the Department and the Official State Agency and using the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) official protocol for RRT-PCR and performed by personnel who have passed an NVSL proficiency test.
We are proposing to allow NPIP primary breeder authorized laboratories to use federally licensed kits or NVSL tests on their own breeding flocks for more flexibility. An NPIP primary breeder authorized laboratory with an accredited quality assurance program that can satisfactorily pass a proficiency test provided by the Service using the NVSL approved protocol or federally licensed kit would be allowed to run this assay as a routine surveillance measure. An authorized laboratory's use of the test would be addressed in the memorandum of understanding between the laboratory, the Official State Agency, and the State Animal Health Official of the State or States where the laboratory and the breeding flocks are located. A follow-up of any positive results would continue to be handled by the Department and the Official State Agency and confirmed by NVSL.
We are proposing to amend §§ 145.23, 145.33, 145.43, 145.53, 145.63, 145.73, 145.83, and 145.93 regarding the U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean classification. The regulations in each of these sections describe the means by which flocks may demonstrate freedom from pullorum and typhoid to the Official State Agency. One of those means is that the flock was officially blood tested with no reactors.
In order to take into account the possibility of test results that indicate the presence of a reactor in the flock, but that upon further testing are found negative for
We are proposing to amend the regulations in §§ 145.45, 145.74, and 145.84 regarding avian influenza clean compartments. These sections currently use the term notifiable avian influenza, or NAI, but that term has been removed from the World Health Organization (OIE) Terrestrial Code and Terrestrial Manual. We would instead refer to H5/H7 avian influenza to harmonize the regulations with current OIE terminology.
The regulations in § 145.52(d) set out the information that participating flocks are to provide in reporting poultry sales to importing States. One of the pieces of information required is the NPIP hatchery approval number of the selling hatchery. Because the hatchery that ships the poultry may differ from the hatchery filling the order, we would amend the paragraph to also require the NPIP hatchery approval number of the shipping hatchery. This would aid in traceback efforts should the need arise.
We are proposing to amend the regulations in § 145.53 regarding the U.S. M. Gallisepticum Clean and U.S. M. Synoviae Clean classifications to add the trachea as a sampling site. The trachea is the best anatomical location to sample for those diseases, and both the choanal cleft and the trachea are recommended sampling sites for
Those same Plan classifications also provide instructions for the number of birds to be sampled. The current regulations in § 145.53(c) and (d) call for a random sample of 50 percent of the birds in the flock, with a maximum of 200 birds and a minimum of 30 birds per flock or all birds in the flock if the flock size is less than 30 birds. The phrasing of the sample sizes has been a source of confusion for some growers and field technicians who gather the samples, so we are proposing to modify the wording to provide more clarity. The actual sample sizes would remain the same.
We are proposing to amend § 145.73 by adding a new paragraph (g), entitled U.S. Salmonella Monitored. The primary egg-type breeder companies routinely monitor their flocks and chicks for all Salmonella serotypes with the goal of producing Salmonella-free product. The addition of a Salmonella Monitored program for primary egg-type breeder companies would formalize those efforts and provide recognition and potential additional marketing opportunities for flocks that choose to participate.
The provisions of the new paragraph would mirror those of existing § 145.83(f), which is the U.S. Salmonella Monitored program for primary meat-type chicken breeding flocks. We would reflect this proposed program for primary egg-type chicken breeding flocks by adding a reference to § 145.73(g) to § 145.10(o), which is where the illustrative design for the U.S. Salmonella Monitored program is located.
The regulations in § 145.82 set out participation requirements for primary meat-type chicken breeding flocks. We are proposing to amend this section by adding a new paragraph (d) that would provide that poultry must be protected from vectors known to be in the wild and thus must be housed in enclosed structures during brooding, rearing, grow-out, or laying periods with no intentional access to the outdoors, creatures found in the wild or raised on
We are proposing to amend § 146.23 to change the testing requirements for commercial table-egg laying flocks. The current regulations state that a sample of at least 11 birds from table-egg layer pullet flocks and table-egg layer flocks participating in the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored classification must test negative to H5/H7 subtypes of avian influenza within 30 days prior to movement. We would change that time period to 21 days.
We are proposing this change to reflect the OIE's established maximum incubation period for avian influenza of 21 days. This change would also make the H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored program for commercial table-egg layers consistent with the corresponding programs for commercial broilers and turkeys.
We are proposing to amend § 147.43 to clarify election procedures for the regional committee members of the General Conference Committee. The current regulations simply state that regional committee members and their alternates will be elected by the official delegates of their respective regions; in practice, the nominee receiving the most votes would become the committee member and the nominee in second place would become the alternate. We are proposing to amend the regulations to specify that ballots will be printed to allow the regional delegates to cast a vote for the member and another vote for the alternate. This change would allow the region's delegates to specifically vote for their committee member and alternate rather than having the nominee with the second-most votes becoming the alternate by default.
The regulations in § 147.46 provide that various committees make recommendations to the conference as a whole concerning each proposal considered at the biennial conference. The individual committee reports are submitted to the chairman of the conference, who combines them into one report showing, in numerical sequence, the committee recommendations on each proposal. We are proposing to amend paragraph (d) of that section to provide that, after completing the combined report, the chairman will distribute copies of the report electronically to the Official State Agency in advance of the voting, which takes place on the last day of the conference. This would allow the OSA to in turn provide the full report to the delegates from their States, which would provide them more time to review and discuss the proposals and thus make more informed decisions when voting on the proposals.
We are proposing to amend § 147.52(a) regarding the administration of check tests at authorized laboratories. The regulations currently state that NPIP will coordinate the distribution of check tests from NVSL to authorized laboratories. An authorized laboratory must use a regularly scheduled check test for each assay that it performs.
We are proposing to provide that the NPIP may approve and authorize additional laboratories to produce and distribute check tests as needed. This change would allow us to supplement the supply of check tests produced by NVSL with kits prepared by other approved laboratories, and NPIP and NVSL would work together to ensure that laboratory tests and submissions are accurate. We would also replace the current reference to “regularly scheduled” check tests with a reference to “the next available” check test. This more accurately describes the manner in which NPIP administers check tests to its authorized laboratories.
We are proposing to amend the regulations in § 147.54 regarding the approval of diagnostic test kits not licensed by the Service. First, we would amend paragraph (a)(1), which currently provides that spiked samples (clinical sample matrix with a known amount of pure culture added) should only be used in the event that no other sample types are available. (Field samples are preferred due to the often unrealistic outcomes of spiked samples.) In order to ensure that spiked samples are used only as a last resort, we would add a requirement that prior approval must be obtained from the NPIP Technical Committee. The NPIP Technical Committee is made up of technical experts on poultry health, biosecurity, surveillance, and diagnostics drawn from the poultry and egg industries, universities, and State and Federal governments, and therefore would be in a position to decide whether the use of spiked samples would be useful or appropriate under a given set of circumstances.
Paragraph (a)(1) also states that when evaluating an unlicensed test, laboratories should be selected for their experience with testing for the target organism or analyte with the current NPIP approved test. For the sake of clarity, we would add an example of what is intended by that requirement. Specifically, we would add “(
Paragraph (a)(3) provides that, when evaluating an unlicensed test kit, the cooperating laboratories must perform a current NPIP procedure or NPIP approved test on the samples alongside the test kit for comparison. We are proposing to amend that requirement to state that the cooperating laboratory must also provide an outline of the method on the worksheet for diagnostic test evaluation and include reproducibility and robustness data. This additional requirement would allow the NPIP Technical Committee to fully evaluate the new test utilizing a concise template for information. Currently, companies submit upwards 50 pages of raw data to the Technical Committee to evaluate in order to make a recommendation. The new worksheet is only two pages, and the company submitting the test would only insert the most pertinent information needed for the Technical Committee to evaluate that test. The supporting data would also be submitted along with the 2-page worksheet, but would only need to be referenced when something was not clear on the worksheet.
Finally, the regulations in paragraph (a)(4) refer to “raw data” compiled during the evaluation of the unlicensed test kit. We are proposing instead to refer to “compiled output data.” This change would reduce the amount of information (raw data) that companies would need to submit to the Technical Committee with the worksheet described in the previous paragraph. By eliminating the need for companies to submit only their complied output data rather than all the data in its raw form, we would reduce by up to half the amount of information to be submitted, which would also benefit the Technical Committee reviewers.
The regulations in § 145.93 contains several references to paragraph (a) of that section, which is reserved. We
This proposed 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 the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under
This rulemaking would result in various changes to 9 CFR parts 145 through 147, modifying provisions of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP). The modifications are recommended by the NPIP General Conference Committee (GCC), which represents cooperating State agencies and poultry industry members and advises the Secretary on issues pertaining to poultry health. The rule would amend definitions, clarify the final determination status of pullorum-typhoid reactors, clarify requirements prior to comingling, allow for the use of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RRT-PCR) for avian influenza surveillance under certain conditions, clarify testing requirements, update World Organization for Animal Health terminology, update testing requirements for
These changes would align the regulations with international standards and make them more transparent to APHIS stakeholders and the general public. The changes in this proposed rule were voted on and approved by the voting delegates at the Plan's 2016 Biennial Conference.
The establishments that would be affected by the proposed changes—principally entities engaged in poultry production and processing—are predominantly small by Small Business Administration standards. In those instances in which an addition or modification could potentially result in a cost to certain entities, we do not expect the costs to be significant. This proposed rule embodies changes decided upon by the NPIP GCC on behalf of Plan members, that is, changes recognized by the poultry industry as in their interest. We note that NPIP membership is voluntary.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This proposed rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Animal diseases, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR parts 145, 146, and 147 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
The revision reads as follows:
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) The RRT-PCR tests must be conducted using reagents approved by the Department and the Official State Agency. The RRT-PCR must be conducted using the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) official protocol for RRT-PCR or a test kit licensed by the Department and approved by the Official State Agency and the State Animal Health Official, and must be conducted by personnel who have passed an NVSL proficiency test. For non-National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN) authorized laboratories:
(
(
(
(
(
(b) * * *
(1) It has been officially blood tested with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(b) * * *
(1) It has been officially blood tested with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(b) * * *
(1) It has been officially blood tested with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(5) It is a primary breeding flock located in a State determined to be in compliance with the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of this section and in which a sample of 300 birds from flocks of more than 300, and each bird in flocks of 300 or less, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
The revision reads as follows:
(a)
(d) * * *
(7) The NPIP hatchery approval number of the shipping hatchery;
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) It has been officially blood tested within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(5) It is a primary breeding flock located in a State determined to be in compliance with the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, and in which a sample of 300 birds from flocks of more than 300, and each bird in flocks of 300 or less, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) It is a multiplier breeding flock which originated as U.S. M. Gallisepticum Clean baby poultry from primary breeding flocks and from which a random sample of birds has been tested for
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) It is a multiplier breeding flock that originated as U.S. M. Synoviae Clean chicks from primary breeding flocks and from which a random sample of birds has been tested for
(a) * * *
(1) It has been officially blood tested within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(2) * * *
(i)(A) It is a multiplier or primary breeding flock of fewer than 300 birds in which a sample of 10 percent of the birds in a flock or at least 1 bird from each pen, whichever is more, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(B) It is a multiplier or primary breeding flock of 300 birds or more in which a sample of a minimum of 30 birds has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) It has been officially blood tested with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(2) * * *
(ii) In the primary breeding flock, a sample of 300 birds from flocks of more than 300, and each bird in flocks of 300 or less, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(g)
(1) A flock and the hatching eggs and chicks produced from it that have met the following requirements, as determined by the Official State Agency:
(i) The flock is maintained in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter with respect to flock sanitation, cleaning and disinfection, and Salmonella isolation, sanitation, and management.
(ii) Measures shall be implemented to control Salmonella challenge through feed, feed storage, and feed transport.
(iii) Chicks shall be hatched in a hatchery whose sanitation is maintained in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter and sanitized or fumigated in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(iv) An Authorized Agent shall take environmental samples from the hatchery every 30 days;
(v) An Authorized Agent shall take environmental samples in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter from each flock at 4 months of age and every 30 days thereafter. An authorized laboratory for Salmonella shall examine the environmental samples bacteriologically. All Salmonella isolates from a flock shall be serogrouped and shall be reported to the Official State Agency on a monthly basis.
(vi) Owners of flocks may vaccinate with a paratyphoid vaccine:
(vii) Any flock entering the production period that is in compliance with all the requirements of this paragraph (g) with no history of Salmonella isolations shall be considered “Salmonella negative” and may retain this definition as long as no environmental or bird Salmonella isolations are identified and confirmed from the flock or flock environment by sampling on four separate collection dates over a minimum of a 2-week period. Sampling and testing must be performed as described in paragraph (g)(1)(vi) of this section. An unconfirmed environmental Salmonella isolation shall not change this Salmonella negative status.
(2) The Official State Agency may monitor the effectiveness of the sanitation practices in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(3) In order for a hatchery to sell products of paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section, all products
(4) This classification may be revoked by the Official State Agency if the participant fails to follow recommended corrective measures.
(d) Poultry must be protected from vectors known to be in the wild and thus must be housed in enclosed structures during brooding, rearing, grow-out, or laying periods with no intentional access to the outdoors, creatures found in the wild, or raised on open range or pasture, or be provided with untreated open source water such as that directly from a pond, stream, or spring that wild birds or vermin have access to for usage for drinking water, as a cooling agent, or during a wash down/clean out process.
(b) * * *
(1) It has been officially blood tested with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(2) * * *
(ii) In the primary breeding flock, a sample of 300 birds from flocks of more than 300, and each bird in flocks of 300 or less, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) It has been officially blood tested within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(5) It is a primary breeding flock located in a State determined to be in compliance with provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, and in which a sample of 300 birds from flocks of more than 300, and each bird in flocks of 300 or less, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
(b) * * * The ballots for electing regional committee members and their alternates will be printed in such a way as to allow the specific selection of one nominee for member, and one nominee for alternate from the remaining nominees. * * *
(d) * * * Once completed, the combined committee report will be distributed electronically to the Official State Agencies prior to the delegates voting on the final day of the biennial conference.
(a)
(a) * * *
(1) The sensitivity of the kit will be evaluated in at least three NPIP authorized laboratories by testing known positive samples, as determined by the official NPIP procedures found in the NPIP Program Standards or through other procedures approved by the Administrator. Field samples, for which the presence or absence of the target organism or analyte has been determined by the current NPIP test, are the preferred samples and should be used when possible. Samples from a variety of field cases representing a range of low, medium, and high analyte concentrations should be used. In some cases it may be necessary to utilize samples from experimentally infected animals. Spiked samples (clinical sample matrix with a known amount of pure culture added) should only be used in the event that no other sample types are available. When the use of spiked samples may be necessary, prior approval from the NPIP Technical Committee is required. Pure cultures should never be used. Additionally, laboratories should be selected for their experience with testing for the target organism or analyte with the current NPIP approved test. (
(3) The kit will be provided to the cooperating laboratories in its final form and include the instructions for use. The cooperating laboratories must perform the assay exactly as stated in the supplied instructions. Each laboratory must test a panel of at least 25 known positive samples. In addition, each laboratory must test at least 50 known negative samples obtained from several sources, to provide a representative sampling of the general population. The cooperating laboratories must perform a current NPIP procedure or NPIP approved test on the samples alongside the test kit for comparison and must provide an outline of the method on the worksheet for diagnostic test evaluation. Reproducibility and robustness data should also be included.
(4) Cooperating laboratories will submit to the kit manufacturer all compiled output data regarding the assay response. Each sample tested will be reported as positive or negative, and the official NPIP procedure used to classify the sample must be submitted in addition to the assay response value. A completed worksheet for diagnostic test evaluation is required to be submitted with the compiled output data and may be obtained by contacting the NPIP Senior Coordinator. Data and the completed worksheet for diagnostic test evaluation must be submitted to the NPIP Senior Coordinator 4 months prior to the next scheduled General Conference Committee meeting, which is when approval will be sought.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of petition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing that we have filed a petition, submitted by Aker BioMarine, proposing that the color additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of Antarctic krill meal which is composed of the ground and dried tissue of
Submit either electronic or written comments on the petitioner's environmental assessment by May 9, 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 9, 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
Stephen DiFranco, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2710.
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 721(d)(1) (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1))), we are giving notice that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP 5C0303), submitted by Aker BioMarine, c/o Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy (Aker BioMarine), Rm. 1036, Building A8 Cody Technology Park, Ively Road, Farnborough, Hampshire, GU14 0LX, UK. The petition proposes to amend the color additive regulations in part 73 (21 CFR part 73)
We are reviewing the potential environmental impact of this petition. To encourage public participation consistent with regulations issued under the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1501.4(b)), we are placing the environmental assessment submitted with the petition that is the subject of this notice on public display at the Dockets Management Staff (see
We will also place on public display, in the Dockets Management Staff and at
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the approximately 1,500-square mile “Upper Hudson” viticultural area in all or portions of Albany, Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, and Washington Counties in New York. The proposed viticultural area does not lie within, nor does it contain, any other established viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on this proposed addition to its regulations.
Comments must be received by June 8, 2018.
Please send your comments on this proposed rule to one of the following addresses:
•
•
•
See the Public Participation section of this proposed rule for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing or view or request copies of the petition and supporting materials.
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone (202) 453-1039, ext. 175.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013, (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists of the approved AVAs.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from Andrew and Kathleen Weber, owners of Northern Cross Vineyard, on behalf of local grape growers and vintners, proposing to establish the approximately 1,500-square mile “Upper Hudson” AVA. Nineteen commercial vineyards, covering approximately 67.5 acres, are distributed across the proposed AVA. According to the petition, several vineyard owners are planning to expand their vineyards by a total of 14 additional acres in the near future, and 4 new vineyards are also planned. All 19 of the vineyards within the proposed AVA also have attached wineries.
The distinguishing feature of the proposed Upper Hudson AVA is its climate. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed AVA contained in this proposed rule comes from the petition for the proposed Upper Hudson AVA and its supporting exhibits.
The proposed Upper Hudson AVA is located along the Hudson River. According to the petition, the term “Upper Hudson” is used to describe the non-tidal portion of the river above the Federal Dam in Troy, New York. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey has a web page with information about the
The petition included a listing of organizations and businesses within the proposed AVA that use the name “Upper Hudson.” The Phi Beta Kappa fraternal organization
The proposed Upper Hudson AVA includes all or portions of Albany, Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, and Washington Counties in New York. The proposed boundaries follow a series of roads and rivers. To the east of the proposed AVA are the foothills of the Taconic Mountains, which have higher elevations and cooler growing season temperatures than the proposed AVA. To the south of the proposed AVA is the region known as the Lower Hudson River Valley, which includes the established Hudson River Region AVA (27 CFR 9.47). This region has warmer annual temperatures than the proposed AVA, due to the tidal nature of the lower portion of the Hudson River. To the west of the proposed AVA are the Adirondack and Allegheny Mountains, which have higher elevations and cooler annual temperatures than the proposed AVA. To the north of the proposed AVA are the valleys of Lake George and Lake Champlain, where growing season temperatures are generally warmer due to the moderating effects of the lakes.
The distinguishing feature of the proposed Upper Hudson AVA is its climate. The petition included information on the USDA plant hardiness zones and the growing degree day accumulations (GDDs)
The USDA plant hardiness zone map included in the petition divides the United States into zones based on the average annual minimum winter temperature. The map is divided into 13 zones, from the coolest zone 1 to the warmest zone 13. Each zone has a 10-degree Fahrenheit (F) range and is further divided into two 5-degree F sub-zones, which are designated “a” and “b”. According to the map, the proposed Upper Hudson AVA falls into zones 5a and 5b. Average minimum temperatures in these zones range from −20 to −15 degrees F. The petition states that these average minimum winter temperatures are cold enough to damage or even kill many varietals of grapes. Therefore, vineyard owners within the proposed AVA plant cold-hardy varietals such as Marquette, Frontenac, La Crescent, and La Crosse, which have been developed to withstand temperatures as low as −30 degrees.
The plant hardiness zone map shows that the regions to the immediate east and west of the proposed Upper Hudson AVA are also classified as zones 5a and 5b. However, the Adirondack and Allegheny mountains farther to the west and northwest of the proposed AVA are classified as zones 3b, 4a, and 4b, meaning that average minimum temperatures in the region are between −35 and −25 degrees F.
The region south of the proposed AVA, which includes the established Hudson River Region AVA, is classified as zones 6a and 6b, with average minimum temperatures between −10 and 0 degrees F. According to the petition, grape varietals commonly grown within the established Hudson River Region AVA include Seyval Blanc, Baco Noir, Cabernet Franc, Pinot Noir, Vignoles, and Traminette. The petition states that according to research conducted at several universities, most of these varietals are cold hardy to −15 degrees F, while Pinot Noir is cold hardy only to −8 degrees F. Because winter temperatures within the proposed Upper Hudson AVA regularly drop as low as −20 degrees, these varietals would not be suitable for growing within the proposed AVA.
The petition included a graph showing the average GDD accumulations for 19 locations within the proposed AVA and the surrounding areas. Six of these locations are within the proposed AVA, and the remainder are from the surrounding areas. The graph may be viewed in its entirety on
The graph included in the petition shows that the locations within the proposed AVA achieved GDD accumulations ranging between 2,300 and 2,700. Guilderland, Melrose, Clifton Park, and Schoharie all had GDD accumulations of over 2,500, which is generally considered to be the minimum GDD accumulations needed to ripen most varietals of grapes
By contrast, the graph shows that the locations to the north and south of the proposed AVA have GDD accumulations over 2,700. Ticonderoga is located on the shore of Lake Champlain, and Hudson and Castleton are both located along the tidal portion of the Hudson River. Hudson, the southernmost location shown on the graph, has the highest GDD accumulation of any location depicted in the graph, with just over 2,900. According to the petition, the warming effects of both Lake Champlain and the tidal portion of the Hudson River contribute to the higher GDD accumulations in the regions north and south of the proposed AVA. The graph also shows that these locations all reach 2,500 GDDs earlier in September than the locations within the proposed AVA. The petition states that grapes in these warmer regions have more time to mature before the first frost, so the grapes “have the tartness removed in the vineyard.”
The remaining locations, to the east, southeast, southwest, and west of the proposed Upper Hudson AVA, all have lower GDD accumulations than the proposed AVA. Of these locations, North Adams and Bennington have the highest GDD accumulations, with just over 2,300. Gloversville had the lowest, with just over 1,700. The petition shows that viticulture in these regions would be difficult because the GDD accumulations would not reach the levels necessary to reliably ripen most varietals of grapes.
In summary, the evidence provided in the petition indicates that the climate of the proposed Upper Hudson AVA distinguishes it from the surrounding regions in each direction. The proposed AVA has lower GDD accumulations than the regions to the north and south, which benefit from the warming influence of Lake Champlain and the tidal portion of the Hudson River. The region to the south is also classified in a warmer plant hardiness zone. The proposed AVA has higher GDD accumulations than the regions to the east and west and is also classified in a warmer plant hardiness zone than the region to the west. As a result of its climate, the proposed Upper Hudson AVA is suitable for growing cold-hardy grape hybrids, but not the grape varietals that are commonly grown farther south within the established Hudson River Region AVA.
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the approximately 1,500-square mile Upper Hudson AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this proposed rule.
See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this proposed rule.
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the proposed regulatory text.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, “Upper Hudson,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, if this proposed rule is adopted as a final rule, wine bottlers using the name “Upper Hudson” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin.
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether it should establish the proposed AVA. TTB is also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, soils, climate, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Upper Hudson AVA on wine labels that include the term “Upper Hudson,” as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed area name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is also interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a modified or different name for the AVA.
You may submit comments on this proposed rule by using one of the following three methods (please note that TTB has a new address for comments submitted by U.S. Mail):
•
•
•
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this proposed rule. Your comments must reference Notice No. 174 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB considers all comments as originals.
In your comment, please clearly indicate if you are commenting on your own behalf or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you comment via
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this proposed rule, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2018-0005 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal,
All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for posting.
You may also view copies of this proposed rule, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or any similarly-sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's information specialist at the above address or by telephone at (202) 453-2265 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this proposed rule.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(1) Glens Falls, New York—Vermont, 1989;
(2) Albany, New York—Massachusetts—Vermont, 1989;
(3) Amsterdam, New York, 1985; photoinspected 1990; and
(4) Gloversville, New York, 1985; photoinspected 1992;
(c)
(1) The point of the beginning is on the Glens Falls map at the intersection of U.S. Highway 9 and State Highway 32, in Glens Falls. From the beginning point, proceed east on State Highway 32 to its intersection with State Highway 254; then
(2) Proceed southeasterly along State Highway 254 to its intersection with U.S. Highway 4 in Hudson Falls; then
(3) Proceed south along U.S. Highway 4 to its intersection with State Highway 197 in Fort Edward; then
(4) Proceed east, then southeast along State Highway 197 to its intersection with State Highway 40 in Argyle; then
(5) Proceed southeast in a straight line to the intersection of State Highway 29 and State Highway 22 in Greenwich Junction; then
(6) Proceed south along State Highway 22, crossing onto the Albany map, to the highway's intersection with State Highway 7 in Hoosick; then
(7) Proceed southwest along State Highway 7, crossing the Hudson River, to the highway's intersection with State Highway 32 in Green Island; then
(8) Proceed south on State Highway 32 to its intersection with U.S. Highway 20 in Albany; then
(9) Proceed west on U.S. Highway 20 its intersection with U.S. Highway 9; then
(10) Proceed southwest along U.S. Highway 9 to its intersection with State Highway 443; then
(11) Proceed southwest, then westerly along State Highway 443, crossing onto the Amsterdam map, to the highway's intersection with an unnamed state highway known locally as State Highway 30 in Vroman Corners; then
(12) Proceed northwesterly along State Highway 30 to its intersection with State Highway 30A in Sidney Corners; then
(13) Proceed north along State Highway 30A, crossing over the Mohawk River, to the highway's intersection with State Highway 5 in Fonda; then
(14) Proceed east along State Highway 5 to its intersection with State Highway 67 in Amsterdam; then
(15) Proceed east along State Highway 67 to its intersection with an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Morrow Road; then
(16) Proceed northeast in a straight line, crossing over the southeastern corner of the Gloversville map and onto the Glens Falls map, to the point where Daly Creek empties into Great Sacandaga Lake; then
(17) Proceed northeast, then east along the southern shore of Great Sacandaga Lake to its confluence with the Hudson River in the town of Lake Luzerne; then
(18) Proceed south, then easterly along the southern bank of the Hudson River to its intersection with U.S. Highway 9 in South Glens Falls; then
(19) Proceed northwest along U.S. Highway 9, crossing the Hudson River, and returning to the beginning point.
Departmental Offices, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Pursuant to the policies stated in Executive Order 13777 (the executive order), the Treasury Department conducted a review of existing regulations, with the goal of reducing regulatory burden by revoking or revising existing regulations that meet the criteria set forth in the executive order. This notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to streamline our regulations by removing one regulation that is no longer necessary because it does not have any current or future applicability, and by amending one regulation to remove portions that no longer have any current or future applicability.
Submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Laurie Adams, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Banking and Finance at (202) 927-8727 or
On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda (82 FR 12285). E.O. 13777 directed each agency to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force. Each Regulatory Reform Task Force was directed to review existing regulations for regulations that: (i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation; (ii) are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; (iii) impose costs that exceed benefits; (iv) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies; (v) are inconsistent with the requirements of the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001) or OMB Information Quality Guidance issued pursuant to that provision; or (vi) derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
This notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to remove one regulation and portions of a second regulation that have no current or future applicability and, therefore, no longer provide useful guidance. Removing these regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations will streamline Title 31, Money and Finance: Treasury; and increase clarity of the law. These regulations are proposed to be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations solely because the regulations are outdated and unnecessary.
The regulations, or portions of regulations, proposed to be removed relate to components of Treasury programs that are no longer in existence. They are:
The TARP program has largely wound down and there are no recipients of exceptional financial assistance left in the TARP program. Additionally, the Special Master had the opportunity to review compensation made prior to February 17, 2009. Given the absence of exceptional financial assistance entities and the current status of the TARP program, the Office of the Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation no longer has any employees. Thus, Treasury proposes that Section 30.16 of 31 CFR part 30 be removed.
The regulation in 31 CFR part 32 sets forth Treasury's policy regarding the time limitation within which State housing credit agencies must disburse funds received under section 1602 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009. This rule allowed States to disburse section 1602 funds to subawardees through December 31, 2011 under certain conditions.
Treasury no longer awards section 1602 funds to State housing credit
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. The undersigned certifies that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that this rule would remove outdated and unnecessary regulations and therefore would have no economic impact on any small entities. Accordingly, an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Notwithstanding this certification, the Department invites comments on any impact this rule would have on small entities.
Securities.
Housing, taxes.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 31 CFR parts 30 and 32 are proposed to be amended as follows:
12 U.S.C. 5221; 31 U.S.C. 321.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of public comment period.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend its notice of proposed rulemaking and reopen the public comment period for a special local regulation for certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay between Sandy Point, Anne Arundel County, MD and Kent Island, Queen Anne's County, MD, during the Bay Bridge Paddle on June 2, 2018 (rain date of June 3, 2018) published in the
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 9, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-1054 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone 410-576-2674, email
The Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on January 12, 2018 (83 FR 1597), proposing to establish a special local regulation for the Bay Bridge Paddle, on June 2, 2018 (rain date of June 3, 2018). The comment period closed February 12, 2018. The Coast Guard received one comment on the original request for comments.
Subsequent to the Coast Guard publishing the notice of proposed rulemaking, ABC Events, Inc., notified the Coast Guard that as a result of a meeting with the bridge authority a change of the elite paddler race course location is necessary. We are issuing this supplemental proposal to amend the proposed special local regulation to increase the size of the paddle race area, and reopen the comment period to account for this change. The Coast Guard will accept and review any comments received between the close of the comment period and the publication of this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, spectators and transiting vessels on certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations.
This proposed rule would create a temporary special local regulation on certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay for the Bay Bridge Paddle. This special local regulation would expand the proposed regulated area northward of the north bridge (westbound span) of the William P. Lane, Jr. (US-50/301) Memorial Bridges from that area described in the original published notice of proposed rulemaking. Bridge rehabilitation work along the eastern portion of the north bridge (westbound span) of the William P. Lane, Jr. (US-50/301) Memorial Bridges includes the placement of barges and other marine equipment in the waterway. Allowing the proposed paddling event to proceed along its original race course would adversely affect both the bridge work activities and event participants. The expanded area allows the event planner an alternative to mitigate the risk posed to event participants by altering the race course northward of that area.
The revised proposed regulated area would cover all navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay, adjacent to the
All other regulatory provisions in the original proposed rulemaking remain the same. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This SNPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the SNPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size and duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the Chesapeake Bay for six hours. The Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic would be able to safely transit the regulated area once the COTP Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it safe to do so.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves implementation of a temporary special local regulation lasting for 6 hours. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, canoe and sail board racing. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[61] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this SNPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c)
(2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, all persons and vessels within the regulated area at the time it is implemented are to depart the regulated area.
(3) Persons and vessels desiring to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area must first obtain authorization from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Prior to the enforcement period, vessels or persons seeking permission to transit, moor, or anchor within the area may contact the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). During the enforcement period, vessels or persons seeking permission to transit, moor, or anchor within the area may contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) for direction.
(4) The Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other Federal, State, and local agencies. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 MHz).
(5) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event date and times.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations for certain waters of the Choptank River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters located at Cambridge, MD during a swim event on May 20, 2018. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from entering the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 9, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0093 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone 410-576-2674, email
On January 4, 2018, Cambridge Multi Sport of Cambridge, MD notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting the Maryland Freedom Swim from 7:30 a.m. until 9 a.m. on May 20, 2018. Details of the planned event were provided by the sponsor to the Coast Guard on February 5, 2018. The open water swim consists of approximately 200 participants competing on a designated 1.75-mile linear course that starts at the beach of Bill Burton Fishing Pier State Park at Trappe, MD, proceeds across the Choptank River along and between the fishing piers and the Senator Frederick C. Malkus, Jr. Memorial (U.S.-50) Bridge, and finishes at the beach of the Dorchester County Visitors Center at Cambridge, MD. Hazards from the swim competition include participants swimming within and adjacent to the designated navigation channel and interfering with vessels intending to operate within that channel, as well as swimming within approaches to local public and private marinas and public boat facilities. The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that potential hazards associated with the swim would be a safety concern for anyone intending to participate in this event or for vessels that operate within specified waters of the Choptank River.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, spectators and transiting vessels on specified waters of the Choptank River before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations.
The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region proposes to establish special local regulations from 7 a.m. through 9:30 a.m. on May 20, 2018. There is no alternate date planned for this event. The regulated area would include all navigable waters of the Choptank River, from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded on the east by a line drawn from latitude 38°35′14.2″ N, longitude 076°02′33.0″ W, thence south to latitude 38°34′08.3″ N, longitude 076°03′36.2″ W, and bounded on the west by a line drawn from latitude 38°35′32.7″ N, longitude 076°02′58.3″ W, thence south to latitude 38°34′24.7″ N, longitude 076°04′01.3″ W, located at Cambridge, MD. The regulated area is approximately 2,800 yards in length and 900 yards in width. The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of event participants and vessels within the specified navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. swim. Except for Maryland Freedom Swim participants, no vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, time of day and duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the Choptank River for 2.5 hours. The Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule would allow vessel operators to request permission to enter the regulated area for the purpose of safely transiting the regulated area if deemed safe to do so by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area lasting for 2.5 hours. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[61] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
(c)
(2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, all persons and vessels within the regulated area at the time it is implemented shall depart the regulated area.
(3) Persons and vessels desiring to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area must obtain authorization from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Prior to the enforcement period, vessel operators may request permission to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). During the enforcement period, persons or vessel operators may request permission to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard Patrol Commander and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 MHz).
(4) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio.
(d)
(e)
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, HUD.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would amend the HUD Acquisition Regulation (HUDAR) to implement miscellaneous changes. These changes include incorporation of several clauses and associated additions to the HUDAR matrix, replacement of references to Government Technical Representatives (GTRs) with references to Contracting Officer's Representatives (CORs), codification of deviations approved by HUD's Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) and minor corrections to clauses, provisions, and the HUDAR matrix.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications and comment submissions must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments.
1.
2.
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.
Dr. Akinsola A. Ajayi, Acting Assistant Chief Procurement Officer for Policy, Systems and Risk Management, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-708-0294 (this is not a toll-free number), fax number 202-708-8912. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access Dr. Ajayi's telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The uniform regulation for the procurement of supplies and services by Federal departments and agencies, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), was promulgated on September 19, 1983 (48 FR 42102). The FAR is codified in title 48, chapter 1, of the Code of Federal Regulations. HUD promulgated its regulation to implement the FAR on March 1, 1984 (49 FR 7696).
The HUDAR (title 48, chapter 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations) is prescribed under section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)); section 205(c) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 121(c)); and the general authorization in FAR 1.301. HUDAR was last revised by final rule published on March 15, 2016 (81 FR 13747).
This proposed rule would amend the HUDAR, 48 CFR chapter 24, to propose revising all clause and provision references to the Government Technical Representative or GTR to Contracting Officer's Representative or COR. Accordingly, the definition in 48 CFR 2402.101 of “Government Technical Representative” would be removed. Also, the obsolete term “Government Technical Monitor” would be removed. HUD is also proposing to codify certain agency-specific clauses, include class deviations in certain clauses, and make several administrative, nonsubstantive corrections, such as typographical corrections and updated applicability dates.
In part 2416, the rule would correct the prescription for 2416.506-70 to change “provision” to “clause,” instruct the Contracting Officer to insert the clause at 2452.216-77, add prescriptions for clause 2452.216-81 and provision 2452.216-82 to codify agency-specific clauses. These clauses relate to estimated quantities, level of effort and fee payment, and labor categories.
In part 2437, the rule would revise 2437.110(e) to add prescriptions for provision 2452.237-82 and clause 2452.237-83 relating to controlled unclassified information to codify a class deviation previously approved by the CPO on June 18, 2015.
In part 2442, the rule would revise 2442.1107 to codify a class deviation previously approved by the CPO on April 1, 2016, to (1) revise the procurement instruments, types of contracts, and types of services being acquired to those to which the clause will be applicable, (2) adjust the threshold at which the clause becomes applicable, and (3) make other minor changes.
In part 2452, the rule would:
Make minor typographical, nonsubstantive corrections to clauses 2452.203-70, 2452.208-71, 2452.215-70, 2452.216-80, 2452.219-72, 2452.232-70, and 2452.242-71;
Change references to Government Technical Representative or GTR to Contracting Officer's Representative or COR respectively;
Add clause 2452.216-81, Level of Effort and Fee Payment, and clause 2452.216-82, Labor Categories, Requirements, and Estimated Level of Effort. These are previously agency-specific clauses that HUD now wishes to codify. Clause 2452.216-81 provides contractors with the total level of effort to be provided and the method for calculating the fee. Clause 2452.216-82 provides estimated hours and labor categories to assist vendors in developing proposals for immediate requirements; these estimates are not binding upon the Government;
Codify a class deviation approved by the CPO on October 19, 2016, to clause 2452.232-71 at paragraph (b)(2) to require contractors to provide supporting documentation with vouchers that adequately prove the legitimacy and compliance of costs claimed, and the ability to appropriately allocate costs claimed;
Revise clause 2452.237-73 to remove the second sentence of paragraph (b). In the current codification, that sentence relates to notification of a change in status of the Government Technical Representative;
Add provision 2452.237-82, Access to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), pursuant to a class deviation previously approved by the CPO on June 18, 2015;
Codify clause 2452.237-83, Access to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), pursuant to a class deviation previously approved by the CPO on June 18, 2015;
Pursuant to a class deviation signed by the CPO on October 16, 2015, codify a class deviation to clauses 2452.237-75, Access to HUD Facilities, and 2452.239-70, Access to HUD Systems, to add a requirement for contractors to report the status of PIV cards to the Government on a quarterly basis. Additionally, in 2452.237-75 and 2452.239-70, a definition of “contract” is added;
In 2452.246-70, a clause relating to inspection and acceptance of work is added as prescribed in 2446.246-70.
In the matrix, four clauses or provisions are added relating to level of effort and fee payment, labor categories, requirements and estimated level of effort, and access to controlled unclassified information. Additionally, some corrections of “Provision or Clause” (P/C) and “Uniform Contract Format” (UCF) designations are made.
The information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule are being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The burden of the information collections in this proposed rule is estimated as follows:
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), HUD is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning this collection of information to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding the information collection requirements in this rule. Under the provisions of 5 CFR part 1320, OMB is required to make a decision concerning this collection of information between 30 and 60 days after the publication date. Therefore, a comment on the information collection requirements is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives the comment within 30 days of the publication date. This time frame does not affect the deadline for comments to the agency on the proposed rule, however. Comments must refer to the proposal by name and docket number (FR-6041-P-01) and must be sent to:
Interested persons may submit comments regarding the information collection requirements electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule does not impose any Federal mandate on any state, local, or tribal government or the private sector within the meaning of UMRA.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this proposed rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This proposed rule would not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Government procurement.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 48 CFR chapter 24 as follows:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 253; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(c)
(e)
(f)
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(e) * * *
(7) The Contracting Officer shall insert provision 2452.237-82, Access to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), in Section L of solicitations when controlled unclassified information (“CUI”), as defined in the provision, will be provided to potential offerors for the purpose of preparing offers.
(8) The Contracting Officer shall insert clause 2452.237-83 in Section H, Access to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), of solicitations and contracts under which contractor and/or subcontractor employees will be granted access to controlled unclassified information (CUI) as defined in the clause.
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(a) For purposes of clause 2452.242-71, the term “contract” shall also include task orders and purchase orders.
(b) The Contracting Officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 2452.242-71, Contract Management System, in solicitations and contracts when all of the following conditions apply:
(1) A contract exceeds $1,000,000, including all options; and
(2) The contract is a completion type that requires the delivery of an overall end deliverable or solution (
(c) To the extent the clause will not normally be included in commercial contracts meeting the requirements stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, and in instances where the clause is to be incorporated, pursuant to FAR 12.301(f), a waiver to the standard commercial requirements, to include the clause, is not required.
(d) The Contracting Officer shall use the basic clause for cost type, labor-hour, and time and materials contracts for the services described in paragraph (b) of this section. The clause shall be used with its alternate for fixed-price type contracts for the services described in paragraph (b). The Contracting Officer may elect to incorporate the clause into contracts below the established threshold.
(e) The clause is not applicable to contracts that only expend a level of effort without a completion deliverable/product due,
(f) This clause is not applicable to Information Technology service contracts being managed through Earned Value Management techniques that require reporting of Earned Value Management.
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
As prescribed in 2403.670, insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts:
In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 3.601, contracts are not to be awarded to Federal employees or a business concern or other organization owned or substantially owned or controlled by one or more Federal employees. For the purposes of this contract, this prohibition against the use of Federal employees includes any work performed by the contractor or any of its employees, subcontractors, or consultants.
As prescribed in 2408.802-70, insert the following clause in solicitations and
In accordance with Title I of the Government Printing and Binding Regulations, printing of reports, data or other written material, if required herein, is authorized provided that the material produced does not exceed 5,000 production units of any page and that items consisting of multiple pages do not exceed 25,000 production units in aggregate. The aggregate number of production units is determined by multiplying the number of pages by the number of copies. A production unit is one sheet, size 8.5 by 11 inches or less, printed on one side only and in one color. All copy preparation to produce camera-ready copy for reproduction must be set by methods other than hot metal typesetting. The reports should be produced by methods employing stencils, masters and plates which are to be used on single unit duplicating equipment no larger than 11 by 17 inches with a maximum image of 10
As prescribed in 2415.209(a), add the following paragraph (e) when the size of any proposal Part I or Part II will be limited:
(e)
(2) A page shall consist of one side of a single sheet of 8.5″ x 11″ paper, single spaced, using not smaller than 12-point type font, and having margins at the top, bottom, and sides of the page of no less than one inch in width.
(3) Any exemptions from this limitation are stipulated under the Instructions to Offerors.
(4) Offerors are encouraged to use recycled paper and to use both sides of the paper (see the FAR clause at 52.204-4).
As prescribed in 2416.307(b), insert the following clause:
(a) It is estimated that the total cost to the Government for full performance of this contract will be $___ [Contracting Officer insert amount], of which $___ [Contracting Officer insert amount] represents the estimated reimbursable costs, and $___ [Contracting Officer insert amount] represents the fixed fee.
(b) If this contract is incrementally funded, the following shall apply:
(1) Total funds currently available for payment and allotted to this contract are $___ [Contracting Officer insert amount], of which ___ [Contracting Officer insert amount] represents the limitation for reimbursable costs and $___ Contracting Officer insert amount] represents the prorated amount of the fixed fee (see also the clause at FAR 52.232-22, “Limitation of Funds” herein).
(2) If and when the contract is fully funded, as specified in paragraph (a) of this clause, the clause at FAR 52.232-20, “Limitation of Cost,” herein, shall become applicable.
(3) The Contracting Officer may allot additional funds to the contract up to the total specified in paragraph (a) of this clause without the concurrence of the contractor.
As prescribed in 2416.506-70(f), insert the following clause in all level-of-effort term contracts:
(a) The total level of effort to be provided under this contract is __ hours. The contractor shall be reimbursed for the actual labor costs incurred.
(b) The contractor shall be paid the fixed fee specified in B. __, Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee, herein, on a prorated basis in proportion to the percentage of the level of effort (LOE) performed at the time of billing in accordance with the following formula:
(Number of acceptable hours delivered) divided by (Total hours in level of effort) X (Total fixed fee) = Fee payment
(
(c) In no event shall the amount of fee paid under the contract exceed the total fixed fee specified in B.[ ], Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee, herein.
As prescribed in 2416.506-70(g), insert the following provision in all level-of-effort solicitations:
(a) The Government anticipates that the following categories of labor shall be necessary to provide the services required by any contract resulting from this solicitation. Offerors must provide evidence that proposed staff meet the technical requirements for each category.
(1) [Insert labor titles and technical requirements]
(b) To assist offerors in the preparation of proposals, the Government estimates that the following levels of effort (staff hours) will be necessary to provide the services required by any contract resulting from this solicitation. These estimates are not binding on the Government. Offerors must break out their proposed costs by labor category. The contract performance period is intended to be for a total of [ ] months (a base period of [ ] months with [ ][insert number of options] [ ][insert number of months per option]-month option periods. The actual duration of the base period may be different. Offerors may propose labor at different rates per contract period.
As prescribed in 2419.811-3(f), insert the following clause:
(a) This contract is issued as a direct award between the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the 8(a) Contractor pursuant to a Partnership Agreement (Agreement) between the Small Business Administration (SBA) and HUD. The SBA retains responsibility for 8(a) certification, 8(a) eligibility determinations and related issues, and providing counseling and assistance to the 8(a) contractor under the 8(a) program. The cognizant SBA district office is:
[To be completed by Contracting Officer at time of award].
(b) SBA is the prime contractor and ___ [insert name of 8(a) contractor] is the subcontractor under this contract. Under the terms of the Agreement, HUD is responsible for administering the contract and taking any action on behalf of the Government under the terms and conditions of the contract. However, the HUD Contracting Officer shall give advance notice to the SBA before issuing a final notice terminating performance, either in whole or in part, under the contract. The HUD Contracting Officer shall also coordinate with SBA prior to processing any novation agreement(s). HUD may assign contract administration functions to a contract administration office.
(c) ___ [insert name of 8(a) contractor] agrees:
(1) To notify the HUD Contracting Officer, simultaneously with its notification to SBA (as required by SBA's 8(a) regulations), when the owner or owners upon whom 8(a) eligibility is based, plan to relinquish ownership or control of the concern. Consistent with 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(21), transfer of ownership or control shall result in termination of the contract for convenience, unless SBA waives the requirement for termination prior to the actual relinquishing of ownership or control.
(2) To adhere to the requirements of FAR 52.219-14, “Limitations on Subcontracting.”
As prescribed in HUDAR Section 2432.908(c)(2), replace paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of the HUDAR Clause 2452.232-70 Payment Schedule and Invoice Submission (Fixed-price) with the following Alternate II language in all fixed price solicitations and contracts when requiring invoices to be submitted electronically to the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Services Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) system:
(2) To assist the Government in making timely payments, the Contractor is also requested to include on each invoice the appropriation number shown on the contract award document (
As prescribed in HUDAR Section 2432.908(c)(3), insert the following clause in all cost-reimbursable, time-and-materials, and labor-hour solicitations and contracts where vouchering and payments will NOT be made through the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Services Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) system:
(a)
(2) To assist the Government in making timely payments, the Contractor is requested to include on each voucher the applicable appropriation number(s) shown on the award or subsequent modification document (
(b)
(2) The Contractor shall submit all necessary supporting documentation with vouchers that adequately demonstrate that costs claimed (1) have been incurred (including time sheets from the prime and subcontractor's automated or manual time tracking records and paid invoices for materials acquired), (2) reflect that they are allocable to the contract tasks, and (3) comply with cost principles in the Federal Acquisition Regulation and HUD Acquisition Regulation. The Contracting Officer may disallow all or part of a claimed cost that is inadequately supported.
(3) For time-and-materials and labor-hour contracts, the Contractor shall aggregate vouchered costs by the individual task for which the costs were incurred and clearly identify the task or job.
(c)
As prescribed in HUDAR Section 2432.908(c)(3), replace paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) with the following Alternate I paragraphs to HUDAR Clause 2452.232-71, Voucher Submission (Cost Reimbursement, Time-And-Materials, and Labor Hour) in time and material, cost-reimbursable and labor hour solicitations and contracts other than performance-based under which performance-based payments will be used and where invoices are to be submitted electronically by email, but will not be paid through the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Services Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) system.
(a)
(2) To assist the Government in making timely payments, the contractor is requested to include on each voucher the applicable appropriation number(s) shown on the award or subsequent modification document (
As prescribed in HUDAR Section 2432.908(c)(3), replace paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of the HUDAR Clause 2452.232-71, Voucher Submission (Cost-Reimbursement, Time-And-Materials, And Labor Hour) with the following Alternate II language in all cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, and labor-hour type solicitations and contracts when requiring vouchers to be submitted electronically to the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Services Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) system.
(a)
(2) To assist the Government in making timely payments, the Contractor is requested to include on each voucher the applicable appropriation number(s) shown on the award or subsequent modification document (
As prescribed in 2437.110(e)(2), insert the following clause in all contracts for services:
(a) The Contracting Officer will provide the contractor with the name and contact information of the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) assigned to this contract. The COR will serve as the Contractor's liaison with the Contracting Officer with regard to the conduct of work. The Contracting Officer will notify the Contractor in writing of any change to the current COR's status or the designation of a successor COR.
(b) The COR for liaison with the Contractor as to the conduct of work is [to be inserted at time of award] or a successor designated by the Contracting Officer.
(c) The COR will provide guidance to the Contractor on the technical performance of the contract. Such guidance shall not be of a nature which:
(1) Causes the Contractor to perform work outside the statement of work or specifications of the contract;
(2) Constitutes a change as defined in FAR 52.243-1;
(3) Causes an increase or decrease in the cost of the contract;
(4) Alters the period of performance or delivery dates; or
(5) Changes any of the other express terms or conditions of the contract.
(d) The COR will issue technical guidance in writing or, if issued orally, he/she will confirm such direction in writing within five (5) calendar days after oral issuance. The COR may issue such guidance via telephone, facsimile (fax), or electronic mail.
(e) Other specific limitations [to be inserted by Contracting Officer]:
(f) The Contractor shall promptly notify the Contracting Officer whenever the Contractor believes that guidance provided by any government personnel, whether or not specifically provided pursuant to this clause, is of a nature described in paragraph (b) of this clause.
As prescribed in 2437.110(e)(3), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts:
(a)
“Access” means physical entry into and, to the extent authorized, mobility within a Government facility.
“Contract” means any authorized contractual instrument, including, but not restricted to, task orders, purchase orders, Blanket Purchase Agreement calls, etc.
“Contractor employee” means an employee of the prime contractor or of any subcontractor, affiliate, partner, joint venture, or team members with which the Contractor is associated. It also includes consultants engaged by any of those entities.
“Facility” and “Government facility” mean buildings, including areas within buildings that are owned, leased, shared, occupied, or otherwise controlled by the Federal Government.
“NACI” means National Agency Check with Inquiries, the minimum background investigation prescribed by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
“PIV Card” means the Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Card, the Federal Government-issued identification credential (identification badge).
(b)
Unescorted access to any such facility in performance of this contract. HUD may accept a PIV Card issued by another Federal Government agency, but shall not be required to do so. No contractor employee will be permitted unescorted access to a HUD facility without a proper PIV Card.
(c)
(2) The Contractor shall deliver the forms and information required in paragraph (c)(1) of this clause to the COR as secure as possible.
(3) The information provided in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this clause will be used to perform a background investigation to determine the suitability of the contractor employees to have access to Government facilities. After completion of the investigation, the COR will notify the Contractor in writing when any contractor employee is determined to be unsuitable for access to a Government facility. The Contractor shall immediately remove such employee(s) from work on this contract that requires physical presence in a Government facility.
(4) Affected contractor employees who have had a Federal background investigation without a subsequent break in Federal employment or Federal contract service exceeding 2 years may be exempt from the investigation requirements of this clause subject to verification of the previous investigation. For each such employee, the Contractor shall submit the following information in lieu of the forms and information listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this clause: completed PIV and Pre-Security Form.
(d)
(2) PIV Cards shall identify individuals as contractor employees. Contractor employees shall display their PIV Cards on their persons at all times while working in a HUD facility, and shall present cards for inspection upon request by HUD officials or HUD security personnel.
(3) The Contractor shall be responsible for all PIV Cards issued to the Contractor's employees and shall immediately notify the COR if any PIV Card(s) cannot be accounted for. The Contractor shall promptly return PIV Cards to HUD, as required by the FAR clause at 52.204-9. The Contractor shall notify the COR immediately whenever any contractor
(4) The Contractor shall submit a report to the Contracting Officer and COR no later than five (5) calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter that provides the status of each employee who is required to work in a HUD facility during the performance of the contract. At a minimum, the report shall identify the contractor and the contract number, and list for each employee the following information:
(i) Employee name;
(ii) Name of HUD facility where employee works;
(iii) Date background check submitted;
(iv) Date PIV Card issued;
(v) PIV card number;
(vi) Date employee no longer has need of the HUD PIV Card;
(vii) Date Contracting Officer and COR were notified that employee no longer had need of the HUD PIV Card; and
(viii) Date PIV Card was returned to COR.
(e)
(f)
(g)
As prescribed in HUDAR 2437.110(e)(7), the Contracting Officer shall insert provision 2452.237-82 in Section L of solicitations when controlled unclassified information (CUI), as defined in the provision, will be provided to potential offerors for the purpose of preparing offers.
(a) For the sole purpose of preparing an offer in response to this solicitation, HUD may make certain controlled unclassified information (CUI) available to prospective offerors.
(b) CUI:
(1) Is any information which the loss, misuse, or modification of, or unauthorized access to, could adversely affect the national interest or the conduct of Federal programs or the privacy to which individuals are entitled under section 552a of title 5, United States Code (the Privacy Act), but which has not been specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order or an Act of Congress to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy;
(2) Is not available to the general public;
(3) May include:
(i) Government acquisition-sensitive information, including source selection information as defined at section 2.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR chapter 1); contractor bid or proposal information;
(ii) Information contained in individual contracts that is not public information and such contract information that is contained in Government databases; proprietary economic, financial, or business information (
(iii) Personally identifiable information (PII) that includes, but is not limited to, Social Security numbers, names, dates of birth, places of birth, parents' names, credit card numbers, applications for entitlements, and information relating to a person's private financial, income, employment, and tax records; and
(iv) Other information that the HUD Contracting Officer (CO) or other authorized HUD employee explicitly identifies as CUI.
(4) May exist in various physical media (
(c) As a prior condition to being provided access to any CUI, each prospective offeror shall execute the following nondisclosure agreements and deliver the executed agreements to the Contracting Officer:
(1) Nondisclosure Agreement between the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and Offeror Granting Conditional Access to Controlled Unclassified Information (“Offeror Agreement”) (see Attachment J-__ [
(2) Nondisclosure Agreement between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Offeror Employee or Other External Party Granting Conditional Access to Controlled Unclassified Information (“Nondisclosure Agreement”) (see Attachment J__ [
(3) NDAs must be submitted to the CO and COR within ten (10) days after contract award or as otherwise specified by the CO.
(d) CUI will be provided to prospective offerors as follows: [
(e) The offeror's failure to comply with any part of this provision or with the terms of the required nondisclosure agreements may disqualify the offeror for consideration of any contract awarded under this solicitation.
As prescribed in HUDAR 2437.110(e)(8), the Contracting Officer shall insert clause 2452.237-83 in Section H of solicitations and contracts under which contractor and/or subcontractor employees will be granted access to controlled unclassified information as defined in the clause.
(a) For the sole purpose of performing work required under this contract, the contracting officer may grant the contractor-including contractor employees, subcontractors, and subcontractor employees-access to controlled unclassified information (CUI).
(b) CUI:
(1) Is any information which the loss, misuse, or modification of, or unauthorized access to, could adversely affect the national interest or the conduct of Federal programs or the privacy to which individuals are entitled under section 552a of title 5, United States Code (the Privacy Act), but which has not been specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order or an Act of Congress to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy;
(2) Is not available to the general public;
(3) May include:
(i) Government acquisition-sensitive information, including source selection information as defined at section 2.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR chapter 1); contractor bid or proposal information;
(ii) Information contained in individual contracts that is not public information and such contract information that is contained in Government databases; proprietary economic, financial, or business information (
(iii) Personally identifiable information (PII) that includes, but is not limited to social security numbers, names, dates of birth, places of birth, parents' names, credit card numbers, applications for entitlements, and information relating to a person's private financial, income, employment, and tax records; and
(iv) Other information that the HUD contracting officer or other authorized HUD employee explicitly identifies as CUI; and
(4) May exist in various physical media (
(c) As a prior condition to being provided access to any CUI, each contractor or subcontractor employee shall execute the nondisclosure agreement in attachment J.__ [
(d) The contractor shall include this clause in all subcontracts.
(e) The contractor's failure to comply with any part of this clause or with the terms of the required nondisclosure agreements may result in the termination of this contract for default.
As prescribed in 2439.107(a), insert the following clause:
(a)
“Access” means the ability to obtain, view, read, modify, delete, and/or otherwise make use of information resources.
“Application” means the use of information resources (information and information technology) to satisfy a specific set of user requirements (see Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130).
“Contract” means any authorized contractual instrument, including, but not restricted to, task orders, purchase orders, Blanket Purchase Agreement calls, etc.
“Contractor employee” means an employee of the prime contractor or of any subcontractor, affiliate, partner, joint venture, or team members with which the Contractor is associated. It also includes consultants engaged by any of those entities.
“Mission-critical system” means an information technology or telecommunications system used or operated by HUD or by a HUD contractor, or organization on behalf of HUD, that processes any information, the loss, misuse, disclosure, or unauthorized access to, or modification of which would have a debilitating impact on the mission of the agency.
“NACI” means a National Agency Check with Inquiries, the minimum background investigation prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
“PIV Card” means the Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Card, the Federal Government-issued identification credential (
“Sensitive information” means any information of which the loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to, or modification of, could adversely affect the national interest, the conduct of Federal programs, or the privacy to which individuals are entitled under section 552a of title 5, United States Code (the Privacy Act), but which has not been specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order or an Act of Congress to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.
“System” means an interconnected set of information resources under the same direct management control, which shares common functionality. A system normally includes hardware, software, information, data, applications, communications, and people (see OMB Circular A-130). System includes any system owned by HUD or owned and operated on HUD's behalf by another party.
(b)
(2) All contractor employees who require access to mission-critical systems or sensitive information contained within a HUD system or application(s) are required to have a more extensive background investigation. The investigation shall be commensurate with the risk and security controls involved in managing, using, or operating the system or applications(s).
(c)
(1) A United States (U.S.) citizen; or,
(2) A national of the United States (see 8 U.S.C. 1408); or,
(3) An alien lawfully admitted into, and lawfully permitted to be employed in the United States, provided that for any such individual, the Government is able to obtain sufficient background information to complete the investigation as required by this clause. Failure on the part of the contractor to provide sufficient information to perform a required investigation or the inability of the Government to verify information provided for affected contractor employees will result in denial of their access.
(d)
(i) For each contractor employee requiring access to HUD information systems, the contractor shall submit the following properly completed forms: Electronic Standard Form (SF) 85, “Questionnaire for Non-sensitive Positions” via e-QIP, completed USAccess enrollment (electronic fingerprinting) and Optional Form (OF) 306 (Items 1 through 17). The SF-85 and OF-306 are available from the OPM website,
(ii) For each contractor employee requiring access to mission-critical systems and/or sensitive information contained within a HUD system and/or application(s), the Contractor shall submit the following properly completed forms: Electronic SF-85P, “Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions” via e-QIP;” Electronic Standard Form (SF) 85, “Questionnaire for Non-sensitive Positions via e-QIP,” completed USAccess enrollment (electronic fingerprinting) and Optional Form (OF) 306 (Items 1 through 17). The SF-85 and OF-306 are available from the OPM website,
(iii) The electronic questionnaires (e-QIP) SF-85, 85P, and OF-306 are available from OPM's websites
(2) The Contractor shall deliver the forms and information required in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause to the COR as securely as possible.
(3) Affected contractor employees who have had a Federal background investigation without a subsequent break in Federal employment or Federal contract service exceeding 2 years may be exempt from the investigation requirements of this clause, subject to verification of the previous investigation. For each such employee, the Contractor shall submit the following information in lieu of the forms and information listed in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause: PIV and Pre-Security Form.
(4) The investigation process shall consist of a range of personal background inquiries and contacts (written and personal) and verification of the information provided on the investigative forms described in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause.
(5) Upon completion of the investigation process, the COR will notify the Contractor if any contractor employee is determined to be unsuitable to have access to the system(s), application(s), or information. Such an employee may not be given access to those resources. If any such employee has already been given access pending the results of the background investigation, the Contractor shall ensure that the employee's access is revoked immediately upon receipt of the COR's notification.
(6) Failure of the COR to notify the Contractor (see paragraph (d)(1) of this clause) of any employee who should be subject to the requirements of this clause and is known, or should reasonably be known, by the Contractor to be subject to the requirements of this clause, shall not excuse the Contractor from making such employee(s) known to the COR. Any such employee who is identified and is working under the contract, without having had the appropriate background investigation or furnished the required forms for the investigation, shall cease to perform such work immediately and shall not be given access to the system(s)/application(s) described in paragraph (b) of this clause until the Contractor has provided the investigative forms to the COR for the employee, as required in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause.
(7) The Contractor shall notify the COR in writing whenever a contractor employee for whom a background investigation package was required and submitted to HUD, or for whom a background investigation was completed, terminates employment with the Contractor or otherwise is no longer performing work under this contract that requires access to the system(s), application(s), or information. The Contractor shall provide a copy of the written notice to the Contracting Officer.
(e)
(2) PIV Cards shall identify individuals as contractor employees. Contractor employees shall display their PIV Cards on their persons at all times while working in a HUD facility, and shall present cards for inspection upon request by HUD officials or HUD security personnel.
(3) The Contractor shall be responsible for all PIV Cards issued to the Contractor's employees and shall immediately notify the COR if any PIV Card(s) cannot be accounted for. The Contractor shall promptly return PIV Cards to HUD as required by the FAR clause at 52.204-9. The Contractor shall notify the COR immediately whenever any contractor employee no longer has a need for his/her HUD-issued PIV Card (
(4) The Contractor shall submit a report to the Contracting Officer and COR no later than five (5) calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter that provides the status of each employee who is required to work in a HUD facility during the performance of the contract. At a minimum, the report shall identify the Contractor and the contract number, and list for each employee the following information:
(i) Employee name;
(ii) Name of HUD facility where employee works;
(iii) Date background check submitted;
(iv) Date PIV Card issued;
(v) PIV card number;
(vi) Date employee no longer has need of the HUD PIV Card;
(vii) Date Contracting Officer and COR were notified that employee no longer has need of the HUD PIV Card; and
(viii) Date PIV Card returned to COR.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(2) The contractor shall require that all employees who may have access to the system(s)/applications(s) identified in paragraph (b) of this clause sign a pledge of nondisclosure of information. The employees shall sign these pledges before they are permitted to perform work under this contract. The contractor shall maintain the signed pledges for a period of 3 years after final payment under this contract. The contractor shall provide a copy of these pledges to the COR.
(i)
(i) The Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA);
(ii) Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources;
(iii) HUD Handbook 2400.25, Information Technology Security Policy;
(iv) HUD Handbook 732.3, Personnel Security/Suitability;
(v) Federal Information Processing Standards 201 (FIPS 201), Sections 2.1 and 2.2;
(vi) Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12); and
(vii) OMB Memorandum M-05-24, Implementing Guidance for HSPD-12.
The HUD Handbooks are available online at:
(2) The Contractor shall develop and maintain a compliance matrix that lists each requirement set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i)(1), and (m) of this clause with specific actions taken, and/or procedures implemented, to satisfy each requirement. The contractor shall identify an accountable person for each requirement, the date upon which actions/procedures were initiated/completed, and certify that information contained in this compliance matrix is correct. The Contractor shall ensure that information in this compliance matrix is complete, accurate, and up-to-date at all times for the duration of this contract. Upon request, the Contractor shall provide copies of the current matrix to HUD.
(3) The Contractor shall ensure that its employees, in performance of the contract, receive annual training (or once if the contract is for less than one year) in HUD information technology security policies, procedures, computer ethics, and best practices in accordance with HUD Handbook 2400.25.
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
As prescribed in 2442.1107, insert the following clause:
(a) The Contractor shall use contract management baseline planning and progress reporting as described herein.
(b) The contract management system shall consist of two parts:
(1)
(i) A narrative portion that:
(A) Identifies each task and significant activity required for completing the contract work, critical path activities, task dependencies, task milestones, and related deliverables;
(B) Describes the contract schedule, including the period of time needed to accomplish each task and activity (see paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this clause);
(C) Describes staff (
(D) Provides the rationale for contract work organization and resource allocation.
(ii) A graphic portion showing:
(A) Cumulative planned or budgeted costs of work scheduled for each reporting period over the life of the contract (
(B) The planned start and completion dates of all planned and budgeted tasks and activities.
(2)
(i) A narrative portion that:
(A) Provides a brief, concise summary of technical progress made and the costs incurred for each task during the reporting period; and
(B) Identifies problems, or potential problems, that will affect the contract's cost or schedule, the causes of the problems, and the Contractor's proposed corrective actions.
(ii) A graphic portion showing:
(A) The original time-phased, budgeted baseline;
(B) The schedule status and degree of completion of the tasks, activities, and deliverables shown in the baseline plan for the reporting period, including actual start and completion dates for all tasks and activities in the baseline plan; and
(C) The costs incurred during the reporting period, the current total amount of costs incurred through the end date of the reporting period for budgeted work, and the projected costs required to complete the work under the contract.
(3)
(c) The formats, forms, and/or software to be used for the contract management system under this contract shall be [Contracting Officer insert appropriate language, such as “as prescribed in the schedule;” “a format, forms and/or software designated by the COR” or, “the Contractor's own format, forms and/or software, subject to the approval of the COR.”].
(d) When this clause applies to individual task orders under the contract, the word “contract” shall mean “task order.”
As prescribed in 2446.502-70, insert the following clause in all solicitations and contracts:
Inspection and acceptance of all work required under this contract shall be performed by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) or other individual as designated by the Contracting Officer or COR.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; correction.
This document contains corrections to the preamble of the proposed regulations published on March 13, 2018, governing the take of marine mammals incidental to the U.S. Navy (Navy) training and testing activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area. This action is necessary to correct an error in where sections of the table were omitted in the
Applicable on April 9, 2018.
Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS; phone: (301) 427-8401,
A proposed rule published March 13, 2018 (83 FR 10954) for the take of marine mammals incidental to the Navy's training and testing activities in the AFTT Study Area. This correction replaces Table 4 contained in the preamble of the proposed training activities within the AFTT Study Area.
As published on page 10963 of the preamble to the proposed rule,
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by May 9, 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 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces our intention to request a 3-year extension and revision of a currently approved information collection for “Export Inspection and Weighing Waiver for High Quality Specialty Grain Transported in Containers”.
The realignment of offices within the U.S. Department of Agriculture authorized by the Secretary's Memorandum dated November 14, 2017, eliminates the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) as a standalone agency. The grain inspection activities formerly part of GIPSA are now organized under AMS.
We will consider comments that we receive by June 8, 2018.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice by any of the following methods:
•
• Karen W. Guagliardo, Director, Quality Assurance and Compliance Division (QACD), Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS), USDA/AMS, STOP 3630, Room 2420-South, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-3630;
For information regarding the collection of information activities and the use of the information, contact Candace A. Hildreth, Compliance Officer at (202) 720-0203.
Congress enacted The United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) (7 U.S.C. 71—87k) to facilitate the marketing of grain in interstate and foreign commerce. The USGSA, with few exceptions, requires that all grain shipped from the United States must be officially inspected and officially weighed. The USGSA authorizes the Department of Agriculture to waive the mandatory inspection and weighing requirements of the USGSA in circumstances when the objectives of the USGSA would not be impaired.
Section 7 CFR 800.18 of the regulations waives the mandatory inspection and weighing requirements of the USGSA for high quality specialty grain exported in containers. FGIS established this waiver to facilitate the marketing of high quality specialty grain exported in containers. This action was consistent with the objectives of the USGSA and would promote the continuing development of the high quality specialty grain export market.
To ensure that exporters of high quality specialty grain complied with this waiver, FGIS required exporters to maintain records generated during the normal course of business that pertain to these shipments and make these documents available upon request for review or copying purposes (76 FR 45397). These records shall be maintained for a period of 3 years. This information collection requirement is essential to ensure that exporters who ship high quality specialty grain in containers comply with the waiver provisions. FGIS does not require exporters of high quality specialty grain to complete and submit new Federal government record(s), form(s), or report(s).
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by May 9, 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 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
We are giving notice of a meeting of the General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) and the NPIP's 44th Biennial Conference.
The General Conference Committee meeting will be held on June 26, 2018, from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The General Session of the Biennial Conference will be held on June 27, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and June 28, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
The meeting and conference will be held at the Franklin Marriott Cool Springs, 700 Cool Springs Boulevard, Franklin, TN 37067.
Dr. Denise Heard, Senior Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, USDA, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094; (770) 922-3496.
The General Conference Committee (the Committee) of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), representing cooperating State agencies and poultry industry members, serves an essential function by acting as liaison between the poultry industry and the Department in matters pertaining to poultry health.
Topics for discussion at the upcoming meeting include:
1. NPIP approval of new diagnostic tests.
2. Salmonella update.
3. National Veterinary Services Laboratories avian influenza update.
4. Mycoplasma update.
The meeting will be open to the public; however, public participation in discussions during the sessions will only be allowed if time permits. Written statements may be filed at the meeting or filed with the Committee before or after the meeting by sending them to the person listed under
This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that certain producers or exporters of subject merchandise have made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable April 9, 2018.
Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1398.
Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (pipes and tubes) from Thailand. The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2017. This review covers three producers or exporters of the subject merchandise, Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited (Pacific Pipe), Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. (Saha Thai), and Thai Premium Pipe Co. Ltd. (Thai Premium).
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018.
The products covered by the antidumping order are certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The subject merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more, but not exceeding 16 inches. For a full description of the scope of this order, please see the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2017:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the preliminary results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon completion of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
Commerce clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 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, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies under review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if that rate is
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable April 9, 2018.
Omar Qureshi, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5307.
On February 15, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of cast iron soil pipe from the People's Republic of China.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days of the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, if the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension of the period within which the determination must be made, Commerce may postpone making the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which it initiated the investigation, pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act. The Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute (the petitioner) has made a timely request to postpone the preliminary determination, maintaining that the current deadline does not realistically provide Commerce with adequate time to review the questionnaire responses.
In light of the request from the petitioner, Commerce, in accordance with section 703(c)(l)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to no later than 130 days after the day on which Commerce initiated this investigation,
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that the sole exporter subject to this administrative review has not made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable April 9, 2018.
Blaine Wiltse or David Crespo, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6345 or (202) 482-3693, respectively.
Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain uncoated paper (uncoated paper) from Indonesia. The notice of initiation of this administrative review was published on May 9, 2017.
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through January 22, 2018. As a result, the revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review is now April 3, 2018.
We preliminarily determine that APRIL has not made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted
The merchandise subject to the order is certain uncoated paper.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margin exists for APRIL for the period August 26, 2015, through February 28, 2017, as follows:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days after the date of publication of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the publication date of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
If APRIL's weighted-average dumping margin remains zero or
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for APRIL will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for information.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is seeking comments and information from interested parties to assist the Bureau in assessing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of its consumer financial education programs.
Comments must be received by July 9, 2018.
You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2018-0015, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All submissions in response to this request for information, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other individuals, should not be included. Submissions will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
Davida Farrar, Counsel, Consumer Education and Engagement Division, at 202-435-9523, or Katherine Gillespie, Deputy Associate Director, Consumer Education and Engagement Division, at 202-435-7847. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (Act) lists “conducting financial education programs” as one of six primary functions of the Bureau.
The Bureau conducts various financial education programs covering a range of financial topics. Currently, the Bureau offers information directly to Americans through the Bureau's website and indirectly through community channels, such as libraries and social service agencies. The topics covered on the Bureau's website and through its print publications include mortgages, credit reporting, student loans, debt collection, and bank accounts. The Bureau has also created guides for specific financial decisions, including Buying a House,
The Bureau uses various metrics to measure the reach and effectiveness of its financial education work, including the number of consumers and financial educators using the Bureau's information and tools, qualitative user feedback, increased understanding of certain topics, and user satisfaction ratings. The Bureau has also developed an evidence-based scale to measure financial well-being as an outcome of financial education programs.
The Bureau is a member of the federal Financial Literacy and Education Commission (FLEC), and the Bureau's Director is the Vice-Chair of FLEC. The Bureau has coordinated with other Federal agencies to deliver financial education, such as cooperating with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to create Money Smart for Older Adults.
The Bureau is using this request for information to seek public input regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of the Bureau's financial education programs, including its focus on various topics, programs, delivery channels and methods, the use of technology, and the use of the procurement process to support its work. The Bureau encourages comments from all interested members of the public. The Bureau anticipates that the responding public may include individual consumers, financial educators, members of industry, consumer advocates, researchers or members of academia, state and local officials, and others. This RFI is not the vehicle to express interest in contracting with the Bureau. Additionally, the Bureau does not provide grants.
The Bureau requests that, where possible, comments include specific suggestions regarding ways to:
• Improve the Bureau's existing programs and delivery mechanisms;
• Better measure and evaluate the effectiveness of the Bureau's financial education work; and
• Eliminate or minimize the duplication of the Bureau's financial education work with work performed by other entities, including federal, state, and local agencies.
The following list of general questions represents a preliminary attempt by the Bureau to identify elements of Bureau financial education programs that are of the greatest interest to the public. This non-exhaustive list is meant to assist in the formulation of comments and is not intended to restrict the issues that may be addressed. Please feel free to comment on some or all of the questions below, but please be sure to indicate on which area you are commenting.
The Bureau is seeking feedback on all aspects of its consumer financial education programs, including but not limited to the following topics:
1. The Bureau's focus on specific financial education topics and delivery channels, and use of technology and contractors.
a. Are the Bureau's financial education programs focusing on the right topics and areas to educate and empower consumers to make better informed financial decisions?
b. What financial education topics should the Bureau address?
c. What delivery channels should the Bureau use to conduct financial education programs?
d. What technologies should the Bureau use to provide financial education?
e. How should the Bureau use contractors in its financial education work?
f. Should the Bureau's financial education work focus on other populations or audiences, in addition to the general population and those specific populations referenced in the statute?
2. Measuring the effectiveness of the Bureau's financial education programs.
a. How should the Bureau measure the success of its financial education programs?
b. How should the Bureau measure return on investment of financial education programs?
c. How should the Bureau measure the benefit of its financial education work? Should the measures vary depending on the type of education, the topic, or the delivery channel?
d. Is there one set of metrics for program effectiveness that the Bureau could use across its financial education programs, or should it use different metrics depending on the type of program and delivery method (
e. How can the Bureau's financial well-being scale be used to measure the effectiveness of financial education programs?
f. Should the Bureau consider adopting any measures of success for financial education that are used by others? What are those measures?
3. Avoiding duplication in financial education between the Bureau and other federal agencies or other entities.
a. Are there programs at other federal agencies that are similar to the Bureau's programs? Are these programs or aspects of these programs more or less effective than the Bureau's? If so, how and why?
b. Are there ways to improve coordination in financial education activities between the Bureau and other agencies?
4. Are there other perspectives or information that will assist the Bureau in its financial education work?
12 U.S.C. 5511(c).
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 8, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Executive Director of the Armed Forces Chaplains Board, USD P&R (MPP) AFCB, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Room 2D580, Washington, DC 20301-4000, or call the Office of the Executive Director of the Armed Forces Chaplains Board at 703-697-9015.
The DD Form 2088 is used to verify the professional and ecclesiastical qualifications of Religious Ministry Professionals for initial appointment or a chaplain's change of career status appointments as chaplains in the Military Service. This form is an essential element of a chaplain's professional qualifications and will become a part of a chaplain's military personnel record. DoD listed endorsing agents utilize the form to endorse military chaplains representing their organizations.
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education.
Announcement of an open meeting.
This notice sets forth the agenda, time, and location for the May 22-24, 2018 meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), and provides information to members of the public regarding the meeting, including requesting to make oral comments. The notice of this meeting is required under § 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and § 114(d)(1)(B) of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended.
The NACIQI meeting will be held on May 22, 23, and 24, 2018, each day from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Double Tree by Hilton Washington DC Crystal City, Washington Ballroom, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202
Jennifer Hong, Executive Director/Designated Federal Official, NACIQI, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 271-03, Washington, DC 20202, telephone: (202) 453-7805, or email:
• The establishment and enforcement of the standards of accrediting agencies or associations under subpart 2, part G, Title IV of the HEA, as amended.
• The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations.
• The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations.
• The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV of the HEA and part C, subchapter I, chapter 34, Title 42, together with recommendations for improvement in such process.
• The relationship between (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions.
• Any other advisory function relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary of Education may prescribe by regulation.
1. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and pre-accreditation, within the United States, of Didactic and Coordinated Programs in Dietetics at both the undergraduate and graduate level, postbaccalaureate Dietetic Internships, and Dietetic Technician Programs at the associate degree level, and for its accreditation of such programs offered via distance education.
2. Accreditation Council on Optometric Education. Scope of
Recognition: The accreditation in the United States of professional optometric degree programs, optometric technician (associate degree) programs, and optometric residency programs, and for the pre-accreditation category of Preliminary Approval for professional optometric degree programs.
3. Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools, Accreditation Commission. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Correspondent” and“Candidate”) within the United States of advanced rabbinical and Talmudic schools.
4. Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of institutions and programs of nurse anesthesia at the post master's certificate, master's, or doctoral degree levels in the United States, and its territories, including programs offering distance education.
5. Liaison Committee on Medical Education. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of medical education programs within the United States leading to the M.D. degree.
6. National Association of Schools of Art and Design. Scope of Recognition: For the accreditation throughout the United States of freestanding institutions and units offering art/design and art/design-related programs (both degree- and non-degree-granting), including those offered via distance education.
7. Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidacy Status”) of postsecondary degree-granting educational institutions in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, and the accreditation of programs offered via distance education within these institutions.
1. American Bar Association, Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. Findings identified in the October 28, 2016 letter from the senior Department official following the June 23, 2016 NACIQI meeting available at:
2. American Osteopathic Association, Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation. Findings identified in the October 28, 2016 letter from the senior Department official following the June 23, 2016 NACIQI meeting available at:
3. American Psychological Association, Commission on Accreditation. Findings identified in the September 22, 2016 letter from the senior Department official following the June 23, 2016 NACIQI meeting available at:
4. Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, Accreditation Commission. Findings identified in the October 28, 2016 letter from the senior Department official following the June 23, 2016 NACIQI meeting available at:
Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools, Accreditation Commission. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Correspondent” and “Candidate”) within the United States of advanced rabbinical and Talmudic schools. Requested Scope: The accreditation of advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic institutions in the United States which grant postsecondary degrees such as Associate, Baccalaureate, Masters, Doctorate, First Rabbinic and First Talmudic degrees.
Puerto Rico State Agency for the Approval of Public Postsecondary Vocational, Technical Institutions and Programs.
Update from the U.S. Department of Education on efforts to reduce regulatory burden and improve efficiencies in the accreditation program.
NACIQI received a letter from U.S. Senators Warren, Brown, Murray, Durbin, and Blumenthal, regarding their concerns of for-profit institutions converting to, or attempting to convert to, non-profit entities in order to avoid regulatory scrutiny. This letter is available at:
WSCUC will present on its Graduation Rate Dashboard tool (GRD), and how the agency uses outcome measures, such as the GRD, as part of its accreditation process. This presentation is responsive to NACIQI's line of inquiry into how accrediting agencies use data to inform the accreditation process.
The subcommittee on data will report out on its activities since the last NACIQI meeting.
In addition to following the HEA, the FACA, implementing regulations, and the NACIQI charter, as well as its customary procedural protocols, NACIQI inquiries will include the questions and topics listed in the pilot plan it adopted at its December 2015 meeting. A document entitled “June 2016 Pilot Plan” and available at:
• Decision activities of and data gathered by the agency.
○ NACIQI will inquire about the range of accreditation activities of the agency since its prior review for recognition, including discussion about the various favorable, monitoring, and adverse actions taken. Information about the primary standards cited for the monitoring and adverse actions that have been taken will be sought.
○ NACIQI will also inquire about what data the agency routinely gathers about the activities of the institutions it accredits and about how that data is used in their evaluative processes.
• Standards and practices with regard to student achievement.
○ How does your agency address “success with respect to student achievement” in the institutions it accredits?
○ Why was this strategy chosen? How is this appropriate in your context?
○ What are the student achievement challenges in the institutions accredited by your agency?
○ What has changed/is likely to change in the standards about student achievement for the institutions accredited by your agency?
○ In what ways have student achievement results been used for monitoring or adverse actions?
• Agency activities in improving program/institutional quality.
○ How does this agency define “at risk?”
○ What tools does this agency use to evaluate “at risk” status?
○ What tools does this agency have to help “at risk” institutions improve?
○ What can the agency tell us about how well these tools for improvement have worked?
To the extent NACIQI's questions go to improvement of institutions and programs that are not at risk of falling into noncompliance with agency requirements, the responses will be used to inform NACIQI's general policy recommendations to the Department rather than its recommendations regarding recognition of any individual agency.
The discussions and issues described above are in addition to, rather than substituting for, exploration by Committee members of any topic relevant to recognition.
Opportunity to submit a written comment regarding a specific accrediting agency or state approval agency under review was solicited by a previous
Written statements and oral comments concerning NACIQI's work outside of a specific accrediting agency under review must be limited to the scope of NACIQI's authority as outlined under section 114 of the HEA.
There are two methods the public may use to request to make a third-party oral comment of three minutes or less at the May 22-24, 2018 meeting. To submit a written statement to NACIQI concerning its work outside a specific accrediting agency under review, please follow Method One.
20 U.S.C. 1011c.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of Application.
Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. (Shell Energy or Applicant) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico pursuant to the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before May 9, 2018.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On May 9, 2013, DOE issued Order No. EA-338-A to Shell Energy, which authorized the Applicant to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. That authority expires on May 5, 2018. On February 26, 2018, Shell Energy filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-338 for an additional five-year term.
In its application, Shell Energy states that it does not own or operate any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that Shell Energy proposes to export to Mexico would be purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by Shell Energy have previously been authorized by Presidential Permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments and other filings concerning Shell Energy's application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-338-B. An additional copy is to be provided directly to both Serena A. Rwejuna, Bracewell LLP, 2001 M Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20036 and David L. Smith, Shell Energy North America (US), L.P., 1000 Main, Suite 1200, Houston, TX 77002.
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program website at
National Energy Technology Laboratory, Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of public meeting.
The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) will host a public meeting via WebEx April 24, 2018, of the Supercritical CO
The public meeting will be held on April 24, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The public meeting will be held via WebEx and hosted by NETL.
For further information regarding the public meeting, please contact Seth Lawson or Walter Perry at NETL by telephone at (304) 285-4469, by email at
The public meeting will be held via WebEx. The public meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. and end at 3:00 p.m. Agenda details will be available prior to the meeting on the NETL website,
The objective of the Supercritical CO
Oxy-combustion systems in directly heated supercritical CO
The format of the meeting will facilitate equal opportunity for discussion among all participants; all participants will be welcome to speak. Following a detailed presentation by one volunteer participant regarding lessons learned from his or her area of research, other participants will be provided the opportunity to briefly share lessons learned from their own research. Meetings are expected to take place every other month with a different volunteer presenting at each meeting. Meeting minutes shall be published for those who are unable to attend.
This meeting is considered “open-to-the-public;” the purpose for this meeting has been examined during the planning stages, and NETL management has made specific determinations that affect attendance. All information presented at this meeting must meet criteria for public sharing or be published and available in the public domain. Participants should not communicate information that is considered official use only, proprietary, sensitive, restricted or protected in any way. Foreign nationals, who may be present, have not been approved for access to DOE information and technologies.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of Application.
Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. (Applicant or Shell Energy) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before May 9, 2018.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.§ 824a(e)).
On May 9, 2013, DOE issued Order No. EA-339-A to Shell Energy, which authorized the Applicant to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. That authority expires on May 5, 2018. On February 26, 2018, Shell Energy filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-339 for an additional five-year term.
In its application, Shell Energy states that it does not own or operate any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a
Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.
Comments and other filings concerning Shell Energy's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-339-B. An additional copy is to be provided directly to both Serena A. Rwejuna, Bracewell LLP, 2001 M Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20036 and David L. Smith, Shell Energy North America (US), L.P., 1000 Main, Suite 1200, Houston, TX 77002.
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program website at
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
Seven power marketing subsidiaries of Emera Incorporated (Emera) have applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before May 9, 2018.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.§ 824a(e)).
On February 22, 2018, seven subsidiaries of Emera each separately applied to DOE for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. The Applicants are: Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 9 LLC (EESS-9) (OE Docket No. EA-444); Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 10 LLC (EESS-10) (OE Docket No. EA-445); Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 11 LLC (EESS-11) (OE Docket No. EA-446); Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 12 LLC (EESS-12) (OE Docket No. EA-4447; Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 13 LLC (EESS-13) (OE Docket No. EA-448); Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 14 LLC (EESS-14) (OE Docket No. EA-449); and Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 15 LLC (EESS-15) (OE Docket No. EA-450).
In its application, each Applicant states that it does not own or control any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that each Applicant proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential Permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments and other filings concerning the Applicant's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket Nos. EA-444, EA-445, EA-446, EA-447, EA-448, EA-449 or EA-450 as listed above. An additional copy is to be provided to both Michael G. Henry, Emera Energy Services, Inc., 101 Federal St., Suite 1101, Boston, MA 02110 and to Bonnie A. Suchman, Esq., Suchman Law LLC, 8104 Paisley Place, Potomac, MD 20854.
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program website at
On December 22, 2017, Questar Southern Trail Pipeline Company (Questar) filed an application in Docket No. CP18-39-000 requesting permission pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act to abandon all of its certificated facilities, part by sale to Navajo Tribal Utility Authority and part in place. The proposed Southern Trail Pipeline Abandonment Project (Project) includes the abandonment of about 488 miles of natural gas pipeline and related facilities located in California, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico.
On December 22, 2017, the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority filed a related application in Docket No. CP18-40-000 requesting a service area determination pursuant to section 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act to utilize those acquired facilities to provide to its own service.
On January 3, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Applications for the proposals. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Questar proposes to abandon about 488 miles of natural gas pipeline and related facilities located in California, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico. About 220 miles proposed for abandoned in place are in San Bernardino County, California and Mohave, Yavapai, Coconino and Apache Counties, Arizona. About 268 miles would be abandoned by sale are in Coconino, Navajo and Apache Counties, Arizona; San Yuan County, New Mexico and San Yuan County, Utah.
On February 8, 2018, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Reactive Service Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to be effective12/31/9998.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ISO-NE and NEPOOL; Forward Capacity Market Revisions to be effective6/1/2018.
Description: Compliance filing: 2018-04-02 Petition for Tariff Waiver to Delay Implementation RAAIM Methodology to be effective N/A.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
On September 28, 2012, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, licensee for the Grandfather Falls Hydroelectric Project, filed an Application for a New License pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder. The Grandfather Falls Hydroelectric Project facility is located on the Wisconsin River in Lincoln County, Wisconsin.
The license for Project No. 1966 was issued for a period ending March 31, 2018. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 1966 is issued to the licensee for a period effective April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019 or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before March 31, 2019, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that the licensee, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, is authorized to continue operation of the Grandfather Falls Hydroelectric Project, until such time as the Commission acts on its application for a subsequent license.
On September 28, 2012, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, licensee for the Tomahawk Hydroelectric Project, filed an Application for a New License pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder. The Tomahawk Hydroelectric Project facility is located on the Wisconsin River in Lincoln County, Wisconsin.
The license for Project No.1940 was issued for a period ending March 31, 2018. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 1940 is issued to the licensee for a period effective April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019 or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before March 31, 2019, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license
If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that the licensee, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, is authorized to continue operation of the Tomahawk Hydroelectric Project, until such time as the Commission acts on its application for a subsequent license.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 24, 2018.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 7, 2018.
1.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Notice and request for comment.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the FTC is seeking public comments on its request to OMB for a three-year extension of the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Rules and Regulations under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 (Wool Rules). The clearance expires on April 30, 2018.
Comments must be received by May 9, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed to Jock K. Chung, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Mail Code CC-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2984.
On January 16, 2018, the Commission sought comment on the information collection requirements in the Wool Rules. 83 FR 2154. No germane comments were received.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before May 9, 2018. Write “Wool Rules: FTC File No. P072108” 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, or to send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Wool Rules: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), 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, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments can also be sent via email to
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. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC website—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before May 9, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Notice and request for comment.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the FTC is seeking public comments on its request to OMB for a three-year extension of the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in the Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods As Amended (Care Labeling Rule). The clearance expires on April 30, 2018.
Comments must be received by May 9, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed to Hampton Newsome, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Mail Code CC-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2889.
On January 16, 2018, the Commission sought comment on the information collection requirements in the Care Labeling Rule. 83 FR 2156. No germane comments were received.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before May 9, 2018. Write “Care Labeling Rule: FTC File No. P072108” 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, or to send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Care Labeling Rule: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), 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, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service. Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments can also be sent via email to
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. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC website—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before May 9, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Notice and request for comment.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the FTC is seeking public comments on its request to OMB to extend for three years the current PRA clearances for information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Rules and Regulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (Textile Rules). The clearance expires on April 30, 2018.
Comments must be received by May 9, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed Jock K. Chung, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Mail Code CC-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2984.
On January 22, 2018, the Commission sought comment on the information collection requirements in the Textile Rules. 83 FR 2992. No germane comments were received.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before May 9, 2018. Write “Textile Rules: FTC File No. P072108” 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, or to send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Textile Rules: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), 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, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service. Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments can also be sent via email to
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. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC website—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before May 9, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 9, 2018.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
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,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360), any person owning or operating an establishment that manufactures, prepares, propagates, compounds, or processes a drug or device must register with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, on or before December 31 of each year, his or her name, places of business, and all such establishments, among other information, and must submit a list of all drug and all device products manufactured, prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed by him or her for commercial distribution, among other information. In part 607 (21 CFR part 607), FDA has issued regulations implementing these requirements for manufacturers of human blood and blood products.
Section 607.20(a), requires, in part, that owners or operators of certain establishments that engage in the manufacture of blood products register and submit a list of every blood product in commercial distribution.
Section 607.21 requires the owner or operator of an establishments entering into the manufacturing of blood products to register the establishment within 5 days after beginning such operation and to submit a list of every blood product in commercial distribution at the time. If the owner or operator of the establishment has not previously entered into such operation for which a license is required, registration must follow within 5 days after the submission of a biologics license application. In addition, owners or operators of all establishments so engaged must register annually between October 1 and December 31 and update their blood product listing every June and December.
Section 607.22(a) requires, in part, that initial and subsequent registrations and product listings be submitted electronically through the Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing system or any future superseding electronic system.
Section 607.22(b) requires, in part, that requests for a waiver of the requirements of § 607.22 be submitted in writing and include the specific reasons why electronic submission is not reasonable for the registrant.
Section 607.22(c) provides that if FDA grants the waiver request, FDA may limit its duration and will specify the terms of the waiver and provide information on how to submit establishment registration, drug listings, other information, and updates, as applicable (
Section 607.25 sets forth the information required for establishment registration and blood product listing.
Section 607.26 requires, in part, that certain changes, such as ownership or location changes, be submitted to FDA electronically as an amendment to establishment registration within 5 calendar days of such changes using the FDA Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing system, or any future superseding electronic system.
Section 607.30(a), in part, sets forth the information required from owners or operators of establishments when they update their blood product listing information in June and December of each year (at a minimum).
Section 607.31 requires that certain additional blood product listing information be provided upon request by FDA.
Section 607.40 requires, in part, that certain foreign blood product establishments comply with the establishment registration and blood product listing information requirements in part 607, subpart B (§§ 607.20 through 607.39, 607.40(a) and (b)), and provide the name and address of the establishment and the name of the individual responsible for submitting establishment registration and blood product listing information (§ 607.40(c))
This information assists FDA in its inspections of facilities, among other uses, and its collection is essential to the overall regulatory scheme designed to ensure the safety of the Nation's blood supply.
Respondents to this collection of information are human blood and plasma donor centers, blood banks, certain transfusion services, other blood product manufacturers, and independent laboratories that engage in quality control and testing for registered blood product establishments.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information based upon information obtained from the database of FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and FDA experience with the blood establishment registration and product listing requirements.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The burden for this information collection has changed since the last OMB approval. Because of a slight increase in the number of initial registrations and product listing updates FDA has received during the past 3 years, we have increased our reporting burden estimate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 9, 2018.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports FDA regulations regarding infant formula requirements. Statutory requirements for infant formula under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) are intended to protect the health of infants and include a number of reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Among other things, section 412 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350a) requires manufacturers of infant formula to establish and adhere to quality control procedures, notify us when a batch of infant formula that has left the manufacturers' control may be adulterated or misbranded, and keep records of distribution. We also regulate the labeling of infant formula under the authority of section 403 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343). The purpose of the labeling requirements is to ensure that consumers have the information they need to prepare and use infant formula appropriately. The regulations for infant formula requirements are codified in 21 CFR parts 106 and 107.
To assist respondents with applicable reporting provisions found in the regulations, we have developed an electronic Form FDA 3978 that allows infant formula manufacturers to electronically submit reports and notifications in a standardized format. Form FDA 3978 prompts respondents to include information in a standardized format and helps respondents organize submissions to include only the information needed for our review. Draft screenshots of Form FDA 3978 and instructions are available at
In the
In compiling these estimates, we consulted our records of the number of infant formula submissions we received under the information collection. All infant formula submissions may be provided to us in electronic format. Our estimate of the time needed per response is based on our experience with similar programs and informal feedback we have received from industry.
We assume that we will receive 13 reports from 5 manufacturers under section 412(d) of the FD&C Act, for a total of 65 reports annually. We assume each report takes 10 hours to compile for a total of 650 hours annually. We also assume that we will receive one notification under § 106.120(b) and 4 hours is needed per response, for a total of 4 hours annually.
For exempt infant formula, we assume we will receive two reports from three manufacturers under § 107.50(b)(3) and (4), for a total of six reports annually. We assume each report takes 4 hours to compile for a total burden of 24 hours annually. We also assume we will receive one notification annually under § 107.50(e)(2) and that it takes 4 hours to prepare.
We assume that 4 firms will submit 36 exemptions under § 106.96(c) and that each exemption will take 20 hours to assemble for a total burden of 720 hours annually, as reflected in row 5 of table 1.
We assume that the infant formula industry annually submits 35 protein efficiency ratio (PER) submissions. For the submission of the PER exemption, we estimate that the infant formula industry submits 34 exemptions per year and that each exemption takes supporting staff 12 hours to prepare. Therefore, we calculate 34 exemptions × 12 hours per exemption = 408 hours to fulfill the requirements of § 106.96(g), as shown in row 6 of table 1.
We estimate that four firms each use one senior scientist or regulatory affairs professional who needs 30 minutes to gather and record the required information for an infant formula registration under § 106.110. We estimate that the industry annually registers 35 new infant formulas, or an average of 9 registrations per firm. Therefore, we calculate the annual burden as 36 registrations × 0.5 hour per registration = 17.5 (rounded to 18) hours, as shown in row 7 of table 1.
We estimate that four firms each use one senior scientist or regulatory affairs professional who needs 10 hours to gather and record information needed for infant formula submissions under § 106.120. This estimate includes the time needed to gather and record the information the manufacturer uses to request an exemption under § 106.91(b)(1)(ii), which provides that the manufacturer includes the scientific evidence that the manufacturer is relying on to demonstrate that the stability of the new infant formula will likely not differ from the stability of formula with similar composition, processing, and packaging for which there are extensive stability data. We estimate that 4 firms make submissions for 36 new infant formulas, or an average of 9 submissions per firm. Therefore, to comply with § 106.120, we calculate the annual burden as 36 submissions × 10 hours per submission = 360 hours, as shown in row 8 of table 1. Thus, the total annual reporting burden is 2,188 hours.
We estimate that 21 infant formula plants will test at least every 4 years for radiological contaminants. In addition, we estimate that collecting water for all testing in § 106.20(f)(3) takes between 1 and 2 hours. We estimate that water collection takes an average of 1.5 hours and that water collection occurs separately for each type of testing. We estimate that performing the test will take 1.5 hours per test, every 4 years. Therefore, 1.5 hours per plant × 21 plants = 31.5 (rounded to 32) total hours, every 4 years, as seen in row 1 of table 2. Furthermore, §§ 106.20(f)(4) and 106.100(f)(1) require firms to make and retain records of the frequency and results of water testing. For the 21 plants that are estimated not to currently test for radiological contaminants, this burden is estimated to be 5 minutes per record every 4 years. Therefore, 0.08 hour per record × 21 plants = 1.68 (rounded to 2) hours, every 4 years for the maintenance of records of radiological testing, as seen on row 2 of table 2.
We estimate that five infant formula plants will test weekly for bacteriological contaminants. We estimate that performing the test will take 5 minutes per test once a week. Annually, this burden is 0.08 hours × 52 weeks = 4.16 hours per year, per plant, and 4.16 hours per plant × 5 plants = 20.8 (rounded to 21) total annual hours, as seen on row 3 of table 2. Furthermore, for the five plants that are estimated to not currently test weekly for bacteriological contaminants, this burden is estimated to be 5 minutes per record, every week. Therefore, 0.08 hour per record × 52 weeks = 4.16 hours per plant for the maintenance of records of bacteriological testing. Accordingly, 4.16 hours × 5 plants = 20.8 (rounded to 21) annual hours, as seen on row 4 of table 2.
Sections 106.30(d) and 106.100(f)(2) require that records of calibrating certain instruments be made and retained. We estimate that one senior validation engineer for each of the five plants will need to spend about 13 minutes per week to satisfy the ongoing calibration recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, 5 recordkeepers × 52 weeks = 260 records; 260 records × 0.22 hour per record = 57 hours as the annual burden, as presented in row 5 of table 2.
Sections 106.30(e)(3)(iii) and 106.100(f)(3)) require the recordkeeping of the temperatures of each cold storage compartment. We estimate that five plants will each require one senior validation engineer about 13 minutes per week of recordkeeping. Therefore, 5 recordkeepers × 52 weeks = 260 records; 260 records × 0.22 hours per record = 57 hours as the annual burden, as presented in row 6 of table 2.
Sections 106.30(f) and 106.100(f)(4) require the recordkeeping of ongoing sanitation efforts. We estimate that five plants will each require one senior validation engineer about 12 minutes
For §§ 106.35(c) and 106.100(f)(5), we estimate that one senior validation engineer per plant needs 10 hours per week of recordkeeping, with the annual burden for this provision being 520 hours per plant × 5 plants = 2,600 annual hours, as shown in row 8 of table 2. In addition, an infant formula manufacturer revalidates its systems when it makes changes to automatic equipment. We estimate that such changes occur twice a year, and that on each of the two occasions, a team of four senior validation engineers per plant needs to work full time for 4 weeks (4 weeks × 40 hours per week = 160 work hours per person) to provide revalidation of the plant's automated systems sufficient to comply with this section. The annual burden for four senior validation engineers each working 160 hours twice a year is 1,280 hours ((160 hours × 2 revalidations) × 4 engineers = 1,280 total work hours) per plant. Therefore, 640 hours × 5 plants × 2 times per year = 6,400 hours as the annual burden, as shown on row 9 of table 2.
Sections 106.40(d) and 106.100(f)(6) require written specifications for ingredients, containers, and closures. We estimate that one senior validation engineer per plant needs about 10 minutes a week to fulfill the recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, 5 recordkeepers × 52 weeks = 260 records and 260 records × 0.17 hour = 44 hours as the annual burden, as shown in row 10 of table 2.
We estimate that five plants will change a master manufacturing order and that one senior validation engineer for each of the five plants spends about 14 minutes per week on recordkeeping pertaining to the master manufacturing order, as required by §§ 106.50(a)(1) and 106.100(e). Thus, 5 recordkeepers × 52 weeks = 260 records; 260 records × 0.23 hour = 60 hours as the annual burden, as shown in row 11 of table 2.
Sections 106.55(d), 106.100(e)(5)(ii), and 106.100(f)(7)) require recordkeeping of the testing of infant formula for microorganisms. We estimate that five plants each need one senior validation engineer to spend 15 minutes per week on recordkeeping pertaining to microbiological testing. Thus, 5 recordkeepers × 52 weeks = 260 records; 260 records × 0.25 hour per record = 65 hours as the annual burden, as shown in row 12 of table 2.
Section 106.60 establishes requirements for the recordkeeping and labeling of mixed-lot packages of infant formula. Section 106.60(c) requires infant formula distributors to label infant formula packaging (such as packing cases) to facilitate product tracing and to keep specific records of the distribution of these mixed lot cases. We estimate that one worker needs 15 minutes, once a month (0.25 × 12 months) to accomplish this, for an annual burden of 3 hours, as shown in row 13 of table 2.
Sections 106.91(b)(1), (2), and (3) provide ongoing stability testing requirements. We estimate that the stability testing requirements has a burden of 2 hours per plant. Therefore, 2 hours × 4 plants = 8 hours as the annual burden to fulfill the testing requirements, as shown in row 14 of table 2.
Sections 106.91(d) and 106.100(e)(5)(i) provide for recordkeeping of tests required under § 106.91(b)(1), (2), and (3). We estimate that one senior validation engineer per plant will spend about 9 minutes per week of recordkeeping to be in compliance. Thus, 4 recordkeepers × 52 weeks = 208 records; 208 records × 0.15 hour per record = 31.2 (rounded to 31) hours for the annual burden, as shown in rows 15, 16, and 17 of table 2.
We estimate that the ongoing review and updating of audit plans requires a senior validation engineer 8 hours per year, per plant. Therefore, 8 hours × 5 plants = 40 hours for the annual burden, as shown in row 18 of table 2.
We estimate that a manufacturer chooses to audit once per week. We estimate each weekly audit requires a senior validation engineer 4 hours, or 52 weeks × 4 hours = 208 hours per plant. Therefore, burden for updating audit plans is calculated as 208 hours × 5 plants = 1,040 hours for the annual burden, as shown in row 19 of table 2.
We estimate that, as a result of the regulations, the industry as a whole performs one additional growth study per year, in accordance with § 106.96. The regulations require that several pieces of data be collected and maintained for each infant in the growth study. We estimate that the data collection associated with the growth study is assembled into a written report and kept as a record in compliance with §§ 106.96(d) and 106.100(p)(1). Thus, we estimate that one additional growth study report is generated, and that this report requires one senior scientist to work 16 hours to compile the data into a study report. Therefore, one growth study report × 16 hours = 16 hours for the annual burden for compliance with §§ 106.96(b) and (d), 106.100(p)(1) and (q)(1), and 106.121 as shown in row 20 of table 2.
A study conducted according to the requirements of § 106.96(b)(2) must include the collection of anthropometric measurements of physical growth and information on formula intake, and §§ 106.96(d) and 106.100(p)(1) require that the anthropometric measurements be made six times during the growth study. We estimate that in a growth study of 112 infants, 2 nurses or other health professionals with similar experience need 15 minutes per infant at each of the required 6 times to collect and record the required anthropometric measurements. Therefore, 2 nurses × 0.25 hours = 0.50 hour per infant, per visit, and 0.50 hour × 6 visits = 3 hours per infant. For 112 infants in the study, 3 hours × 112 infants = 336 hours for the annual burden, as shown in row 21 of table 2. In addition, we estimate that one nurse needs 15 minutes per infant to collect and record the formula intake information. That is, 0.25 hour × 6 visits = 1.5 hour per infant, and 1.5 hour per infant × 112 infants = 168 hours for the annual burden, as shown in row 22 of table 2.
Section 106.96(b)(4) requires plotting each infant's anthropometric measurements on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-recommended World Health Organization Child Growth Standards. We estimate that it takes 5 minutes per infant to record the anthropometric data on the growth chart at each study visit. Therefore, 112 infants × 6 data plots = 672 data plots, and 672 data plots × 0.08 hour per comparison = 53.75 hours (rounded to 54) for the annual burden, as shown in row 23 of table 2.
Section 106.96(b)(5) requires that data on formula intake by the test group be compared to the intake of a concurrent control group. We estimate that one nurse or other health care professional with similar experience needs 5 minutes per infant for each of the six times anthropometric data are collected. Therefore, 6 comparisons of data × 112 infants = 672 data comparisons and 672 data comparisons × 0.08 hour per comparison = 53.75 hours (rounded to 54) for the annual burden, as shown in row 24 of table 2.
Section 106.96(f) provides that a manufacturer meets the quality factor of sufficient biological quality of the protein by establishing the biological quality of the protein in the infant formula when fed as the sole source of nutrition using an appropriate modification of the PER rat bioassay. Under § 106.96(g)(1), a manufacturer of infant formula may be exempt from this requirement if the manufacturer
A PER study conducted according to the Association of Analytical Communities Official Method 960.48 is 28 days in duration. We estimate that there will be 10 rats in the control and test groups (20 rats total) and that food consumption and body weight will be measured at day 0 and at 7-day intervals during the 28-day study period (a total of 5 records per rat). We further estimate that measuring and recording food consumption and body weight will take 5 minutes per rat. Therefore, 20 rats × 5 records = 100 records; 100 records × 0.08 hour minutes per record = 8 hours to fulfill the requirements of § 106.96(f). Further, we estimate that a report based on the PER study will be generated and that this study report will take a senior scientist 1 hour to generate. Therefore, a total of 9 hours will be required to fulfill the requirements for § 106.96(f): 8 hours for the PER study and data collection, and 1 hour for the development of a report based on the PER study, as shown in rows 25 and 26 of table 2.
We estimate that five firms will expend approximately 20,000 hours per year to fully satisfy the recordkeeping requirements in § 106.100 and that three firms will expend approximately 9,000 hours per year to fully satisfy the recordkeeping requirements in § 107.50(c)(3). Thus, the total recordkeeping burden is 40,232 hours.
We estimate compliance with our labeling requirements in §§ 107.10(a) and 107.20 requires 520 hours annually by five manufacturers.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of information collections that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
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,
The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 9, 2018.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports the above captioned Agency guidance. The guidance includes recommendations for planning, notification, and documentation for firms that report postmarketing adverse events. The guidance recommends that each firm's pandemic influenza continuity of operations plan (COOP) include instructions for reporting adverse events, including a plan for the submission of stored reports that were not submitted within regulatory timeframes. The guidance explains that firms that are unable to fulfill normal adverse event reporting requirements during an influenza pandemic should: (1) Maintain documentation of the conditions that prevent them from meeting normal reporting requirements; (2) notify the appropriate FDA organizational unit responsible for adverse event reporting compliance when the conditions exist and when the reporting process is restored; and (3) maintain records to identify what reports have been stored.
Based on the number of manufacturers that would be covered by the guidance, we estimate that approximately 5,000 firms will add the following to their COOP: (1) Instructions for reporting adverse events and (2) a plan for submitting stored reports that were not submitted within regulatory timeframes. We estimate that each firm will take approximately 50 hours to prepare the adverse event reporting plan for its COOP.
We estimate that approximately 500 firms will be unable to fulfill normal adverse event reporting requirements because of conditions caused by an influenza pandemic and that these firms will notify the appropriate FDA organizational unit responsible for adverse event reporting compliance when the conditions exist. Although we do not anticipate such pandemic influenza conditions to occur every year, for purposes of the PRA, we estimate that each of these firms will notify FDA approximately once each year and that each notification will take approximately 8 hours to prepare and submit.
Concerning the recommendation in the guidance that firms unable to fulfill normal adverse event reporting requirements maintain documentation of the conditions that prevent them from meeting these requirements and also maintain records to identify what adverse event reports have been stored and when the reporting process is restored, we estimate that approximately 500 firms will each need approximately 8 hours to maintain the documentation and that approximately 500 firms will each need approximately 8 hours to maintain the records.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 9, 2018.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Section 502 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 352), among other things, establishes requirements that the label or labeling of a medical device must meet so that it is not misbranded and subject to regulatory action. Section 301 of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-250) amended section 502 of the FD&C Act to add section 502(u) to require devices (both new and reprocessed) to bear prominently and conspicuously the name of the manufacturer, a generally recognized abbreviation of such name, or a unique and generally recognized symbol identifying the manufacturer.
Section 2(c) of the Medical Device User Fee Stabilization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-43) amends section 502(u) of the FD&C Act by limiting the provision to reprocessed single-use devices (SUDs) and the manufacturers who reprocess them. Under the amended provision, if the original SUD or an attachment to it prominently and conspicuously bears the name of the manufacturer, then the reprocessor of the SUD is required to identify itself by name, abbreviation, or symbol in a prominent and conspicuous manner on the device or attachment to the device. If the original SUD does not prominently and conspicuously bear the name of the manufacturer, the manufacturer who reprocesses the SUD for reuse may identify itself using a detachable label that is intended to be affixed to the patient record.
The requirements of section 502(u) of the FD&C Act impose a minimal burden on industry. This section of the FD&C Act only requires the manufacturer, packer, or distributor of a device to include their name and address on the labeling of a device. This information is readily available to the establishment and easily supplied. From its registration and premarket submission database, FDA estimates that there are 67 establishments that distribute approximately 427 reprocessed SUDs. Each response is anticipated to take 0.1 hours (6 minutes) resulting in a total burden to industry of 43 hours.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The burden for this information collection has not changed since the last OMB approval.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting interested persons to submit comments concerning abuse potential, actual abuse, medical usefulness, trafficking, and impact of scheduling changes on availability for medical use of five drug substances. These comments will be considered in preparing a response from the United States to the World Health Organization (WHO) regarding the abuse liability and diversion of these drugs. WHO will use this information to consider whether to recommend that certain international restrictions be placed on these drugs. This notice requesting comments is required by the Controlled Substances Act (the CSA).
Submit either electronic or written comments by April 23, 2018.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 23, 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
James R. Hunter, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Controlled Substance Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 5150, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3156, email:
The United States is a party to the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances (Psychotropic Convention). Article 2 of the Psychotropic Convention provides that if a party to the convention or WHO has information about a substance, which in its opinion may require international control or change in such control, it shall so notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations (the U.N. Secretary-General) and provide the U.N. Secretary-General with information in support of its opinion.
Paragraph (d)(2)(A) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811) (Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970) provides that when WHO notifies the United States under Article 2 of the Psychotropic Convention that it has information that may justify adding a drug or other substances to one of the schedules of the Psychotropic Convention, transferring a drug or substance from one schedule to another, or deleting it from the schedules, the Secretary of State must transmit the notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary of HHS). The Secretary of HHS must then publish the notice in the
The Secretary of HHS received the following notice from WHO (non-relevant text removed):
The World Health Organization (WHO) presents its compliments to Member States and Associate Members and has the pleasure of informing that the 40th Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) will meet in Geneva from 4 to 8 June 2018. The 40th ECDD will convene in a special session to review cannabis and cannabis-related substances on their potential to cause dependence, abuse and harm to health, and potential therapeutic applications. WHO will make recommendations to the UN Secretary-General on the need for and level of international control of these substances. Recommendations made from the 39th meeting can be found on the ECDD website (
At its 126th session in January 2010, the Executive Board approved the publication “Guidance on the WHO review of psychoactive substances for international control” (EB126/2010/REC1, Annex 6) which requires the Secretariat to request relevant information from Ministers of Health in Member States to prepare a report for submission to the ECDD. For this purpose, a questionnaire was designed to gather information on the legitimate use, harmful use, status of national control and potential impact of international control for each substance under evaluation. Member States are invited to collaborate, as in the past, in this process by providing pertinent information as requested in the questionnaire and concerning substances under review.
It would be appreciated if a person from the Ministry of Health could be designated as the focal point responsible for coordinating answers to the questionnaires. A list of focal points designated by Member States for the 39th ECDD in November 2017 is attached. It is requested that if a focal point's contact details including email address are to be added or amended, that Member States inform the Secretariat by 26 February 2018. Any additions or amendments to focal point designations should be emailed to
If no additions or amendments to focal point details are made by this date, the focal point from 2017 will be approached by the Secretariat for questionnaire completion. Where there is a competent National Authority under the International Drug Control Treaties, it is kindly requested that the questionnaires be completed in collaboration with such body.
Once the Secretariat has received the contact details, focal points will be given further instructions and direct access to an online questionnaire. The questionnaires will be analysed by the Secretariat and prepared as a report that will be published on the ECDD website (
Member States are also encouraged to provide any additional relevant information (unpublished or published) that is available on these substances to:
The WHO takes this opportunity to renew to Member States and Associate Members the assurance of its highest consideration.
FDA has verified the website addresses contained in the WHO notice, as of the date this document publishes in the
WHO will convene in a special session to review the following substances: Cannabis plant and resin; extracts and tinctures of cannabis; delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC; stereoisomers of THC; and cannabidiol (CBD).
The Committee from the 37th ECDD requested that Secretariat begin collecting data towards a pre-review of cannabis, cannabis resin, extracts, and tinctures of cannabis at a future meeting. Subsequent to this request, WHO commissioned two updates on the scientific literature for cannabis and cannabis resin, which were prepared and presented to the 38th ECDD. That Committee noted that the current Schedule I under the 1961 Convention groups together cannabis and cannabis resin, extracts, and tinctures of cannabis, that cannabis plant and cannabis resin are also in Schedule IV of the 1961 Convention, that there are natural and synthetic cannabinoids in Schedule I and Schedule II of the 1971 Convention, and that cannabis had never been subject to pre-review or critical review by the ECDD. The Committee also noted an increase in the use of cannabis and its components for medical purposes and the emergence of new cannabis-related pharmaceutical preparations for therapeutic use. From this review, the 38th ECDD Committee recommended that preparations be made to conduct pre-reviews at a future meeting dedicated to the following substances: Cannabis plant and cannabis resin, extracts and tinctures of cannabis, THC, CBD, and stereoisomers of THC. An excerpt from the report of the 38th ECDD stated that the purpose of the pre-review was to determine whether current information justifies an Expert Committee critical review. They noted that the categories of information for evaluating substances in pre-reviews are identical to those used in critical reviews and that the pre-review is a preliminary analysis, and findings should not determine whether the
Cannabis, also known as marijuana, refers to the dried leaves, flowers, stems, and seeds from the
The principal cannabinoids in the cannabis plant include THC, CBD, and cannabinol. FDA has not approved any product containing or derived from botanical marijuana for any indication. These substances are controlled in Schedule I under the CSA. Synthetic THC (dronabinol) is the active ingredient in two approved drug products in the United States, MARINOL capsules (and generics) and SYNDROS oral solution. MARINOL is controlled in Schedule III, while SYNDROS is controlled in Schedule II under the CSA. Both MARINOL and SYNDROS are approved to treat anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients who have failed to respond adequately to conventional treatment.
CBD is another cannabinoid identified in cannabis. CBD has been tested in experimental animal and laboratory models of several neurological disorders, including those of seizure and epilepsy. In the United States, CBD-containing products are in human clinical testing in several therapeutic areas, but no such products have marketing approval by FDA for any medical purposes in the United States. CBD is controlled as a Schedule I substance under the CSA. CBD is not specifically listed in the schedules of the 1961, 1971, or 1988 International Drug Control conventions.
At the 39th (2017) meeting of the ECDD, the committee pre-reviewed CBD and recommended that extracts or preparations containing almost exclusively CBD be subject to critical review at the 40th ECDD meeting.
As required by paragraph (d)(2)(A) of the CSA, FDA, on behalf of HHS, invites interested persons to submit comments regarding the five drug substances. Any comments received will be considered by HHS when it prepares a scientific and medical evaluation of these drug substances, responsive to the WHO Questionnaire request for these drug substances. HHS will forward such evaluation of these drug substances to WHO, for WHO's consideration in deciding whether to recommend international control/decontrol of any of these drug substances. Such control could limit, among other things, the manufacture and distribution (import/export) of these drug substances and could impose certain recordkeeping requirements on them.
Although FDA is, through this notice, requesting comments from interested persons, which will be considered by HHS when it prepares an evaluation of these drug substances, HHS will not now make any recommendations to WHO regarding whether any of these drugs should be subjected to international controls. Instead, HHS will defer such consideration until WHO has made official recommendations to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which are expected to be made in mid-2018. Any HHS position regarding international control of these drug substances will be preceded by another
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Atopic Dermatitis: Timing of Pediatric Studies During Development of Systemic Drugs.” This draft guidance addresses FDA's current thinking about the relevant age groups to study and how early in the drug development pediatric patients should be incorporated during development of systemic drugs for atopic dermatitis (AD).
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by June 8, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Dawn Williams, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5168, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5376; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Atopic Dermatitis: Timing of Pediatric Studies During Development of Systemic Drugs.” This draft guidance addresses FDA's current thinking about the relevant age groups to study and how early in the drug development pediatric patients should be incorporated during development of systemic drugs for AD.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the timing of pediatric studies during development of systemic drugs for atopic dermatitis. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 9, 2018.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-295), class II devices were defined as those devices for which there was insufficient information to show that general controls themselves would provide a reasonable assurance of safety and
Condoms without spermicidal lubricant containing nonoxynol 9 are classified in class II. They were originally classified before the enactment of provisions of the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), which broadened the definition of class II devices and now permits FDA to establish special controls beyond performance standards, including guidance documents, to help provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of such devices.
In December 2000, Congress enacted Public Law 106-554, which directed FDA to “reexamine existing condom labels” and “determine whether the labels are medically accurate regarding the overall effectiveness or lack of effectiveness in preventing sexually transmitted diseases. . . .” In response, FDA recommended labeling intended to provide important information for condom users, including the extent of protection provided by condoms against various types of sexually transmitted diseases.
Respondents to this collection of information are manufacturers and repackagers of male condoms made of natural rubber latex without spermicidal lubricant. FDA expects approximately five new manufacturers or repackagers to enter the market yearly and to collectively have a third-party disclosure burden of 60 hours. The number of respondents cited in table 1 is based on FDA's database of premarket submissions and the electronic registration and listing database. The average burden per disclosure was derived from a study performed for FDA by Eastern Research Group, Inc., an economic consulting firm, to estimate the impact of the 1999 over-the-counter (OTC) human drug labeling requirements final rule (64 FR 13254, March 17, 1999). Because the packaging requirements for condoms are similar to those of many OTC drugs, we believe the burden to design the labeling for OTC drugs is an appropriate proxy for the estimated burden to design condom labeling.
The special controls guidance document also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073.
The collection of information under 21 CFR 801.437 does not constitute a “collection of information” under the PRA. Rather, it is a “public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal Government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public” (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)).
In the
We therefore retain the currently approved burden estimate for the information collection, which is as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) 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 June 8, 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 June 8, 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.”
•
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.
This information collection supports Agency regulations. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (Pub. L. 103-417) added section 402(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 342(g)), which provides, in part, that the Secretary of Health and Human Services may, by regulation, prescribe good manufacturing practices for dietary supplements. Section 402(g)(1) of the FD&C Act states that a dietary supplement is adulterated if it has been prepared, packed, or held under the types of conditions that do not meet current good manufacturing practice regulations. Section 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(a)) gives us the authority to issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act.
Part 111 (21 CFR part 111) establishes the minimum current good manufacturing practice (CGMP)
Section 111.75(a)(1) reflects our determination that manufacturers that test or examine 100 percent of the incoming dietary ingredients for identity can be assured of the identity of the ingredient. However, we recognize that it may be possible for a manufacturer to demonstrate, through various methods and processes in use over time for its particular operation, that a system of less than 100 percent identity testing would result in no material diminution of assurance of the identity of the dietary ingredient as compared to the assurance provided by 100 percent identity testing. To provide an opportunity for a manufacturer to make such a showing and reduce the frequency of identity testing of components that are dietary ingredients from 100 percent to some lower frequency, we added to § 111.75(a)(1), an exemption from the requirement of 100 percent identity testing when a manufacturer petitions the Agency for such an exemption to 100 percent identity testing under 21 CFR 10.30 and the Agency grants such exemption. Such a procedure would be consistent with our stated goal, as described in the CGMP final rule, of providing flexibility in the CGMP requirements. Section 111.75(a)(1)(ii) sets forth the information a manufacturer is required to submit in such a petition. The regulation also contains a requirement to ensure that the manufacturer keeps our response to a petition submitted under § 111.75(a)(1)(ii) as a record under § 111.95 (21 CFR 111.95). The collection of information in § 111.95 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0606.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Since OMB's last approval of the information collection, we have received no petitions. We therefore retain the currently approved estimated burden, which assumes no more than one petition will be submitted annually. We further assume it would take respondents 8 hours to prepare the factual and legal information necessary to support a petition for exemption and to prepare the petition, for a total of 8 burden hours annually. These figures are based on our experience with the information collection.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Pregnant Women: Scientific and Ethical Considerations for Inclusion in Clinical Trials.” This draft guidance discusses the ethical and scientific issues when considering the inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials of drugs and biological products. This draft guidance is intended to advance scientific research in pregnant women, and discusses issues that should be considered within the framework of human subject protection regulations.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by June 8, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you
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
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Denise Johnson-Lyles, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6469, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6169.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Pregnant Women: Scientific and Ethical Considerations for Inclusion in Clinical Trials.” Currently, collection of safety data on prescription drugs and biological products used during pregnancy usually occurs after approval, and clinicians and patients must undertake a risk-benefit analysis for the use of such products in pregnant women with limited human safety information. Historically, pregnant women have been an understudied population and there have been barriers to obtaining data from pregnant women in clinical trials, including concerns about protecting women and their fetuses from research-related risks. However, data are needed to inform safe and effective treatment during pregnancy, and in certain situations, it is ethically and scientifically appropriate to collect data in pregnant women in clinical trials conducted during drug development.
This draft guidance discusses the ethical and scientific issues when considering the inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials of drugs and biological products. This draft guidance is intended to advance scientific research in pregnant women, and discusses issues that should be considered within the framework of human subject protection regulations.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on scientific and ethical considerations for inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than May 9, 2018.
Submit your comments, including the ICR Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Lisa Wright-Solomon, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
The estimates of reporting burden for Applicants are as follows:
The estimates of reporting burden for participants are as follows:
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR must be received no later than June 8, 2018.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email Lisa Wright-Solomon at
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
The instrument was developed with the following four goals in mind:
1. Improving access to needed services,
2. reducing rural practitioner isolation,
3. improving health system productivity and efficiency, and
4. improving patient outcomes.
The TRCs currently report on existing performance data elements using PIMS. The performance measures are designed to assess how the TRC program is meeting its goals to:
1. Expand the availability of telehealth services in underserved communities,
2. Improve the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of telehealth services, and
3. Promote knowledge exchange and dissemination about efficient and effective telehealth practices and technology.
4. Establish sustainable technical assistance (TA) centers providing quality, unbiased TA for the development and expansion of effective and efficient telehealth services in underserved communities.
Additionally, the PIMS tool allows OAT to:
1. Determine the value added from the TRC Cooperative Agreement;
2. Justify budget requests;
3. Collect uniform, consistent data which enables OAT to monitor programs;
4. Provide guidance to grantees on important indicators to track over time for their own internal program management;
5. Measure performance relative to the mission of OAT/HRSA as well as individual goals and objectives of the program;
6. Identify topics of interest for future special studies; and
7. Identify changes in healthcare needs within rural communities, allowing programs to shift focus in order to meet those needs.
This renewal request proposes changes to existing measures. After compiling data from the previous tool over the last three years, OAT conducted an analysis of the data and compared the findings with the program needs. Based on the findings, the measures are being revised to better capture information necessary to measure the effectiveness of the program. The measure changes include: Additional demographic details from organizations requesting technical assistance, streamlined methods of inquiry, additional topics of technical assistance inquiries aligning with the current telehealth landscape, streamlined types of services provided by the grantees, deletion of client satisfaction survey results, and deletion of telehealth sites developed as a result of grantee technical assistance.
Total Estimated Annualized burden hours:
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Office of HIV/AIDS and Infectious Disease Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the fourth “on-line” meeting of the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group (Working Group) on May 10, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Eastern Time. For this fourth meeting, the Working Group will focus on the findings and basis for the draft reports from the work of the six Subcommittee Working Groups that were established on December 12, 2017. These subcommittees were established to assist the Working Group with the development of the report to Congress and the HHS Secretary as required by the 21st Century Cures Act. The subcommittees are:
1. Disease Vectors, Surveillance and Prevention (includes epidemiology of tick-borne diseases);
2. Pathogenesis, Transmission, and Treatment;
3. Testing and Diagnostics (including laboratory-based diagnoses and clinical-diagnoses);
4. Access to Care Services and Support to Patients;
5. Vaccine and Therapeutics; and
6. Other Tick-Borne Diseases and Co-infections.
May 10, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Eastern Time.
This will be a virtual meeting that is held via webcast. Members of the public may attend the meeting via webcast. Instructions for attending this virtual meeting will be posted one week prior to the meeting at:
James Berger, Office of HIV/AIDS and Infectious Disease Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services; via email at
The Working Group invites public comment on issues related to the Working Group's charge. Comments may be provided over the phone during the meeting or in writing. Persons who wish to provide comments by phone should review directions at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Nursing Research.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The journals as potential titles to be indexed by the National Library of Medicine and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the journals as potential titles to be indexed by the National Library of Medicine, the disclosure of
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the Center for Inherited Disease Research Access Committee.
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 a meeting of the National Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0081, Alternate Compliance Program; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 8, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2018-0188] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-0188], and must be received by June 8, 2018.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0101, Periodic Gauging and Engineering Analyses for Certain Tank Vessels Over 30 Years Old; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 8, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2018-0189] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-0189], and must be received by June 8, 2018.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice of solicitation of appointment nominations for the Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) established the Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee (HCFAC) on April 14, 2015. This notice invites nominations of individuals to fill vacancies for two-year and three-year terms.
Please submit nominations as soon as possible, but no later than May 9, 2018.
Nominations must be in writing and submitted via email to
Virginia F. Holman, Housing Specialist, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Housing Counseling, Office of Outreach and Capacity Building,
The Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee (HCFAC) is congressionally mandated to provide advice to the Office of Housing Counseling (OHC) (Pub. L. 111-203). The HCFAC provides the OHC valuable advice regarding its mission to provide individuals and families with the knowledge they need to obtain, sustain, and improve their housing through a strong national network of HUD-approved housing counseling agencies and HUD-certified counselors. The HCFAC, however, shall have no role in reviewing or awarding of OHC housing counseling grants and procurement contracts. The HCFAC is subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix), 41 CFR parts 101-6 and 102-3, and Presidential Memorandum “Final Guidance on Appointments of Lobbyists to Federal Boards and Commissions,” dated June 18, 2010, along with any relevant guidance published in the
The HCFAC shall consist of not more than 12 individuals appointed by the Secretary. The membership will equally represent the mortgage industry, real estate industry, consumers, and HUD-approved housing counseling agencies. Each member shall be appointed in his or her individual capacity for a term of 3 years and may be reappointed at the discretion of the Secretary. Of the 12 members first appointed to the HCFAC in 2016, 4 were appointed for an initial term of 1 year, 4 were appointed for a term of 2 years, and 4 were appointed for a term of 3 years. The initial 12 appointments were made by the Secretary on June 1, 2016. The one-year appointees' terms expired on May 31, 2017, and the two-year appointees' terms will expire on May 31, 2018.
On June 6, 2017, HUD published a
Of the 8 new members, two each must represent one of the following 4 categories: mortgage industry, real estate industry, consumers, and HUD-approved housing counseling agencies. Four members will be selected to serve for the remainder of the 3-year term that commenced June 1, 2017 and is set to expire May 31, 2020, and the remaining 4 members will be selected to serve for a 3-year term commencing June 1, 2018 and expiring May 31, 2021.
HUD is seeking nominations for individuals whose experience is representative of at least one of the 4 categories—the mortgage industry, real estate industry, consumers, and HUD-approved housing counseling agencies. Nominations may be made by agency officials, members of Congress, the general public, professional organizations, and self-nominations. Nominees must be U.S. citizens and cannot be employees of the U.S. Government. All nominees will be serving in their “individual capacity” and not in a “representative capacity;” therefore, no Federally-registered lobbyists may serve on the HCFAC.
Nominations to the HCFAC must be submitted via HUD Form 90005 which is available on the Office of Housing Counseling's Federal Advisory Committee web page at:
• Name, title, and organization of the nominee and a narrative description of how the applicant is representative of at least one of the following 4 categories: mortgage industry, real estate industry, consumers, and HUD-approved housing counseling agencies.
• Nominee's mailing address, email address, and telephone number;
• A narrative statement summarizing the nominee's qualifications, unique experiences, skills and knowledge the individual will bring to the HCFAC and reasons why the nominee should be appointed to the HCFAC;
• A statement agreeing to submit to any pre-appointment screenings HUD might require of Special Government Employees, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202;
• A statement confirming that the nominee is not a registered federal lobbyist; and
• The Nominee's signature and date.
Nominations should be submitted via email to
All Nominations must be received no later than May 9, 2018.
HCFAC members will be required to adhere to the conflict of interest rules applicable to Special Government Employees as such employees are defined in 18 U.S.C. 202. The rules include relevant provisions in Title 18 of the U.S. Code related to criminal activity, Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635) and Executive Order 12674 (as modified by Executive Order 12731). Therefore, applicants will be required to submit to pre-appointment screenings relating to identity of interest and financial interests that HUD might require as shown above. If selected, HCFAC members will also be asked to complete form OGE Form 450 (Confidential Financial Disclosure Report).
Members of the HCFAC shall serve without pay but shall receive travel expenses including per diem in lieu of subsistence as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5703. Regular attendance is essential to the effective operation of the HCFAC.
Please note this Notice is not intended to be the exclusive method by which HUD will solicit nominations and expressions of interest to identify qualified candidates; however, all candidates for membership on the HCFAC will be subject to the same evaluation criteria.
After all nominations have been reviewed, HUD will publish a notice in the
The estimated number of in-person meetings anticipated within a fiscal year is two (2) in Washington DC or elsewhere in the United States. Additional meetings may be held as needed to render advice to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Housing Counseling. The meetings may use electronic communication technologies for attendance.
All meetings will be announced by notice in the
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 9, 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 David Wald by email at
We, the USGS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A Federal Register notice with a 60-day public comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on December 5, 2017 (82 FR 57466). No comments were received.
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the USGS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the USGS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the USGS 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 may 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.
We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.” Responses are voluntary. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. We will release data collected on these forms only in formats that do not include proprietary information volunteered by respondents.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs (AS-IA) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 8, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to R. Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal Acknowledgment, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street NW, MS-4071 MIB, Washington, DC 20240; facsimile: (202) 219-3008; email:
To request additional information about this ICR, contact R. Lee Fleming, (202) 513-7650.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the AS-IA; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the AS-IA enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the AS-IA minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) are proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 8, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Dr. Katherine Campbell, Program Analyst, Office of Research, Policy and Post-Secondary, at 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20191 or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Dr. Katherine Campbell by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BIE; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BIE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BIE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Additionally, BIE will be combining information collection OMB 1076-0105 with this collection because both collections are elements of the same grant program. OMB 1076-0105 covered the reporting element of the grant program. Each Tribally-controlled college or university that receives financial assistance under the Act is required by Sec. 107(c)(1) of the Act and 25 CFR 41 to provide a report on the use of funds received.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 8, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Mr. Keith Kahklen, Natural Resources Manager, Bureau of Indian Affairs, P.O. Box 21647, Juneau, Alaska 99802-6147; email:
To request additional information about
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BIA; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BIA enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BIA minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 8, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to the Robin M. Phillips, Superintendent, Osage Agency, P.O. Box 1539, Pawhuska, OK 74056 or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Richard Winlock, Deputy Superintendent by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BIA; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BIA enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BIA minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 8, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to: Dr. Joe Herrin, Bureau of Indian Education, 1849 C Street NW, MS-3620-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; facsimile: (202) 208-7658; email:
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Dr. Joe Herrin, phone: (202) 208-7658.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BIE; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BIE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BIE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
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
Notice is hereby given that, on March 8, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, HDAnywhere Ltd., Malvern, UNITED KINGDOM; Quantum Data, Inc., Elgin, IL; and Sky UK Ltd., Isleworth, UNITED KINGDOM, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
In addition, the following members have changed their names: Koninklijke Philips N.V. to Philips International B.V.-IP&S, Eindhoven, NETHERLANDS; and DTS, Inc., to Xperi Corporation, Calabasas, CA.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and UHD Alliance intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 17, 2015, UHD Alliance filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 15, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before May 9, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before May 9, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been delegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on March 1, 2018, United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 12601 Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville, MD, 20852 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the bulk controlled substances for distribution of analytical reference standards to its customers for research and analytical purposes.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before May 9, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before May 9, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (January 25, 2007).
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been delegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on March 21, 2018, AMRI Rensselaer, 33 Riverside Ave., Rensselaer, NY 12144, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class of controlled substance:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance to manufacture bulk controlled substance for distribution to its customers.
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that 2 meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference unless otherwise noted.
See the
National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20506.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Sherry P. Hale, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of July 5, 2016, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.
The upcoming meetings are:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92- 463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
The National Science Board's Committee on External Engagement (EE), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Friday, April 13, 2018 at 2:00-3:00 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. An audio link will be available for the public. Members of the public must contact the Board Office to request the public audio link by sending an email to
Open.
Discuss plans for upcoming National Science Board listening sessions; review committee accomplishments during the past two years; identify future directions and opportunities for the committee during the Board's next term in preparation for the May board meeting.
Point of contact for this meeting is: Nadine Lymn (
Meeting information and updates may be found at
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Revision 0 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.232, “Guidance for Developing Principal Design Criteria for Non-Light Water Reactors.” This new RG provides designers, applicants, and licensees of non-light water nuclear reactors guidance for developing principal design criteria (PDC) for a proposed facility. The PDC establish the necessary design, fabrication, construction, testing, and performance requirements for structures, systems, and components important to safety; that is, structures, systems, and components that provide reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
Revision 0 to RG 1.232 is available on April 9, 2018.
Please refer Docket ID NRC-2017-0016 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Jan Mazza, Office of New Reactors, telephone 301-415-0498, email:
The NRC is issuing a new guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the NRC staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the NRC staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The NRC published a notice of the availability of DG-1330 in the
This RG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
RG 1.232 provides guidance for establishing the PDC for non-light water reactor nuclear power plants. The purpose of RG 1.232 is to provide regulatory guidance to assist the NRC staff and future applicants. RGs are not regulatory requirements. Applications for a construction permit, design certification, combined license, standard design approval, or manufacturing license are required by section 50.34(a)(3) of title 10 of the
Issuance of this RG does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (referred to as the Backfit Rule) and is not otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. As discussed in the “Implementation” section of this RG, the NRC has no current intention to impose this guidance on any current licensees.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of April 9, 16, 23, 30, May 7, 14, 2018.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 16, 2018.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 30, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 14, 2018.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or you may email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Revision 0 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.234, “Evaluating Deviations and Reporting Defects and Noncompliance Under 10 CFR Part 21.” This RG describes methods that the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considers acceptable for complying with the provisions of the regulations.
Revision 0 to RG 1.234 is available on April 9, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0171 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Paul Prescott, Office of New Reactors, telephone: 301-415-3026, email:
The NRC is issuing a new guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations,
Revision 0 of RG 1.234 was issued with a temporary identification of Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-1291. This RG describes methods that the NRC staff considers acceptable for complying with the provisions of part 21 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance.
The NRC published a notice of the availability of DG-1291 in the
This RG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
This RG approves a method for evaluating and reporting defects under 10 CFR part 21. Issuance of this RG would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and would not otherwise be inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. As discussed in the “Implementation” section of this RG, the NRC has no current intention to impose this guide, if finalized, on holders of current operating licenses or combined licenses.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
On February 5, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the comment letters. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change by OCC concerns modifications to OCC's By-Laws and Rules to: (1) Clarify the time at which OCC accepts and novates the transactions that it clears; (2) streamline provisions in the By-Laws and Rules related to acceptance, novation and trade reporting; and (3) delete provisions that apply only to certain dormant products that OCC no longer clears and settles or that are no longer applicable to OCC's current clearing processes.
The proposed amendments to OCC's By-Laws and Rules can be found in Exhibits 5A and 5B to the filing, respectively. Material proposed to be added to OCC's By-Laws and Rules as currently in effect is marked by underlining and material proposed to be deleted is marked with strikethrough text. Because proposed Rules 403 through 406 in Chapter IV are new and are based on provisions relocated from Article VI of OCC's By-Laws, underlining and strikethrough text have been omitted with respect to those rules in order to enhance their readability.
All terms with initial capitalization that are not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the By-Laws and Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend OCC's By-Laws and Rules to: (1) Clarify the time at which OCC accepts and novates
Specifying a clear time at which OCC accepts transactions for clearance and settlement is important to Clearing Members because that is the time under OCC's By-Laws and Rules at which the following events occur: (1) OCC is substituted through novation as the central counterparty (“CCP”) to each Clearing Member that was an initial party to the transaction; (2) the rights of the initial Clearing Member parties to the transaction become solely as against OCC; and (3) OCC becomes obligated to each Clearing Member in accordance with the By-Laws and Rules.
Under OCC's current By-Laws and Rules, a user must parse through a number of definitions and provisions in various locations to identify that time at which acceptance and novation occur. The term Confirmed Trade is defined in OCC's By-Laws to include all of the products for which OCC currently provides clearance and settlement services, with the exception of certain Stock Loan
Under Article VI, Section 8 of the By-Laws, OCC generally has no right (other than regarding certain types of Confirmed Trades discussed below) to reject a Confirmed Trade due to the failure of the Purchasing Clearing Member to pay any amount due to OCC at or before the settlement time. This means that transactions in most products that are Confirmed Trades will inevitably be accepted for clearing and novated at the Commencement Time simply due to the passage of time.
Certain categories of Confirmed Trades, however, are not subject to the general Commencement Time described above, and OCC retains certain rights to reject such transactions. Specifically, Article VI, Section 5 of the By-Laws excludes the products described below from the general Commencement Time and alternate definitions of Commencement Time are set forth as follows:
(1) Futures issued in exchange-for-physical transactions,
(2) Cross-rate FX options and FX index options—the time that is three hours following the settlement time of the Confirmed Trade in which such contract was purchased;
(3) OTC Options (other than Backloaded OTC Options)—the time when a report of OCC's acceptance is made available to Clearing Members through OCC's clearing system.
For Backloaded OTC Options, the transaction is not accepted until the Selling Clearing Member has met its regular morning settlement obligation on the business day following the reporting of the trade to OCC.
In addition to the separate Commencement Times for these types of Confirmed Trades, OCC also currently has certain authority to reject such trades due to the failure of the Purchasing Clearing Member to pay an amount due to OCC at or before the applicable settlement time.
(1) Futures issued in exchange-for-physical transactions, block trades, or other trades designated as non-competitively executed—in the event OCC fails to receive any variation payment due in the accounts of the Clearing Members;
(2) Cross-rate FX options and FX index options—in the event OCC fails to receive from the Purchasing Clearing Member premiums denominated in the proper trading currency in the account in which the transaction is effected;
(3) Backloaded OTC Options—in the event the Selling Clearing Member does not meet its regular morning settlement obligation on the business day following the reporting of the trade to OCC.
To provide greater certainty and clarity to Clearing Members and other interested parties regarding the acceptance and novation timing for transactions that OCC clears and settles, OCC is proposing to amend the substance of Article VI, Section 5 of the By-Laws
To accomplish this, OCC proposes to eliminate the concept of Commencement Time and instead deem nearly all Confirmed Trades to be accepted and simultaneously novated when they are reported to OCC and the related position information has been recorded in OCC's clearing system (which occurs on a real-time basis).
As part of this proposed rule change, OCC also proposes to clarify the trade information required to be submitted by the participant Exchange to OCC as a condition to acceptance and novation. For options transactions, Rule 401(a)(1)(i) would provide that these terms include: (a) The identity of the Purchasing Clearing Member and Writing Clearing Member to the transaction; (b) the clearing date; (c) the transaction time; (d) the trade source; (e) the trade quantity; (f) the trade price; (g) the security type; (h) the ticker symbol; (i) the series/contract date; (j) whether the trade is a put or a call; (k) the strike price; (l) whether the trade is a purchase or a sale; (m) the account type; (n) the allocation indicator, if applicable; (o) the CMTA indicator, if applicable; (p) the Give-Up Clearing Member, if applicable; (q) the trade type, including, in the case of futures options, whether the transaction is a block trade, exchange-for-physical, or any other trade designated by the futures market or security futures market reporting the trade as a non-competitively executed trade; (r) in the case of OTC options transactions in a securities customers' account, a unique customer ID for the customer for whom the trade was executed; and (s) in the case of OTC options, such other variable terms as provided in Section 6 of Article XVII of the By-Laws. In addition to the foregoing information that is required as a condition to OCC's acceptance of the confirmed trade, Rule 401(a)(1)(ii) would provide that OCC may also request certain optional trade
For futures transactions, Rule 401(a)(2)(i) would provide that the required terms for acceptance and novation include: (a) The identity of the Purchasing Clearing Member and the Selling Clearing Member to the transaction; (b) the clearing date; (c) the transaction time; (d) the trade source; (e) the trade quantity; (f) the trade price; (g) the security type; (h) the ticker symbol; (i) the series/contract date; (j) whether the trade is a purchase or a sale; (k) the account type; (l) the allocation indicator, if applicable; (m) the CMTA indicator, if applicable; (n) the Give-Up Clearing Member, if applicable; and (o) whether the trade is an exchange-for-physical or block trade or any other trade designated by the futures market or security futures market reporting the trade as a non-competitively executed trade. In addition to the foregoing information that is required as a condition to OCC's acceptance of the confirmed trade, Rule 401(a)(2)(ii) would provide that OCC may also request certain optional trade information that is not required as a condition for acceptance.
OCC believes that using a uniform approach for nearly all Confirmed Trades regarding acceptance and novation and reducing the complexity of related provisions would provide significantly greater clarity and transparency in OCC's legal framework for Clearing Members and other interested parties concerning the point at which OCC does not have authority to reject a transaction after it has been properly submitted to and validated by OCC. As described above, amending OCC's By-Laws and Rules to provide that nearly all Confirmed Trades are accepted and novated upon proper submission functionally would not change the time at which OCC becomes obligated regarding such Confirmed Trades because, upon proper submission, OCC has no right today to reject such transactions due to the failure of a Purchasing Clearing Member to pay any amount due to OCC at or before the settlement time. OCC generally does not collect margin with respect to such Confirmed Trades until 9:00 a.m. Central the following business day,
OTC Options that are not Backloaded OTC Options are not currently subject to the general Commencement Time; however, OCC believes that applying the uniform acceptance and novation time to those transactions is appropriate. This is because under the current approach, acceptance and the Commencement Time both occur when a report is made available to Clearing Members within OCC's clearing system, and therefore this approach is already consistent with the proposed approach described herein. In practice, OCC automatically makes a report available to Clearing Members in its clearing system regarding an OTC Option provided that it is properly reported to OCC, the contract passes OCC's validation process, and the contract is not rejected. All of this is generally completed immediately upon submission and therefore OCC does not believe there is any operational, risk management, or other reason for excluding OTC Options that are not Backloaded OTC Options from the proposed uniform acceptance and novation timing.
For other categories of Confirmed Trades that are not subject to the general definition of Commencement Time, OCC proposes to preserve the existing structure under which OCC has authority to reject the transactions even after they are properly submitted for clearing. An exception to the uniform acceptance and novation timing would be made for Confirmed Trades in futures issued in exchange-for-physical transactions, block trades, or other trades designated as non-competitively executed. OCC believes that delayed novation is still appropriate for such non-competitively executed transactions because there is a heightened risk that non-competitive execution may cause them to be effected at off-market prices, which could lead to significant losses if a Clearing Member defaults on the related settlement obligations.
As proposed, an exception to the uniform acceptance and novation timing would also be made for Confirmed Trades that are Backloaded OTC Options, which are defined as OTC Options for which the premium payment date is prior to the business day on which the transaction is submitted to OCC for clearing.
OCC proposes that its acceptance and novation time would no longer be tied to publication of a Daily Position Report as OCC's acceptance of a Confirmed Trade would instead be reflected in the position information that OCC makes available to Clearing Members
In addition to its clearance and settlement of Confirmed Trades, OCC also acts as a CCP for certain stock lending transactions that are part of its Stock Loan/Hedge Program and Market Loan Program. OCC proposes to amend its Stock Loan/Hedge Program and Market Loan Program Rules to better describe OCC's process for accepting Hedge Loans and Market Loans and to appropriately harmonize certain provisions governing each type of Stock Loan.
Hedge Loans are initiated as stock lending transactions that are negotiated and settled between Clearing Members at The Depository Trust Company (“Depository”) before they are reported to OCC. Rule 2202(b) provides that OCC must generally accept these stock lending transactions upon receipt of a report from the Depository that shows a completed transaction.
OCC proposes to amend Rule 2202(b) to clarify that OCC receives and accepts completed transaction information from the Depository throughout the day and would delete the statement that a transaction is deemed accepted by a particular cut off time if OCC does not affirmatively notify Clearing Members of a rejection. Rule 2202(b) would instead state that OCC generally accepts completed transactions reported to it unless: (1) OCC is otherwise required to reject a transaction because it is not in accordance with the By-Laws or Rules; (2) one or both account numbers specified are invalid; or (3) the information provided contains unresolved errors or omissions. OCC believes these changes would help clarify the time at which Hedge Loans are accepted and the specific circumstances in which Hedge Loans will be rejected. As described below, the change would also ensure consistency between parallel provisions in the Stock Loan/Hedge Program and Market Loan Program regarding the initiation process that OCC believes should apply equally. Finally, a reference to the Stock Loan Market to Market Activity Report being the only definitive statement of positions would be deleted because Hedge Loan positions would be definitive upon acceptance in OCC's clearing system.
In connection with the Market Loan Program initiation process, the Depository also sends information to OCC regarding completed stock lending transactions. Rule 2202A(b) provides that upon OCC's receipt of an end of day stock loan activity file from the Depository OCC must accept the transactions as Market Loans unless it is required to reject them for the same reasons described above concerning Hedge Loans. The Rule further provides that, upon OCC's affirmative acceptance, OCC becomes the lender to the Borrowing Clearing Member and the borrower to the Lending Clearing Member.
As with the proposed changes to the Stock Loan Hedge Program, OCC proposes to clarify that OCC receives and accepts completed transaction information from the Depository throughout the day. OCC also proposes to delete a reference to affirmative acceptance in Rule 2202A(b) because the other proposed changes would clarify that acceptance will generally take place automatically unless OCC is specifically required to reject transactions due to the deficiencies described above. A conforming change would also be made in this regard in Rule 2202A(c). References to the definitive nature of the Stock Loan Mark to Market Activity Report would be deleted for the same reasons described above regarding Hedge Loans.
As part of its continued efforts to streamline its By-Laws and Rules, OCC proposes to relocate certain provisions from Article VI, Sections 4 through 8 of the By-Laws to Chapter IV of the Rules. This would promote a centralized location for provisions that address trade reporting and novation. OCC also proposes to consolidate certain provisions in Chapter IV of the Rules to eliminate redundancy. These proposed organizational changes are summarized below.
Article VI, Section 4 of OCC's By-Laws regarding a Purchasing Clearing Member's obligations with respect to a Confirmed Trade would be relocated, without amendment, to a new Rule 403. Article VI, Section 5 of the By-Laws regarding OCC's obligations with respect to a Confirmed Trade would be amended, as described above, and incorporated into existing Rule 401 and new Rule 404. Article VI, Section 6 of the By-Laws regarding the issuance of cleared contracts would be amended as described above and relocated to a new Rule 405. Article VI, Section 7 of the By-Laws regarding the reporting of confirmed trades would be relocated and incorporated into Rule 401. More specifically, Article VI, Section 7(b) of the By-Laws would become Rule 401(e), Section 7(c) would become Rule 401(f), and Interpretation and Policy .01 to Section 7 would become Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 401. Article VI, Section 8 of the By-Laws regarding payments made to OCC would be amended as described above and relocated to new Rule 406. To accommodate these new rules in Chapter IV, current Rule 403 would be renumbered as 407, and current Rule 405 would be renumbered as Rule 408. Cross-references would also be updated to reflect this renumbering throughout Chapter IV of the Rules, as well as in Article I, Section 1.G.(3) and (4), Article VI, Section 2, and Article XVII, Sections 2(a) and 2(c)(1) of the By-Laws, and Rules 504(e), 504(g), and 611(a).
Additionally, OCC proposes to delete existing Rule 404 regarding the reporting of confirmed trades in OTC Options and to incorporate its substance into Rule 401 in order create a more centralized trade reporting rule. This incorporation of Rule 404 into Rule 401 would require the addition of references to OTC Trade Sources in Rule 401(a) and (b), and the merger of language from Rule 404(b) into Rule 401(b) and from Rule 404(c) into Rule 401(d).
OCC proposes to delete certain provisions from its By-Laws and Rules that only apply to cross-rate foreign currency options and flexibly-structured index options denominated in a foreign currency because OCC no longer clears and settles such products. These products, when they were still actively cleared and settled, were subject to delayed novation, so OCC believes eliminating the rules governing these products at this time would reduce confusion related to the adoption of the proposed changes described herein concerning trade acceptance and novation timing. Consequently, OCC proposes to delete Articles XX and XXIII of its By-Laws and Chapters XXI and XXIV of its Rules, which govern each of those products, respectively. Additionally, OCC proposes to eliminate all other references to such products throughout its By-Laws and Rules, including in Section 1(d) of Article V, and Interpretation and Policy .03 to Section 1 of Article V of the By-Laws and Rules 607, 1107(a)(3) and 1107(a)(4), as well as in the definitions of Option Contract, Trading Currency and Underlying Currency in Article I of the By-Laws.
OCC also proposes to delete Rule 402 concerning the supplementary reporting of Confirmed Trades. Under Rule 402, in certain extraordinary circumstances, OCC may in its discretion accept from an Exchange after the cut-off time for receiving Confirmed Trade information for a particular business day (“trade date”) supplementary Confirmed Trade information reflecting the comparison of additional trades executed on or before the trade date that remained unconfirmed at the cut-off time. Rule 402 was adopted at a time when OCC received matched trade information from Exchanges for a given trade date in a single batch submission after the close of the trading day.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
In addition, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1)
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2018-007 and should be submitted on or before April 30, 2018.
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 its fees charged in connection with the filing of listing applications in relation to the issuance of securities convertible into or exchangeable or exercisable for additional securities of a listed class of common stock. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fees charged in connection with the filing of listing applications in relation to the issuance of securities convertible into or exchangeable or exercisable for additional securities of a listed class of common stock (“Convertible Securities”).
A listed company is required to submit a supplemental listing application (“SLAP”) prior to any issuance of Convertible Securities. Each time a listed company submits a SLAP in connection with the issuance of Convertible Securities, it must pay the minimum fee of $10,000 provided for by Section 902.03 of the Manual. The Exchange, however, does not charge any
The Exchange has noted that it is not unusual for a listed company to enter into a number of different transactions in which it issues Convertible Securities. Each such transaction requires the submission of a SLAP, and the payment of the $10,000 minimum SLAP fee, incurring a significant fee expense even where the transactions covered by the SLAPs are immaterial in size.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 902.03 to limit the fee expense to listed companies. Under the proposed amendment, a $10,000 SLAP fee will be billed with respect to the first SLAP solely in connection with the issuance of securities convertible into or exchangeable or exercisable for additional securities of a listed class that is submitted by a listed issuer in each calendar quarter. No additional SLAP fee will be billed for any other SLAP solely in connection with the issuance of securities convertible into or exchangeable or exercisable for additional securities of a listed class that is submitted during the rest of that calendar quarter.
The Exchange does not expect that the reduction in fee revenue associated with this proposed amendment will have any effect on its ability to finance its regulatory program.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act in that it represents an equitable allocation of fees and does not unfairly discriminate among listed companies. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment is not unfairly discriminatory because it will be applied the same to all listed companies submitting SLAPs in connection with the issuance of Convertible Securities. The Exchange also notes that listed companies will be charged per share listing fees with respect to any shares of common stock issued upon conversion, exchange or exercise of the Convertible Securities, thereby ensuring that the fees associated with a Convertible Securities transaction will be reflective of the size of the transaction.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will not impose any burden competition as its sole purpose is to provide a limited relief from the listing fees a company incurs when it issues Convertible Securities in a series of separate transactions during a calendar quarter.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to June 8, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration (DS-230) is used to collect biographical information from individuals seeking for Cuban Family Reunification Parole. While this discretionary parole authority is exercised by the Department of Homeland Security, an applicant must demonstrate that he or she is eligible for an immigrant visa. In rare circumstances, an applicant for an immigrant visa may complete the DS-230 in lieu of the online version of the application (DS-260, OMB Control Number 1405-0185). The consular officer uses the information collected to elicit information necessary to determine an applicant's immigrant visa eligibility.
Applicants will complete the DS-230 and submit it to a consular post. A consular officer will review the application to determine whether the applicant is eligible for an immigrant visa.
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F-
UP has certified that: (1) No local or overhead traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) there is no need to reroute any traffic over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA)
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to UP's representative: Jeremy M. Berman, 1400 Douglas St., #1580, Omaha, NE 68179.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
UP has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by April 13, 2018. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), UP shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by UP's filing of a notice of consummation by April 9, 2019, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F-
UP has certified that: (1) No local or overhead traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) there is no need to reroute any traffic over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR. 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance of service shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA)
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to UP's representative: Jeremy M. Berman, 1400 Douglas St., #1580, Omaha, NE 68179.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
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 of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before April 23, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0283 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mark Forseth, AIR-673, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 S. 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of criteria and application procedures.
This document announces the criteria, application procedures, and schedule to be applied by the Secretary of Transportation to designate a maximum of 15 joint-use or former military airports to participate in the MAP for the purposes of capital development funding assistance.
Applications must be received no later than June 8, 2018.
Submit an original signed Standard Form (SF) 424, “Application for Federal Assistance” (available at:
Mr. Jonathan DiMartino (
Under 49 U.S.C. 47118, the MAP provides capital development assistance to civilian airport sponsors of designated joint-use military airfields or former military airports that are included in the FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Airport sponsors designated to the MAP may receive set-aside grant funds from the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) (4 percent of discretionary funds) for airport development that will assist the airport sponsor in successfully transitioning the airport from military to civilian use. The MAP is described in detail in FAA Order 5100.38D, Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Handbook.
As set forth by 49 U.S.C. 47118, a maximum of 15 airports may participate in the MAP at any time. Three of the 15 may be general aviation (GA) airports; the remainder must be commercial service or reliever airports. In FY 2018, there are 12 slots available in the program; however, there are no openings available for GA airports.
The FAA has the option to designate an airport sponsor for any duration between 1 and 5 fiscal years. The FAA will evaluate the conversion needs of the airport in its capital development plan to determine the appropriate length of designation.
Previously designated airport sponsors may apply for redesignation to the MAP for a period between 1 and 5 fiscal years. Those airport sponsors must meet the current MAP eligibility requirements of 49 U.S.C. 47118(a), at the beginning of each grant period. The FAA will evaluate applications for redesignation primarily in terms of the remaining projects that are specifically fundable only under the MAP because redesignated airports generally have fewer conversion needs than new candidates. The FAA's goal is to gradually transition MAP airports to regular AIP participation by helping these airports successfully convert to civilian airport operations.
Designated airport sponsors may receive up to $7 million per fiscal year for terminal projects and up to $7 million for construction, improvement, or repair of fuel farms, utility systems, surface automobile parking lots, hangars, and air cargo terminals that are not larger than 50,000 square feet. Revenue generating projects that may not normally be AIP eligible at the airport may be considered through the MAP to assist in the conversion of a military joint-use or former military facility to civilian use.
MAP designated airport projects are not limited to MAP funding. They may also qualify for other AIP funding if they meet all AIP associated project eligibility and justification requirements.
The MAP allows the Secretary of Transportation to designate civilian airport sponsors of joint-use or former military airports (other than an airport so designated before August 24, 1994) to receive grants from the AIP if they meet the following general requirements:
1. The airport is a former military installation closed or realigned under:
a. Section 2687 of 10 U.S.C. (announcement of closures of large Department of Defense (DOD) installations after September 30, 1977);
b. Section 201 of the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC) (10 U.S.C. 2687, note); or
c. Section 2905 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687, note).
2. The airport is a military installation with both military and civil aircraft operations.
3. The airport is classified as a commercial service or reliever airport in the NPIAS. (See 49 U.S.C. 47105(b)(2).)
4. In addition, three of the designated airports may be GA airports that were former military installations closed or realigned under BRAC, as amended, or 10 U.S.C. 2687. (See 49 U.S.C. 47118(g).) Therefore, a GA airport can only qualify under requirement 1 of this section. “GA airport” means a public airport that is located in a State that, as determined by the Secretary:
a. does not have scheduled service; or
b. has scheduled passenger service with fewer than 2,500 passenger boardings per year.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 47104(c), in designating new candidate airport sponsors, the Secretary may consider only current or former military airports for designation if a grant would:
1. Reduce delays at an airport with more than 20,000 hours of annual delays in commercial passenger aircraft takeoffs and landings;
2. Enhance airport and air traffic control system capacity in a metropolitan area or reduce current and projected flight delays; or
3. Preserve or enhance minimum airfield infrastructure facilities at former military airports to support emergency diversionary operations for transoceanic flights. (See 49 U.S.C. 47118(c)(3).)
The FAA will evaluate applications for new MAP designations on the basis of how the proposed projects included in the application would contribute to delay reductions and/or how the airport improvements would enhance national and local air traffic or airport system capacity and provide adequate related user services.
Recently realigned or closed military airports and military airfields with new joint-use agreements generally have the greatest need for funding assistance to transition to civil airport operations. Newly converted airports and new joint-use locations frequently have minimal capital development resources and therefore receive priority consideration for designation and MAP funding. The FAA will evaluate the need for eligible projects based upon information in the airport's 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) submitted by the airport sponsor and the following specific factors:
1. Compatibility of airport roles and the ability of the airport to provide an adequate airport facility;
2. The capability of the airport to serve aircraft that otherwise must use a congested airport;
3. Landside surface access;
4. Airport operational capability, including peak hour and annual capacities;
5. Potential of other metropolitan area airports to relieve the congested airport;
6. Ability to satisfy, relieve, or meet air cargo demand within the metropolitan area;
7. Forecasted aircraft and passenger levels, type of commercial service anticipated,
8. Type and capacity of aircraft projected to serve the airport and level of operations at the congested airport and the candidate airport;
9. The potential for the airport to be served by aircraft or users, including the airlines serving the congested airport;
10. Ability to replace an existing commercial service or reliever airport serving the area; and
11. Any other documentation to support designation of the airport sponsor's candidate airport.
The FAA will evaluate proposed development projects to assess the potential of the airport to become a viable civilian airport that will enhance system capacity or reduce delays.
Airport sponsors applying for designation or redesignation to the MAP must complete and submit an SF-424 and provide supporting documentation to the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division or Airports District Office serving that airport. Airport sponsors may obtain this fillable form from
• Item 1 (Type of Submission)—Mark as a “preapplication”;
• Item 2 (Type of Application)—Mark as “New” and in “Other” fill in “Military Airport Program”;
• Item 15 (Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project)—Fill with “designation (or redesignation) to the Military Airport Program”; and
• Item 18.a. (Estimated Funding)—Fill in the total amount of funding requests anticipated from the MAP over the entire term sought in the application.
1. Identification as a joint-use or former military airport. The application must identify the airport sponsor's airport as either a joint-use or former military airport and indicate whether it was:
a. Closed or realigned under section 201 of the BRAC and/or section 2905 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Installations Approved for Closure by the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commissions);
b. Closed or realigned pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2687 as excess property (bases announced for closure by the DOD pursuant to this title after September 30, 1977 (this is the date of announcement for closure)); or
c. A military installation with both military and civil aircraft operations.
2. Qualifications for the MAP. The application must include documentation to answer questions a. through j. below:
a. Does the airport meet the definition of a “public airport” as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102(21)?
b. Is the required environmental review for civil reuse or joint-use of the military airfield completed?
• The environmental review does not need to include the individual projects to be funded by the MAP.
• The environmental review is necessary to convey the property or enter into a long-term lease, or finalize a joint-use agreement.
• The military department conveying or leasing the property or entering into a joint-use agreement should have the primary responsibility for the environmental review.
c. Does the eligible airport sponsor hold or will hold satisfactory title or a long-term lease (25 years or longer)?
• Documentation that the Federal Government accepted an application for surplus or BRAC airport property is sufficient to meet this requirement.
d. Does the airport sponsor have an existing joint-use agreement with the military department having jurisdiction over the airport?
e. A copy of the existing joint-use agreement must be submitted with the application. Is the airport classified as a “commercial service airport” or a “reliever airport” as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102(7) and (23)?
f. Is the airport sponsor an eligible airport “sponsor,” as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102(26)?
g. Does the airport sponsor have a 5-year CIP indicating all eligible grant projects to be funded either from the MAP or from other portions of the AIP?
h. Does the airport have an FAA-approved airport layout plan (ALP)?
i. For commercial service airports, has a business/marketing plan or equivalent been completed?
j. For reliever or GA airports, alternative planning documents may be submitted in lieu of a business/marketing plan.
3. Other Factors. The application should include information on the items below:
a. Identify the existing and potential levels of visual or extra instrument operations and aeronautical activity at the current or former military airport and, if applicable, the congested airport.
b. Explain how the airport contributes to the air traffic system or airport system capacity.
c. Provide the revenue passenger and air cargo levels if commercial air carriers serve the airport.
d. Describe the airport's projected civil role and development needs for transitioning from use as a military airfield to a civil airport. Include how development projects would serve to reduce delays at an airport with more than 20,000 hours of annual delays in commercial passenger aircraft takeoffs and landings, enhance capacity in a metropolitan area, or reduce current and projected flight delays.
e. Describe the existing airspace capacity. Explain how anticipated new operations would affect the surrounding airspace, congestion, and air traffic flow patterns in the metropolitan area in or near the airport.
f. Describe the airport sponsor's 5-year CIP. The CIP must identify the safety, capacity, and conversion related projects, estimated costs, and projected construction schedule.
g. Describe projects that are consistent with the role of the airport and effectively contribute to the joint-use or civil conversion of the airfield. The projects selected (
• Planned safety modifications including pavement, marking, lighting, drainage, or other structures or features to meet civil standards for approach, departure, and other protected airport surfaces as described in 14 CFR part 77, or airport design standards set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A;
• Planned construction of facilities, such as passenger terminal gates, aprons for passenger terminals, taxiways to new terminal facilities, aircraft parking, and cargo facilities to accommodate civil use;
• Planned utility upgrades serving the civilian function and independent operation including: electrical, mechanical, communications lines, water, gas, sewer, storm drainage;
• Planned acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, or modification of facilities and equipment including: snow removal equipment, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facilities and equipment, security equipment, lighting vaults, and reconfiguration or relocation of eligible buildings for more efficient civil airport operations;
• Planned modifications of fuel farms to accommodate civil aviation use;
• Planned acquisition of additional land for runway protection zones, other approach protection, or airport development; and
• Planned modifications, which will permit the airfield to accommodate GA users.
• Planned construction, improvement, or repair of surface parking areas for passenger and air cargo terminals;
• Planned construction, improvement, or repair of access roads to provide efficient movement of vehicular traffic that leads directly to or from a passenger or air cargo terminal, fixed base operations, and aircraft maintenance areas; or
• Planned construction, improvement, or repair of facilities, such as passenger terminals, hangars, and air cargo terminal buildings.
h. Evaluate the ability of surface transportation facilities (
i. Describe the type and level of aviation (and community) interest in the civil use of the current or former military airport.
j. Provide one copy of the FAA-approved ALP with each application. The ALP must clearly describe capacity and conversion-related projects. Airport sponsors should also include other information, such as: Project cost(s), schedule, project justification(s), other project related maps and drawings showing the project location(s), and any other supporting documentation that would make the airport sponsor's application easier to understand. Airport sponsors may also include photos that further describe the airport, projects, and otherwise clarify certain aspects of the application. These maps and ALPs should be cross-referenced
Airport sponsors applying for redesignation to the MAP must submit the same information required of new candidate airport sponsors. Airport sponsors requesting redesignation must also answer the following questions:
1. Why is a redesignation and additional MAP-eligible project funding needed to accomplish the conversion to a civilian-use airport?
2. What is the preferred time period for redesignation (not to exceed 5 years)?
3. Why would funding of eligible work under other categories of AIP or other sources of funding not accomplish the development needs of the airport?
4. Airport sponsors applying for redesignation must provide a reanalysis of their original business/marketing plans (for example, a plan previously funded by the DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment or the original master plan for the airport) and prepare an updated plan. If no business/marketing plan exists, a business/marketing plan or strategy must be developed. The report must address these questions:
a. Is the airport sponsor continuing to work towards the goals established in the business/marketing plan?
b. How do the MAP projects contained in the application contribute to the goals of the airport sponsor and its plans?
c. If the business/marketing plan no longer applies to the current goals of the airport sponsor, how has the airport sponsor altered the business/marketing plan to establish a new direction for the facility and how do the projects contained in the MAP application aid in the completion of the new direction and goals and by what date does the airport sponsor anticipate graduating from the MAP?
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before April 30, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0191 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Clarence Garden (202) 267-7489, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before April 30, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0213 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mark Forseth, AIR-673, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 S. 216th St., WA 98198-6547, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Docket No.: FAA-2018-0213.
Petitioner: The Boeing Company.
Section of 14 CFR Affected: §§ 25.561(b)(3)(ii) and (c), and 25.787(a) and (b).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice; correction.
The FAA published a document in the
Brenda Robeson (202) 267-4712
In the
“Docket Id Summary Notice No. 2018-25”
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 113 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirements in one eye.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2003-16241; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-22727; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-23773; FMCSA-2007-0017; FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0011; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2011-0275; FMCSA-2011-0298; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2011-0365; FMCSA-2011-0366; FMCSA-2011-0378; FMCSA-2013-0028; FMCSA-2013-0165; FMCSA-2013-0166; FMCSA-2013-0167; FMCSA-2013-0168; FMCSA-2013-
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for five years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
The 113 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 113 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement (64 FR 54948; 64 FR 68195; 65 FR 159; 65 FR 20251; 67 FR 10475; 67 FR 17102; 68 FR 61857; 68 FR 74699; 68 FR 75715; 69 FR 8260; 69 FR 10503; 69 FR 17267; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 71884; 70 FR 72689; 71 FR 644; 71 FR 4194; 71 FR 4632; 71 FR 5105; 71 FR 6824; 71 FR 6829; 71 FR 6826; 71 FR 13450; 71 FR 16410; 71 FR 19600; 71 FR 19602; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 52422; 72 FR 62897; 72 FR 67340; 72 FR 71995; 73 FR 1395; 73 FR 5259; 73 FR 6242; 73 FR 8392; 73 FR 9158; 73 FR 11989; 73 FR 15254; 73 FR 16950; 74 FR 43217; 74 FR 49069; 74 FR 57551; 74 FR 60021; 74 FR 65842; 74 FR 65845; 74 FR 65847; 75 FR 1451; 75 FR 1835; 75 FR 8184; 75 FR 9477; 75 FR 9480; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 9484; 75 FR 13653; 75 FR 20881; 75 FR 22176; 76 FR 49528; 76 FR 61143; 76 FR 64164; 76 FR 66123; 76 FR 70210; 76 FR 70213; 76 FR 75942; 76 FR 78728; 76 FR 79760; 77 FR 541; 77 FR 545; 77 FR 3547; 77 FR 3552; 77 FR 5874; 77 FR 7233; 77 FR 7657; 77 FR 10604; 77 FR 10606; 77 FR 13689; 77 FR 13691; 77 FR 17107; 77 FR 17108; 77 FR 17115; 77 FR 17117; 77 FR 17119; 77 FR 19749; 77 FR 22059; 77 FR 22838; 78 FR 27281; 78 FR 41188; 78 FR 47818; 78 FR 62935; 78 FR 63302; 78 FR 63307; 78 FR 64271; 78 FR 64274; 78 FR 66099; 78 FR 67452; 78 FR 67454; 78 FR 67455; 78 FR 74223; 78 FR 76395; 78 FR 76704; 78 FR 76705; 78 FR 77778; 78 FR 77780; 78 FR 77782; 78 FR 78475; 79 FR 1908; 79 FR 2247; 79 FR 2748; 79 FR 4803; 79 FR 4805; 79 FR 6993; 79 FR 10602; 79 FR 10606; 79 FR 10607; 79 FR 10608; 79 FR 10609; 79 FR 10610; 79 FR 10611; 79 FR 10619; 79 FR 12565; 79 FR 13085; 79 FR 14328; 79 FR 14331; 79 FR 14332; 79 FR 14333; 79 FR 15794; 79 FR 17641; 79 FR 17642; 79 FR 17643; 79 FR 18390; 79 FR 18391; 79 FR 22003; 80 FR 33007; 80 FR 63869; 80 FR 67472; 80 FR 67476; 80 FR 67481; 80 FR 70060; 80 FR 76345; 80 FR 79414; 80 FR 80443; 81 FR 6573; 81 FR 11642; 81 FR 14190; 81 FR 15401; 81 FR 15404; 81 FR 16265; 81 FR 17237; 81 FR 20433; 81 FR 20435; 81 FR 28136; 81 FR 28138; 81 FR 39100; 81 FR 44680; 81 FR 52516; 81 FR 60117). They have submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of April and are discussed below:
As of April 12, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 58 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (68 FR 7469; 68 FR 61857; 68 FR 74699; 68 FR 75715; 69 FR 10503; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 71884; 70 FR 72689; 71 FR 644; 71 FR 4194; 71 FR 4632; 71 FR 6829; 71 FR 13450; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 52422; 72 FR 62897; 72 FR 67340; 72 FR 71995; 73 FR 1395; 73 FR 5259; 73 FR 6242; 73 FR 8392; 73 FR 9158; 73 FR 16950; 74 FR 43217; 74 FR 49069; 74 FR 57551; 74 FR 60021; 74 FR 65842; 74 FR 65845; 74 FR 65847; 75 FR 1451; 75 FR 8184; 75 FR 9477; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 9484; 76 FR 49528; 76 FR 61143; 76 FR 64164; 76 FR 66123; 76 FR 70210; 76 FR 70213; 76 FR 75942; 76 FR 78728; 76 FR 79760; 77 FR 541; 77 FR 545; 77 FR 3547; 77 FR 3552; 77 FR 5874; 77 FR 7233; 77 FR 7657; 77 FR 10604; 77 FR 10606; 77 FR 13689; 77 FR 13691; 77 FR 17117; 77 FR 17119; 77 FR 22059; 78 FR 27281; 78 FR 41188; 78 FR 47818; 78 FR 62935; 78 FR 63302; 78 FR 63307; 78 FR 64271; 78 FR 64274; 78 FR 66099; 78 FR 67452; 78 FR 67454; 78 FR 67455; 78 FR 74223; 78 FR 76395; 78 FR 76704; 78 FR 76705; 78 FR 77778; 78 FR 77780; 78 FR 77782; 78 FR 78475; 79 FR 1908; 79 FR 2247; 79 FR 2748; 79 FR 4803; 79 FR 4805; 79 FR 6993; 79 FR 10602; 79 FR 10619; 79 FR 12565; 79 FR 13085; 79 FR 14328; 79 FR 14331; 79 FR 14332; 79 FR 14333; 79 FR 18390; 80 FR 33007; 80 FR 63869; 80 FR 67472; 80 FR 67476; 80 FR 67481; 80 FR 70060; 80 FR 76345; 80 FR 79414; 80 FR 80443; 81 FR 11642; 81 FR 15401; 81 FR 15404; 81 FR 16265; 81 FR 20433; 81 FR 20435; 81 FR 28136; 81 FR 44680; 81 FR 60117):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2003-16241; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-22727; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2007-0017; FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2011-0275; FMCSA-2011-0298; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2011-0365; FMCSA-2011-0366; FMCSA-2013-0028; FMCSA-2013-0165; FMCSA-2013-0166; FMCSA-2013-0167; FMCSA-2013-0168; FMCSA-2013-0169; FMCSA-2013-0170; FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2015-0070; FMCSA-2015-0071; FMCSA-2015-0072; FMCSA-2015-0344; FMCSA-2015-0345; FMCSA-2015-0348. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 12, 2018, and will expire on April 12, 2020.
As of April 14, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following ten individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (64 FR 54948; 64 FR 68195; 65 FR 159; 65 FR 20251; 67 FR 10475; 67 FR 17102; 69 FR 17267; 69 FR 8260; 71 FR 4194; 71 FR 5105; 71 FR 6824; 71 FR 6826; 71 FR 13450; 71 FR 16410; 71 FR 19600; 71 FR 19602; 73 FR 11989; 75 FR 1835; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 13653; 77 FR 17107; 79 FR 18391; 81 FR 20435):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-1999-6165; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-23773; FMCSA-2009-0321. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 14, 2018, and will expire on April 14, 2020.
As of April 16, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 14 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (81 FR 14190; 81 FR 39100):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0350. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 16, 2018, and will expire on April 16, 2020.
As of April 17, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (77 FR 19749; 77 FR 22838; 79 FR 15794; 81 FR 20435):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0378. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 17, 2018, and will expire on April 17, 2020.
As of April 18, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 12 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (79 FR 10606; 79 FR 10607; 79 FR 10608; 79 FR 10609; 79 FR 10610; 79 FR 10611; 79 FR 22003; 81 FR 20435; 81 FR 28131):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0002. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 18, 2018, and will expire on April 18, 2020.
As of April 23, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (68 FR 74669; 69 FR 10503; 71 FR 6829; 73 FR 6242; 73 FR 15254; 73 FR 16950; 75 FR 20881; 77 FR 17115; 79 FR 17641; 81 FR 20435): Thomas R. Hedden, (IL); Douglas A. Mendoza, (MD).
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2007-0071. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 23, 2018, and will expire on April 23, 2020.
As of April 27, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following six individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (75 FR 9480; 75 FR 22176; 77 FR 17108; 79 FR 17642; 79 FR 17643; 81 FR 20435):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2009-0011. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 27, 2018, and will expire on April 27, 2020.
As of April 28, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (81 FR 17237; 81 FR 52516):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0351. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 28, 2018, and will expire on April 28, 2020.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5, who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification if he/her is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 113 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 178 individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
On December 11, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 178 individuals from the insulin-treated diabetes mellitus prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (82 FR 58258). The public comment period ended on January 10, 2018, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 178 renewal exemption applications and comments received, FMCSA confirms its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.64(3):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of December and are discussed below:
As of December 1, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 48338; 74 FR 62883; 80 FR 74196):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2009-0242. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 1, 2017, and will expire on December 1, 2019.
As of December 10, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following six individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (73 FR 63042; 73 FR 75163; 80 FR 74196):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2008-0293. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 10, 2017, and will expire on December 10, 2019.
As of December 15, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 35 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 70067; 81 FR 6326):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0336. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 15, 2017, and will expire on December 15, 2019.
As of December 17, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 51 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 63298; 78 FR 76397; 80 FR 74196):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0187. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 17, 2017, and will expire on December 17, 2019.
As of December 19, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 24 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (72 FR 62514; 72 FR 71996; 76 FR 64165; 76 FR 78718; 80 FR 74196):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2007-29035; FMCSA-2011-0277. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 19, 2017, and will expire on December 19, 2019.
As of December 22, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 66120; 76 FR 79759; 80 FR 74196):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0278. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 22, 2017, and will expire on December 22, 2019.
As of December 24, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 12 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 64267; 78 FR 77784; 80 FR 74196):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0184. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 24, 2017, and will expire on December 24, 2019.
As of December 29, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 26 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 74190; 81 FR 6332):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0337. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 29, 2017, and will expire on December 29, 2019.
As of December 30, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following three individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 74190; 81 FR 6332): Cris A. Brown, (MI); Vincenzo A. Cortese, (CT); Keith R. Miller, (WV).
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0190. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 30, 2017, and will expire on December 30, 2019.
As of December 31, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Gary L. Crawford (OH) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 65034; 79 FR 3917; 80 FR 74196).
This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0190. The exemption is applicable as of December 31, 2017, and will expire on December 31, 2019.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for four individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on February 24, 2018. The exemptions expire on February 24, 2020. Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2018
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0122; FMCSA-2015-0327; FMCSA-2012-0154 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for five years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
The four individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the four applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement. The 4 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency. In addition, for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of these drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
As of February 24, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following four individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2013-0122; FMCSA-
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5; and (2) report all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and (3) each driver prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable CDL testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 4 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 72 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0024 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 72 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control. The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441). The revision must provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305). Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the three-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e). Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary. The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Mr. Adamo, 62, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Adamo understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Adamo meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New York.
Mr. Aly, 43, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Aly understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Aly meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Anderson, 51, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Anderson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Anderson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia.
Mr. Araway, 51, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Araway understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Araway meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan.
Mr. Aschan, 56, has had ITDM since 2018. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Aschan understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Aschan meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Azzarello, 33, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Azzarello understands diabetes management and monitoring,
Mr. Baker, 68, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Baker understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Baker meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Delaware.
Mr. Banitt, 61, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Banitt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Banitt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Bates, 64, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bates understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bates meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
Mr. Bergman, 61, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bergman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bergman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Biggs, 58, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Biggs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Biggs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Missouri.
Mr. Brown, 44, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brown understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brown meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Burkholder, 67, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Burkholder understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Burkholder meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Burrichter, 62, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Burrichter understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Burrichter meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Texas.
Mr. Cain, 45, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or
Mr. Carothers, 21, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Carothers understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carothers meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Utah.
Mr. Carr, 37, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Carr understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carr meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Mr. Christian, 44, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Christian understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Christian meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from California.
Mr. Daadour, 47, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Daadour understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Daadour meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Washington.
Mr. Elliott, 32, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Elliott understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Elliott meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Kentucky.
Mr. Fowler, 53, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Fowler understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fowler meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Gillard, 36, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gillard understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gillard meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Tennessee.
Mr. Goodrich, 57, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Goodrich understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Goodrich meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Nebraska.
Mr. Gordon, 57, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gordon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gordon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Greene, 45, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Greene understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Greene meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Hammond, 54, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hammond understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hammond meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Hardie, 29, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hardie understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hardie meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Higgins, 45, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Higgins understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Higgins meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. Hill, 23, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hill understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hill meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.
Mr. Hluchaniuk, 57, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hluchaniuk understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hluchaniuk meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida.
Mr. Hortin, 54, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hortin understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hortin meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Hosfelt, 57, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hosfelt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
Mr. Hufstedler, 33, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hufstedler understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hufstedler meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Nebraska.
Mr. Jeralds, 57, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jeralds understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jeralds meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Judd, 37, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Judd understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Judd meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas.
Mr. Kohorst, 58, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kohorst understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kohorst meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Texas.
Mr. Lacey, 56, has had ITDM since 1986. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lacey understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lacey meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Lampela, 54, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lampela understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lampela meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan.
Mr. Leroux, 21, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Leroux understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Leroux meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Mr. Lukasavage, 60, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lukasavage understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lukasavage meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Martinez-Medina, 46, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
Mr. Maxcy, 68, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Maxcy understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Maxcy meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Mississippi.
Mr. McNamara, 61, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McNamara understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McNamara meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Dakota.
Ms. McNew, 60, has had ITDM since 2017. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2018 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. McNew understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. McNew meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Mejia, 37, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mejia understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mejia meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Mitchell, 60, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mitchell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mitchell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Moussa, 61, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Moussa understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Moussa meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. Nixon, 69, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nixon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nixon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Colorado.
Mr. Northan, 36, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Northan understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Northan meets the requirements of the vision standard at
Mr. Pae, 47, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pae understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pae meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Parnell, 38, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Parnell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Parnell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Carolina.
Mr. Pittsley, 26, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pittsley understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pittsley meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Dakota.
Mr. Powell, 63, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Powell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Powell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Texas.
Mr. Saunders, 63, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Saunders understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Saunders meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Scholten, 59, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Scholten understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Scholten meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Michigan.
Mr. Scott, 44, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Scott understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Scott meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from South Carolina.
Ms. Sealy, 61, has had ITDM since 2017. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Sealy understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Sealy meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class A CDL from Alabama.
Mr. Shaum, 71, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or
Mr. Snyder, 72, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Snyder understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Snyder meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Staebler, 49, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Staebler understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Staebler meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Oregon.
Mr. Swartz, 73, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Swartz understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Swartz meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Tegeler, 56, has had ITDM since 1990. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tegeler understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tegeler meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Tracy, 44, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tracy understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tracy meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Tschannen, 36, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tschannen understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tschannen meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.
Mr. Vanderiet, 39, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Vanderiet understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Vanderiet meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
Mr. Vickmark, 57, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Vickmark understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Vickmark meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
Mr. Ward, 28, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ward understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ward meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Ward, 21, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ward understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ward meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Louisiana.
Mr. Wells, 45, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wells understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wells meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Georgia.
Ms. Williams, 43, has had ITDM since 2017. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Williams understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Williams meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2018 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from North Carolina.
Mr. Woodrup, 53, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Woodrup understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Woodrup meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Woods, 40, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Woods understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Woods meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Ohio.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 23 individuals from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on February 16, 2018. The exemptions expire on February 16, 2020.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On January 16, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 23 individuals requesting an exemption from diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) and requested comments from the public (83 FR 2317). The public comment period ended on February 15, 2018, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on the program eligibility criteria and an individualized assessment of information submitted by each applicant. The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the January 16, 2018
These 23 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 35 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past five years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keeping a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 23 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for six individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on December 16, 2017. The exemptions expire on December 16, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001, f
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On January 31, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for six individuals from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (83 FR 4546). The public comment period ended on March 2, 2018, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391—MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: § 391.41(b)(8), paragraphs 3, 4, and 5.]
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Based upon its evaluation of the six renewal exemption applications, FMCSA announces its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(8):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2014-0382; FMCSA-2015-0115; FMCSA-2015-0119. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 16, 2017, and will expire on December 16, 2019.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 13 individuals for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0007 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 13 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal Meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard red, green, and amber.
In July 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to meet (Qualification of Drivers; Vision Waivers, 57 FR 31458, July 16, 1992). The current Vision Exemption Program was established in 1998, following the enactment of amendments to the statutes governing exemptions made by § 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 401 (June 9, 1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the procedures established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case basis upon application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision standards of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past three years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates
Mr. Abukhatwa, 25, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “It is my medical opinion that Mr. Abukhatwa has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Abukhatwa reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for three years, accumulating 240,000 miles. He holds a Class CA CDL from Michigan. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Barlow, 61, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, James has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle with eyeglasses correction.” Mr. Barlow reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 2.4 million miles, tractor-trailer combinations for five years, accumulating 125,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Danser, 56, has optic nerve damage in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 2012. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/320, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “The tests indicate that Thomas is able to perform the task [sic] necessary to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Danser reported that he has driven straight trucks for one year, accumulating 25,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for six years, accumulating 420,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; failure to obey a traffic signal.
Mr. DeFabo, 47, has had central retinal artery occlusion in his left eye since 2016. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “In my professional medical opinion Jerome has more than sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. DeFabo reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 50,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Gonzalez, 50, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “He has sufficient vision to operate any commercial vehicle; he is fully capable of recognizing all the colors of traffic control signals.” Mr. Gonzalez reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years, accumulating 1.4 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Johnson, 64, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Based on the above, Mr. Johnson has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Johnson reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 22 years, accumulating 2.86 million miles. He holds an operator's license from Mississippi. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Mai, 47, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2011. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Michael has sufficient vision, with a best corrected acuity of 20/15 and sufficient field of vision with 135°, to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle; however, ultimately this decision has to be made by the CDL examiner based on the above information provided.” Mr. Mai reported that he has driven straight trucks for 23 years, accumulating 851,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 23 years, accumulating 460,000 miles, and buses for 15 years, accumulating 30,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Rios, 50, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “Mr. Rios vision is sufficient enough for him to be able to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Rios reported that he has driven straight trucks for four years, accumulating 26,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from New York. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Sauseda, 46, has had a central vein occlusion in his right eye since 2008. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/125, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my opinion, this patient does have sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Sauseda reported that he has driven straight trucks for two years, accumulating 30,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 720,000 miles. He holds a
Mr. Schlichting, 54, has had a retinal scar in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/150, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Schlichting has the necessary vision to drive a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Schlichting reported that he has driven straight trucks for 16 years, accumulating 80,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Nebraska. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Schuster, 41, has a scleral laceration in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2013. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, light perception. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “He has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Schuster reported that he has driven straight trucks for 21 years, accumulating 84,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from North Dakota. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Smith, 48, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is count fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, Mr. Joseph Smith still maintains sufficient vision to operate a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Smith reported that he has driven straight trucks for five years, accumulating 7,500 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 24 years, accumulating 2.88 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from West Virginia. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Stewart, 51, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “I believe based on the field and visual acuity, Mr. Stewart has vision sufficient to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Stewart reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for three years, accumulating 210,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments and material received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 17 individuals for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0008 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 17 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal Meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard red, green, and amber.
In July 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to meet (Qualification of Drivers; Vision Waivers, 57 FR 31458, July 16, 1992). The current Vision Exemption Program was established in 1998, following the enactment of amendments to the statutes governing exemptions made by § 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 401 (June 9, 1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the procedures established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case basis upon application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision standards of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past three years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used three consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first two years with their experiences in the final year.
Mr. Antunez, 66, has had a macular cyst in his left eye since 2000. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “In my professional/medical opinion, Leobardo has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Antunez reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 17 years, accumulating 1 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Dostal, 49, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Dostal reported that he has driven straight trucks for seven years, accumulating 182,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no
Mr. Duncan, 68, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my medical opinion, Mr. John Duncan has the sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle land or water.” Mr. Duncan reported that he has driven straight trucks for 43 years, accumulating 64,500 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for five years, accumulating 15,000 miles, and buses for 24 years, accumulating 48,000 miles. He holds a Class BM CDL from New York. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Emerson, 66, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Kenneth has adequate vision to drive a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Emerson reported that he has driven straight trucks for seven years, accumulating 700,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Idaho. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Farley, 62, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/160, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Farley reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for seven years, accumulating 700,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Kyman, 58, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Nothing in our vision testing indicates Mr. Kyman should not continue to possess a CDL and drive a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Kyman reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 14 years, accumulating 1.68 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Landry, 53, has had optic neuropathy in his left eye since 2015. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, counting fingers. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “He has sufficient vision in his right eye to operate a commercial vehicle, and has been successfully over the last [two] years per his report.” Mr. Landry reported that he has driven straight trucks for four years, accumulating 48,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 32 years, accumulating 3.8 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Margetson, 39, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, there is no concern for him to operate a commercial vehicle due to his vision” Mr. Margetson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 11 years, accumulating 215,644 miles. He holds an operator's license from Michigan. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. McCain, 41, has had retinopathy in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/30. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Trent McCain has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. McCain reported that he has driven straight trucks for 28 years, accumulating 28,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 17 years, accumulating 1.44 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. McCarty, 51, has a corneal scar in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 1986. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, light perception. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “My medical opinion is that David has sufficient vision to operate commercial vehicles.” Mr. McCarty reported that he has driven straight trucks for 28 years, accumulating 420,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 28 years, accumulating 420,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Pike, 41, has a cataract in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion he has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle and has done so successfully for many years.” Mr. Pike reported that he has driven straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating 250,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 23 years, accumulating 1.8 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Sanchez, 44, has had retinal ischemia in his left eye due to lupus since 2007. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “From a visual perspective, he has adequate vision to perform driving test required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Sanchez reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 29 years, accumulating 1.7 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Santucci, 39, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Patient has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks and drive a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Santucci reported that he has driven straight trucks for five years, accumulating 135,150 miles. He holds a Class B CDL
Mr. Taylor, 67, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “I certify that in my professional opinion, John R. A. Taylor has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Taylor reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 300,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Virginia. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Tidyman, 35, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “I feel that My.
Mr. Torres Malaga, 60, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Upon completing the eye exam, I find Mr. Torres visually capable to operate a motor vehicle of any kind, including commercial vehicles.” Mr. Torres Malaga reported that he has driven straight trucks for one year, accumulating 9,100 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for three years, accumulating 60,900 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Tucker, 46, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Patient, Tim Tucker, should be allowed to operate a commercial vehicle with no restrictions with respect to his visual status.” Mr. Tucker reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 465,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Kentucky. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments and material received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 40 individuals from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on February 16, 2018. The exemptions expire on February 16, 2020.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On January 16, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 40 individuals requesting an exemption from diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) and requested comments from the public (83 FR 2283). The public comment period ended on February 15, 2018, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on the program eligibility criteria and an individualized assessment of information submitted by each applicant. The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the January 16, 2018,
These 40 applicants have had ITDM over a range of one to 24 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past five years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keeping a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 40 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; grant of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant the application of the National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. (NTTC) and the Massachusetts Motor Transport Association, Inc. (MMTA) for an exemption from the requirement that drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) obtain a 30-minute rest break. The exemption is limited to CMV drivers engaged in the transportation of specified types of petroleum-based fuels who would otherwise have to observe the rest break when their duty day unexpectedly exceeds 12 hours. FMCSA has analyzed the exemption application and public comments and has determined that the exemption, subject to the terms and conditions imposed, will achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.
The exemption is effective April 9, 2018 and expires on April 10, 2023.
For information concerning this notice, please contact Mr. Buz Schultz, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Telephone: (202) 366-2718; Email:
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
The Agency's hours of service (HOS) rules require most interstate drivers to maintain a record of duty status (RODS), or log, on board the CMV in accordance with 49 CFR part 395. However, the “100 air-mile radius exception” relieves CMV drivers of the duty to maintain a log if they remain within a 100 air-mile radius of the normal work reporting location during the duty day and return to the work-reporting location and are released from work within 12 hours (49 CFR 395.1(e)(1)). Further, drivers qualifying for the 100 air-mile exception are not subject to the 30-minute rest break requirement of HOS regulations (49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii)).
NTTC and MMTA applied for an exemption from the 30-minute rest break provision on behalf of motor carriers and drivers operating tank trucks to transport certain petroleum-based products in interstate commerce. The tank trucks are normally loaded with products in the morning, and deliver the products to three or more service stations during the remainder of the duty day. Most of the estimated 38,000 vehicles engaged in such transportation each day qualify for the 100 air-mile radius exception, but on rare occasions, they do not. Circumstances beyond the control of the motor carrier and driver periodically cause delays in the delivery schedule. The applicants outlined the concerns they have with interrupting delivery of hazardous materials (HM) in order for the driver to take the required 30-minute rest break. For instance, as a security measure, a motor carrier may require that a tank truck transporting certain fuels be attended by the driver when the vehicle is stopped, and a driver attending a CMV is not considered off duty as required by the rest-break rule. Attendance is not required by regulation except for transporters of certain explosives [49 CFR 395.1(q)].
On September 26, 2017, FMCSA published notice of the application for exemption and asked for public comment (82 FR 44871). The Agency received nine comments from the public, four in favor of the application and five in opposition. The American Trucking Associations was in favor, citing the similarity of these operations to other HM transporters that previously were granted a more-limited exemption from the rest-break requirement. The Transportation Trades Department (AFL-CIO) and the International Association of Firefighters opposed the NTTC application. They believe that allowing these drivers to operate CMVs without a rest break imposes unnecessary risks upon the motoring public. They believe that the risks outweigh the difficulties inherent in tank truck drivers going off duty for 30 consecutive minutes.
FMCSA has evaluated the application for an exemption and the public comments submitted. Few comments opposed the application and none directly addressed the regulatory difficulties confronted by tank-truck carriers and drivers transporting these petroleum-based fuels. The Agency finds the arguments in favor of the exemption persuasive and grants a limited exemption that the Agency can review at any time the safety performance of these operations requires. We have tailored the terms and conditions of the exemption carefully to relieve the regulatory difficulties without opening the door to abuse of the HOS rules.
FMCSA grants this exemption because it finds that the level of safety achieved by this industry operating under the terms and conditions of the exemption, would be equal to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be achieved if the drivers were required to take the rest break. These drivers receive several short “breaks” each day when they unload product at service stations. While the exemption will allow these drivers to operate beyond the 12th hour, they will still have to complete their duty day before the 14-hour limit by which most CMV drivers are governed. In addition, these drivers will be required to maintain an HOS log in accordance with 49 CFR part 395, as required of all CMV drivers who find during a duty day that they are not qualified for the 100 air-mile radius exception.
1. This exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii) is granted for the period from April 9, 2018 through April 10, 2023.
2. This exemption applies when a driver who normally operates under the 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1) short-haul exception finds that operational issues require him or her to exceed the 12-hour limit of that exception. Drivers operating under this exemption must, however, return to their work reporting location and be released from duty within 14 hours of having come on duty following 10 or more consecutive hours off duty.
3. This exemption is limited to motor carriers and drivers engaged in the transportation of the following petroleum products: U.N. 1170—Ethanol, U.N. 1202—Diesel Fuel, U.N. 1203—Gasoline, U.N. 1863—Fuel, aviation, turbine engine, U.N. 1993—Flammable liquids, n.o.s. (gasoline), U.N. 3475—Ethanol and gasoline mixture, Ethanol and motor spirit mixture, or Ethanol and petrol mixture, and N.A. 1993—Diesel Fuel or Fuel Oil.
4. This exemption is further limited to motor carriers that have an FMCSA “satisfactory” safety rating or are “unrated”; motor carriers with “conditional” or “unsatisfactory” safety ratings are prohibited from utilizing this exemption.
5. Drivers must have a copy of this exemption document in their possession while operating under the terms of the exemption and must present it to law enforcement officials upon request.
Exempt motor carriers must notify FMCSA by email addressed to
a. Identifier of the Exemption: “NTTC,”
b. Name of operating carrier and USDOT number,
c. Date of the accident,
d. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or closest to the accident scene,
e. Driver's name and license number,
f. Name of co-driver, if any, and license number,
g. Vehicle number and state license number,
h. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
i. Number of fatalities,
j. The police-reported cause of the accident,
k. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws or motor carrier safety regulations, and
l. The total driving time and total on-duty time prior to the accident.
FMCSA expects the motor carriers and drivers operating under the terms and conditions of this exemption to maintain their safety record. However, should safety deteriorate, FMCSA will, consistent with the statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31315, take all steps necessary to protect the public interest. Authorization of the exemption is discretionary, and FMCSA will immediately revoke the exemption of any motor carrier or driver for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption.
Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), this exemption preempts inconsistent State or local requirements applicable to interstate commerce.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for information.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its renewal. The FMCSA requests to renew the ICR titled, “Application for Certificate of Registration for Foreign Motor Carriers and Foreign Motor Private Carriers,” that requires foreign (Mexico-based) for-hire and private motor carriers to file an application Form OP-2 if they wish to register to transport property only within municipalities in the United States on the U.S.-Mexico international borders or within the commercial zones of such municipalities. FMCSA invites public comment on the ICR.
We must receive your comments on or before
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0004 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Fiorella Herrera, Transportation Specialist, Office of Information Technology, IT Operations Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 6th Floor, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, Washington DC 20590. Telephone Number: (202) 366-0376; Email Address:
Foreign (Mexico-based) motor carriers use Form OP-2 to apply for Certificate of Registration authority with the FMCSA. The form requests information on the foreign motor carrier's name, address, U.S. DOT Number, form of business (
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 109 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On January 16, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 109 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (83 FR 2306). The public comment period ended on February 15, 2018, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 109 renewal exemption applications and comments received, FMCSA confirms its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(10):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of December and are discussed below:
As of December 3, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 48 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (64 FR 40404; 64 FR 66962; 66 FR 17743; 66 FR 33990; 66 FR 63289; 67 FR 68719; 68 FR 2629; 68 FR 35772; 68 FR 52811; 68 FR 61860; 68 FR 64944; 70 FR 33937; 70 FR 48797; 70 FR 61165; 70 FR 61493; 70 FR 67776; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 40360; 72 FR 52419; 72 FR 64273; 73 FR 46973; 73 FR 54888; 74 FR 11988; 74 FR 21427; 74 FR 34632; 74 FR 37295; 74 FR 41971; 74 FR 48343; 74 FR 53581; 74 FR 62632; 76 FR 25766; 76 FR 29026; 76 FR 34136; 76 FR 37885; 76 FR 44652; 76 FR 49531; 76 FR 53708; 76 FR 54530; 76 FR 55463; 76 FR 64171; 76 FR 70215; 78 FR 20376; 78 FR 24798; 78 FR 27281; 78 FR 30954; 78 FR 34141; 78 FR 34143; 78 FR 37270; 78 FR 41188; 78 FR 41975; 78 FR 46407; 78 FR 47818; 78 FR 52602; 78 FR 56986; 78 FR 63307; 78 FR 64280; 78 FR 68137; 78 FR 77782; 78 FR 78477; 79 FR 4531; 80 FR 14240; 80 FR 31640; 80 FR 33007; 80 FR 33324; 80 FR 37718; 80 FR 44185; 80 FR 44188; 80 FR 48402; 80 FR 48411; 80 FR 50917; 80 FR 59225; 80 FR 59230; 80 FR 62161; 80 FR 63869; 80 FR 67472; 80 FR 67476; 81 FR 11642; 81 FR 1284; 81 FR 15404):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-1999-5748; FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2003-15892; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2011-0124; FMCSA-2013-0025; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0028; FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0030; FMCSA-2013-0165; FMCSA-2014-0303; FMCSA-2015-0055; FMCSA-2015-0056; FMCSA-2015-0070; FMCSA-2015-0071. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 3, 2017, and will expire on December 3, 2019.
As of December 5, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following seven individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (66 FR 17743; 66 FR 33990; 68 FR 35772; 70 FR 33937; 72 FR 32705; 74 FR 26464; 74 FR 43217; 74 FR 57551; 76 FR 34135; 76 FR 64169; 76 FR 66123; 76 FR 75943; 78 FR 62935; 78 FR 65032; 78 FR 76395; 78 FR 77782; 80 FR 67481):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2011-26690; FMCSA-2013-0166. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 5, 2017, and will expire on December 5, 2019.
As of December 6, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following four individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (70 FR 57353; 70 FR 72689; 72 FR 62897; 74 FR 60021; 76 FR 70210; 78 FR 66099; 80 FR 67481):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2005-22194. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 6, 2017, and will expire on December 6, 2019.
As of December 15, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 12 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (80 FR 70060; 81 FR 16265):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0072. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 15, 2017, and will expire on December 15, 2019.
As of December 17, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following three individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0166. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 17, 2017, and will expire on December 17, 2019.
As of December 22, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (76 FR 49528; 76 FR 61143; 76 FR 67248; 76 FR 79761; 78 FR 67460; 80 FR 67481): Robert E. Morgan, Jr. (GA), David M. Taylor (MO).
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2011-0276. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 22, 2017, and will expire on December 22, 2019.
As of December 24, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 16 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (78 FR 63302; 78 FR 64274; 78 FR 77778; 78 FR 77780; 80 FR 67481):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2013-0168; FMCSA-2013-0169. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 24, 2017, and will expire on December 24, 2019.
As of December 27, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 13 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (64 FR 27027; 64 FR 51568; 66 FR 53826; 66 FR 63289; 66 FR 66966; 67 FR 10471; 67 FR 19798; 68 FR 64944; 68 FR 69434; 69 FR 19611; 70 FR 48797; 70 FR 53412; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 61493; 70 FR 67776; 70 FR 72689; 70 FR 74102; 74 FR 37295; 74 FR 48343; 74 FR 60021; 76 FR 75942; 78 FR 67452; 80 FR 67481):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2002-11426; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2009-0154. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 27, 2017, and will expire on December 27, 2019.
As of December 31, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following four individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (66 FR 53826; 66 FR 66966; 68 FR 61857; 68 FR 69434; 68 FR 75715; 70 FR 74102; 71 FR 646; 72 FR 71993; 72 FR 71998; 74 FR 65846; 76 FR 78729; 78 FR 67454; 78 FR 67462; 79 FR 4803; 80 FR 67481):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2003-16241; FMCSA-2013-0170. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 31, 2017, and will expire on December 31, 2019.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 46 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0023 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 46 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control. The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population.
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441). The revision must provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305). Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the three-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e). Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary. The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Mr. Albertson, 54, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Albertson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Albertson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New York.
Mr. Barrett, 48, has had ITDM since 1990. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Barrett understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Barrett meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Alabama.
Mr. Bodey, 54, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bodey understands diabetes management and monitoring,
Mr. Cardona, 22, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cardona understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cardona meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New York.
Mr. Carlson, 58, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Carlson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carlson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Caswell, 41, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Caswell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Caswell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Mr. Curry, 34, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Curry understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Curry meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Daugherty, 66, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Daugherty understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Daugherty meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Davis, 49, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Davis understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Davis meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Delaware.
Mr. Dawson, 56, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dawson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dawson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan.
Mr. Denmark, 39, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Denmark understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Denmark meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia.
Mr. Dobrowski, 47, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
Mr. Driggers, 56, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Driggers understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Driggers meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Carolina.
Mr. Duffey, 26, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Duffey understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Duffey meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Virginia.
Mr. Ebbers, 55, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ebbers understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ebbers meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Estes, 53, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Estes understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Estes meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Gelbrich, 44, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gelbrich understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gelbrich meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.
Mr. Gipson, 34, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gipson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gipson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Maine.
Mr. Graham, 49, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Graham understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Graham meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Haggerty, 33, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Haggerty understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Haggerty meets the requirements of the vision standard at
Mr. Hayes, 57, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hayes understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hayes meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Henry, 30, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Henry understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Henry meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Texas.
Mr. Henry, 50, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Henry understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Henry meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Texas.
Mr. Holcombe, 53, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Holcombe understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Holcombe meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee.
Mr. Houle, 61, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Houle understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Houle meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Howell, 38, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Howell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Howell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Justice, 34, has had ITDM since 1991. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Justice understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Justice meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Carolina.
Mr. Kribell, 68, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kribell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kribell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Dakota.
Mr. Lantz, 43, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or
Mr. Lightbown, 70, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lightbown understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lightbown meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Colorado.
Mr. Maita, 71, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Maita understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Maita meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Matthies, 54, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Matthies understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Matthies meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Mr. May, 39, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. May understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. May meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. McCann, 61, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McCann understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McCann meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Morgan, 41, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Morgan understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Morgan meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Nicklas, 82, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nicklas understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nicklas meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Romo, 71, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Romo understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Romo meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017
Mr. Rottenbucher, 58, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rottenbucher understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rottenbucher meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Dakota.
Mr. Schembri, 49, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schembri understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schembri meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Schrader, 62, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schrader understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schrader meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Stewmon, 28, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stewmon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stewmon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Tennessee.
Mr. Stockton, 62, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stockton understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stockton meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.
Mr. Thomas, 58, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Thomas understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thomas meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Nebraska.
Mr. Utoft, 42, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Utoft understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Utoft meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Iowa.
Ms. Waters, 54, has had ITDM since 2012. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Waters understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Waters meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from Maryland.
Mr. Welch, 24, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 16 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
The exemptions were applicable on January 11, 2018. The exemptions expire on January 11, 2020.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at
On December 11, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 16 individuals requesting an exemption from vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and requested comments from the public (82 FR 58262). The public comment period ended on January 10, 2018, and two comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. Vicky Johnson stated Minnesota Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS) has no objections to Russell J. Soland retaining his CDL with the vision exemption. Amnot Naïve commented that Eric J. Anderson has only two years of experience driving straight trucks. Applicants are required to provide FMCSA proof of CMV experience to meet exemption eligibility requirements. Mr. Anderson provided the required documentation and therefore is eligible to receive the exemption.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency. The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the December 11, 2017,
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 16 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including amblyopia, chorioretinal scar, corneal scar, keratoconus, macular edema, nystagmus, optic atrophy, prosthetic eye, retinal detachment, and retinal scar. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Ten of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The six individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a range of 4 to 18 years. Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV.
Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of a valid license to operate a CMV. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions.
The applicants in this notice have driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for 2 to 46 years. In the past three years, no drivers were involved in crashes, and one driver was convicted of moving violations in CMVs. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a certified Medical Examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 16 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of receipt of petition and decision denying request for deferral of determination.
On January 2, 2018, TK Holdings Inc. (Takata) filed a defect information report (DIR), in which it determined that a defect existed in certain passenger-side air bag inflators that it manufactured, including passenger inflators that it supplied to General Motors, LLC (GM) for use in certain GMT900 vehicles. GM has petitioned the Agency for a decision that, because of differences in inflator design and vehicle integration, the equipment defect determined to exist by Takata is inconsequential as it relates to
The closing date for comments is May 9, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding this petition for inconsequentiality. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may call the Docket at (202) 366-9324.
Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. Comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
For general information regarding NHTSA's investigation into Takata air bag inflator ruptures and the related recalls:
On May 4, 2016, NHTSA issued, and Takata agreed to, an Amendment to the November 3, 2015 Consent Order (the “Amendment”), under which Takata is bound to declare a defect in all frontal driver and passenger air bag inflators that contain a phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate (PSAN)-based propellant and do not contain a moisture-absorbing desiccant. Such defect declarations are being made on a rolling basis, with the first declaration due May 16, 2016, the second declaration due December 31, 2016, and the third declaration due December 31, 2017.
Takata timely submitted the first scheduled equipment DIRs on May 16, 2016.
The Takata filing triggered GM's obligation to file a DIR for the affected GM vehicles.
On January 3, 2017, Takata timely submitted the second scheduled equipment DIRs for additional covered passenger inflators.
On September 11, 2017, the Agency published a notice of receipt of the Second Petition and, as GM's Second Petition was virtually identical to its First Petition (both involved the same covered passenger inflators and same vehicle platform, relied upon the same purported evidence, and would rely upon the same forthcoming report), consolidated the Second Petition with the First Petition under Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0124.
Takata timely submitted
GM's Third Petition involves certain “GMT900” vehicles that contain the covered passenger inflators (designated as inflator types “SPI YP” and “PSPI-L YD”). GMT900 is a GM-specific vehicle platform that forms the structural foundation for a variety of GM trucks and sport utility vehicles, including: Chevrolet Silverado 1500, GMC Sierra 1500, Chevrolet Silverado 2500/3500, GMC Sierra 2500/3500, Chevrolet Tahoe, Chevrolet Suburban, Chevrolet Avalanche, GMC Yukon, GMC Yukon XL, Cadillac Escalade, Cadillac Escalade ESV, and Cadillac Escalade EXT. The Third Petition involves the following GMT900 vehicles:
• In Zone A, affected model year 2013 GMT900 vehicles. Zone A comprises the following states and U.S. territories: Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan), and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
• In Zone B, affected model year 2010 GMT900 vehicles. Zone B comprises the following states: Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
• In Zone C, affected model year 2009 GMT900 vehicles. Zone C comprises the following states: Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
GM's Third Petition relies on arguments, data, and analysis in its First and Second Petitions (and supplemental brief thereto), information submitted to the Agency during briefings with NHTSA, and additional arguments and engineering analysis as presented in the Third Petition.
According to the Third Petition, GM's position is based upon the following: field data, including GM's estimated 63,000 Takata passenger air bag inflator deployments in GMT900 vehicles without a reported rupture and ballistic tests of 4,205 covered passenger inflators without a rupture or sign of abnormal deployment, and results of the OATK study of inflators artificially exposed to additional humidity and temperature cycling without a rupture or abnormal deployment, and accompanying statistical interpretation of those results.
GM further states that the covered passenger inflators are not used by any other original equipment manufacturer and, further, that the covered inflators have a number of unique design features that influence burn rates and internal ballistic dynamics, including greater vent-area-to-propellant-mass ratios, steel end caps, and thinner propellant wafers.
This notice serves to make the public aware of GM's pending request to the agency and the period for public comment. Accordingly, it does not address the substantive claims, or legal arguments or interpretations, asserted by GM.
GM's Third Petition for Inconsequentiality involves newer model years of the same covered passenger inflators (
GM states it believes the evidence it has thus far presented “fully supports” the relief it requests in the Consolidated Petitions.
NHTSA's grant of GM's request to defer a decision on the First Petition until August 31, 2017 so that GM could provide additional evidence, including concluding the OATK study, was unprecedented. As NHTSA noted in granting that request, “[o]rdinarily, under 49 CFR 556.4(b)(5), an inconsequentiality petition must set forth all data, views, and arguments supporting that petition”
Accordingly, NHTSA hereby gives notice of its receipt of General Motors LLC's Petition for Inconsequentiality Regarding Certain GMT900 Vehicles Equipped with Takata “SPI YP” and “PSPI-L YD” Passenger Inflators Subject to January 2018 Takata Equipment DIR Filings. And it is hereby
1. The period for public comment on GM's Third Petition shall run from the publication date of this notice through May 9, 2018;
2. GM's Third Petition is consolidated with the First and Second Petitions; and
3. GM's request for a deferral of NHTSA's decision on its First, Second, and Third Petitions to March 31, 2018, is
49 U.S.C. 30101,
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
Notice of closed meeting of Art Advisory Panel.
Closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held in New York, NY.
The meeting will be held April 19, 2018.
The closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held at 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007.
Maricarmen Cuello, AP:SEPR:AAS, 51 SW 1st Avenue, Room 1014, Miami, FL 33130. Telephone (305) 982-5364 (not a toll free number).
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that a closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held at 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007.
The agenda will consist of the review and evaluation of the acceptability of fair market value appraisals of works of art involved in Federal income, estate, or gift tax returns. This will involve the discussion of material in individual tax returns made confidential by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103.
A determination as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act has been made that this meeting is concerned with matters listed in sections 552b(c)(3), (4), (6), and (7), of the Government in the Sunshine Act, and that the meeting will not be open to the public.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, May 8, 2018.
Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee will be held Tuesday, May 8, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Rosalind Matherne. For more information please contact Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:
The committee will be discussing Toll-free issues and public input is welcomed.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will conduct an open meeting and will solicit public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, May 15, 2018.
Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or (737) 800-4060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be held Tuesday, May 15, 2018, at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Gilbert Martinez. For more information please contact Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or (737) 800-4060, or write TAP Office 3651 S. IH-35, STOP 1005 AUSC, Austin, TX 78741, or post comments to the website:
The committee will be discussing various issues related to the Taxpayer
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, May 15, 2018.
Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-4110.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be held Tuesday, May 15, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Antoinette Ross. For more information please contact: Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-4110, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 1509, National Office, Washington, DC 20224, or contact us at the website:
The committee will be discussing various issues related to Taxpayer Communications and public input is welcome.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 30, 2018.
Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Wednesday, May 30, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. For more information please contact Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523, or write TAP Office 1114 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242-1021, or post comments to the website:
The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 16, 2018.
Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee will be held Wednesday, May 16, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Matthew O'Sullivan. For more information please contact Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274, or write TAP Office, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612-5217 or contact us at the website:
The agenda will include a discussion on various special topics with IRS processes.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 9, 2018.
Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, May 10, 2018.
Otis Simpson at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3332.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be held Thursday, May 10, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Otis Simpson. For more information please contact Otis Simpson at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3332, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:
The agenda will include a discussion on various letters, and other issues related to written communications from the IRS.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 8, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0178, in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through FDMS.
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
38 U.S.C. 3019.
By direction of the Secretary.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This action implements approved regulations for the New England Fishery Management Council's Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2. This rule revises essential fish habitat and habitat area of particular concern designations, revises or creates habitat management areas, including gear restrictions, to protect vulnerable habitat from fishing gear impacts, establishes dedicated habitat research areas, and implements several administrative measures related to reviewing these measures, as well as other regulatory adjustments to implement these measures. This action is necessary to comply with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to periodically review essential fish habitat designations and protections. The measures are designed to minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on essential fish habitat.
Effective April 9, 2018.
Copies of the Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2, including the Environmental Impact Statement, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EIS/RIR/IRFA) prepared by the New England Fishery Management Council in support of this action are available from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The supporting documents are also accessible via the internet at:
Moira Kelly, Senior Fishery Program Specialist, phone: 978-281-9218,
On January 3, 2018, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, approved the majority of the New England Fishery Management Council's recommendations for the Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2). This action implements the approved management measures in OHA2. NMFS approved all of the updated essential fish habitat designations (EFH), all of the recommended habitat area of particular concern (HAPC) designations, and the majority of the habitat management area (HMA) recommendations, all of the Dedicated Habitat Research Area (DHRA) recommendations, all of the seasonal spawning area recommendations, and both of the framework and administrative recommendations. Two Council recommendations were disapproved: (1) Establishment of The Cox Ledge HMA, which would prohibit hydraulic clam dredges and ground cables on trawl vessels; and (2) changes to the eastern Georges Bank Areas, as described in more detail below.
OHA2 was initiated in 2004 to review and update the EFH components of all the New England Fishery Management Council's fishery management plans (FMP). The Council established 10 goals and 14 objectives to guide the development of this action. Goals 1-8 were established in 2004 at the onset of the Amendment's development and focus on identification of EFH; fishing and non-fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH; and the development of measures and management programs to conserve, protect, and enhance EFH and to minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH. The additional goals (9 and 10) were developed after the Council voted to incorporate revisions to the groundfish closures in the Amendment. These goals are focused on enhancing groundfish productivity, including protection of spawning groundfish, and maximizing the societal net benefits from groundfish stocks.
The 14 objectives map to one or more of the Amendment's goals and provide more guidance on achieving each goal. For example, the objectives include identifying new data sources upon which to base the EFH designations (Objective A), developing analytical tools for EFH designation, minimization of adverse impacts, and monitoring the effectiveness of measures (Objective D; Goals 1, 3, and 5). Other objectives include modifying fishing methods to reduce impacts (Objective E; Goal 4), supporting the restoration of degraded habitat (Objective F; Goal 4), improving groundfish spawning protection, including protection of localized spawning contingents, and improving protection of critical groundfish habitats (Goals 9 and 10). Please see Volume 1, Section 3 of the EIS for more details on the goals and objectives of this Amendment.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” The EFH regulations (50 CFR part 600, subpart J) require councils to describe and identify EFH in text that clearly states the habitats or habitat types determined to be EFH for each life stage of a managed species and in maps that display the geographic locations of EFH or within which EFH for each species and life stage is found. Further, FMPs should explain the physical, biological, and chemical characteristics of EFH and, if known, how these characteristics influence the use of EFH for the species/life stage. The EFH regulations state that councils should periodically review the EFH provisions of FMPs and revise or amend as warranted, based on available information, and that a complete review of all EFH information should be conducted at least once every five years.
A full description of the approved EFH designations, including maps and text designations, can be found in Volume 2 of the EIS. In addition, a thorough discussion of the data sources and methods used to assemble the designations is provided in Appendix A to the EIS. Another appendix (Appendix B) includes supplementary EFH information (
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) highlight specific types or areas of habitat within EFH that are particularly vulnerable to human impacts. Evaluations of such areas should give special attention to adverse effects, including any HAPCs designated that are particularly vulnerable to fishing activity. An HAPC designation alone does not provide any specific habitat management measures, such as gear restrictions, and no new measures are implemented as part of the HAPC designations in this amendment. Management measures are discussed under “Spatial Management for Adverse Effects Minimization,” below.
HAPC designations are based on one or more of the following criteria: (1) The importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat, including both the historical and current ecological function; (2) the extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation; (3) whether, and to what extent, development activities are, or will be, stressing the habitat type; and (4) the rarity of the habitat type (50 CFR 600.815(a)(8)). The Council solicited and considered HAPC proposals from the public and added selection criteria, including whether the designation would improve fisheries management in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ); whether it included EFH for more than one Council-managed species or specifically for juvenile cod; and whether it met more than one of the regulatory HAPC criteria listed above. Discussion of the areas considered and the degree to which they satisfied the eight criteria can be found in Volume 2 of the EIS.
This action approves all of the Council's recommendations for HAPC, including the current Atlantic Salmon HAPC and the Northern Edge Juvenile Cod HAPC. In addition, the action approves the following areas as new HAPCs: Inshore Juvenile Cod HAPC; Great South Channel Juvenile Cod HAPC; Cashes Ledge HAPC; Jeffreys Ledge/Stellwagen Bank HAPC; Bear and Retriever Seamount HAPC; and 11 canyon/canyon complexes. Maps and coordinates for the HAPC designations can be found in Volume 2 of the EIS. A summary of the rationale for each designation (or set of designations) was provided in the proposed rule for this action (82 FR 51492; November 6, 2017) and further rationale is not repeated here. Detailed discussion of the rationale is also provided in Volume 2, Section 3 of the EIS.
As described in the EIS, the HAPCs are non-regulatory designations. The designations are intended to provide for increased attention when habitat protection measures are considered. HAPCs that are particularly vulnerable to the potential impacts from fishing warrant special attention when determining appropriate management measures to minimize, compensate, or avoid those impacts.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fishery management plans evaluate and minimize, to the extent practicable, the adverse effects of fishing on EFH. The evaluation should consider the effects of each fishing activity on each type of habitat found within EFH. Councils must prevent, mitigate, or minimize any adverse effects from fishing on EFH if there is evidence that a fishing activity adversely affects EFH in a manner that is more than minimal and not temporary in nature. Councils should consider the nature and extent of any adverse effects along with the long- and short-term costs and benefits of the management measures to EFH, associated fisheries, and the nation. A thorough description of the approach the Council took to achieve this requirement is provided in the proposed rule for this action and is not repeated here.
The approved and disapproved measures and a brief description of the rationale for the decision are included below. A thorough discussion of the other alternatives considered and the potential impacts, including economic impacts, from those alternatives are included in Volumes 3, 4, and 5 of the EIS. Coordinates and maps of all areas can be found in Volume 3 of the EIS.
• Establish the (Small) Eastern Maine Habitat Management Area (HMA), closed to mobile bottom-tending gear;
• Maintain Cashes Ledge (Groundfish) Closure Area, with current restrictions and exemptions;
• Modify the Cashes Ledge Habitat Closure Area, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear;
• Modify the Jeffreys Ledge Habitat Closure Area, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear;
• Establish the Ammen Rock HMA, closed to all fishing, except lobster traps;
• Establish the Fippennies Ledge HMA, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear;
• Maintain the Western Gulf of Maine Habitat Closure Area, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear;
• Modify the Western Gulf of Maine Groundfish Closure Area to align with the Western Gulf of Maine Habitat Closure Area, with current restrictions and exemptions;
• Exempt shrimp trawling from the designated portion of the northwest corner of the Western Gulf of Maine Closure Areas;
• Add the Gulf of Maine Roller Gear restriction as a habitat protection measure;
• Remove the Closed Area I Habitat and Groundfish Closure Area designations;
• Remove the Nantucket Lightship Habitat and Groundfish Closure Area designations; and
• Establish the Great South Channel HMA, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear throughout and clam dredge gear in the defined northeast section. Clam dredge gear would be permitted throughout the rest of the HMA for 1 year while the Council considers restrictions that are more refined.
The following recommendations were disapproved. Further rationale for disapproving these recommendations is included below in the “Georges Bank” and “Southern New England/Great South Channel” sections.
• The Cox Ledge HMA, which would have been closed to hydraulic clam dredges and prohibiting ground cables of trawl vessels;
• Removal of the Closed Area II Habitat and Groundfish Closure Areas;
• The Northern Edge Reduced Impact HMA, which would have been closed to mobile bottom-tending gears except groundfish vessels west of 67° 20′ W Longitude and scallop vessels fishing in a scallop rotational program;
• The Northern Edge Mobile Bottom-Tending Gear HMA, which would have been closed to mobile bottom-tending gear; and
• The Georges Shoal HMA, which would have been closed to mobile bottom-tending gear, except hydraulic clam dredges that would have been exempted for 1 year.
In the Eastern Gulf of Maine, this action establishes the Small Eastern Maine HMA, closed to all mobile bottom-tending gears. (Note, the regulations refer to this area as simply
In the Central Gulf of Maine, this rule maintains the existing Cashes Ledge Groundfish Closure Area and modifies the existing Jeffreys Bank and Cashes Ledge Habitat Closure Areas, with their current fishing restrictions and exemptions; establishes the Fippennies Ledge HMA, closed to mobile bottom-tending gears; and establishes the Ammen Rock HMA, closed to all fishing except lobster traps.
This combination of measures is appropriate for this region. Maintaining the existing Cashes Ledge Groundfish Closure Area supports the goals and objectives of improving groundfish productivity, with no additional economic burdens on the industry. Maintaining this closure will also ensure that a more diverse array of bottom habitats that support a greater variety of species remain protected from fishing impacts.
The other actions in this sub-region are modifications to the existing Cashes Ledge and Jeffreys Bank habitat closures. These modifications were designed to more closely align with the location of the shallower, hard-bottom habitats and to increase fishery access to the deeper, less vulnerable mud and sand habitats that surround the ledges. Ammen Rock on top of Cashes Ledge is a unique feature within the Gulf of Maine and features kelp forest habitat that would benefit from enhanced protection, which is why there are additional management restrictions in that area. Fippennies Ledge is an additional hard bottom feature within the Cashes Ledge Groundfish Closure Area that would be protected by maintaining the existing groundfish closure. However, should the Cashes Ledge Groundfish Closure Area be modified or removed at some point in the future when groundfish stocks have recovered and the closure is no longer required, Fippennies Ledge still warrants protection from the adverse effects of mobile bottom-tending gear. In terms of habitat protection and benefits to groundfish resources, the approved measures are high relative to other alternatives in this sub-region and the economic impacts are slightly more positive than the current measures.
In the Western Gulf of Maine, this action maintains the existing Western Gulf of Maine Habitat Closure Area, closed to mobile bottom-tending gears, and modifies the eastern boundary of the Western Gulf of Maine [Groundfish] Closure Area to align with the habitat closure area, while maintaining the current fishing restrictions and requirements. This rule also creates an exemption area within the northwest corner of those closures for shrimp trawls and designates the existing Roller Gear Restricted Area requirements as a habitat protection measure.
The EIS describes the Council's rationale for these areas in detail. In summary, these areas were selected to maintain decades' worth of protections in this region, while modestly increasing fishing access to the eastern edge of the area. The shrimp exemption was designed to minimize the economic impact on a fleet whose gear has minimal habitat impact. The roller gear restriction has been required for several years and was originally implemented through Framework Adjustment 27 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan to minimize cod mortality by preventing trawl gear from fishing over rocky substrate. As such, it has been a de facto habitat protection measure and the Council wanted to note it formally as such.
These measures are expected to have the same level of positive impacts on habitat and groundfish resources as the existing closures, with the same economic benefits.
On Georges Bank, the Council recommended removing the year-round and habitat closures of Closed Areas I and II and replacing them with three new areas: (1) The Georges Shoal 2 HMA, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear, with a 1-year delay in closure to hydraulic clam dredges; (2) the Northern Edge Reduced Impact HMA, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear, with two exceptions described below; and (3) the Northern Edge Mobile Bottom-Tending Gear HMA, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear without any exceptions. Exemptions to the Reduced Impact HMA would have allowed scallop dredge fishing under the scallop rotational area program, and trawl fishing to the west of the existing western boundary of Closed Area II (67° 20′ W long.), in what is now the Eastern Georges Bank Special Access Program. In addition, any portions of the Closed Area II groundfish closed area north of 41° 30′ N lat. would have been closed to scallop fishing between June 15 and October 31 of each year. Volume 3 of the EIS describes the Council's rationale in detail.
We approved a portion of this recommendation. The Council considered Closed Areas I and II in the same sub-region and included recommendations in the same alternative. However, the two closed areas are substantially distinct in their scope, nature, and impacts, and; therefore, changes to either area may be assessed independently. Whether the HMAs recommended by the Council meet the goals and objectives of the Amendment and Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements may also be assessed independently. The Closed Area I Groundfish Closure, which encompasses the Closed Area I North and South Habitat Closures, and a central portion that has long been part of the scallop access area program, is generally less vulnerable to the adverse effects of fishing than areas of Georges Bank to the north and east. This action establishes the Closed Area I South Habitat Closure as a DHRA (see # 6 below), which will be closed to mobile bottom-tending gears for at least 3 years and could be opened after a review of the research activities in the area. Closed Area I North Habitat Closure becomes a seasonal closure from February 1 to April 15, closed to commercial and recreational gears capable of catching groundfish except scallop dredges. (See #5 below.) The removal of the Closed Area I designations and proposed new designations do not compromise the ability of the Council's FMPs to comply with the EFH requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The changes the Council proposed would have opened an area that has been closed to mobile bottom-tending fishing gear for over 20 years. This would have allowed rotational scallop dredge fishing along the northern edge of Georges Bank. A portion of the Northern Edge Reduced Impact HMA
The Council's recommended areas on Georges Bank do not sufficiently address the impact of limited access scallop dredging on the highly vulnerable habitat within the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area. Overall, the changes the Council recommended to Closed Area II and eastern Georges Bank are inconsistent with the Amendment's goals and objectives of improving juvenile groundfish habitat protection and the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to minimize the adverse effects of fishing to the extent practicable. Furthermore, the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area has the same footprint as the Northern Edge Juvenile Cod HAPC. The area has been closed to mobile bottom-tending gear since 1995 and designated as an HAPC since 1998. The Council reaffirmed that designation in this Amendment, but the recommendation the Council had made does not avoid, minimize, or compensate for the adverse effects of this action on this HAPC.
Based on the factors analyzed in the Amendment, the quality of the habitat in the current Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area is considered much higher than the habitat in the proposed Georges Shoal HMA and higher than in the proposed Northern Edge Mobile Bottom-Tending Gear Closure Area. The Council's EIS supporting the Amendment describes the size, habitat content (sand/mud vs. gravel, cobble, boulder), and the results of an EFH overlap analysis, allowing us to compare the relative EFH “value” across areas. The EFH overlap analyses were done to show the extent to which the EFH designations for individual managed species overlap within each habitat management area the Council considered. This type of analysis favors larger areas and was done using several categories, as follows: Total number of EFH designations; EFH for overfished species; EFH for species/life stages with a known affinity for complex substrate; juvenile hotspots; and the count of unique species and designations.
The proposed Georges Shoal HMA ranks at or near the bottom of the analysis in almost every measure of EFH coverage, despite its much larger size, meaning far fewer managed species and life stages utilize this area. Of the 49 areas considered across all sub-regions, the Georges Shoal HMA ranks between 36th and 47th, depending on the measure; in contrast, the Closed Area II EFH area ranks between 8th and 27th in the same analysis. Among the 16 alternatives considered for the Georges Bank sub-region, the Georges Shoal HMA is the sixth largest, but last or almost last in each of the EFH overlap scores. The Georges Shoal HMA is sandier and more shallow, and, therefore, less vulnerable to fishing impacts, than Closed Area II, making it a much less efficient closure. The Northern Edge Mobile Bottom-Tending Gear HMA that had been proposed ranks in the lower half of almost every metric as well (from 7-12 out of 16), despite being a similar size to the existing Closed Area II EFH closure. The Northern Edge Reduced Impact HMA that had been proposed, where scallop fishing would have been allowed on a rotational basis, represents the most complex habitat and ranks in the upper half of each EFH metric (3-7 out of 16), despite its much smaller size.
Removing protections from, and allowing scallop dredging in, the most vulnerable portion of Closed Area II compromises the ability of the Council's FMPs to continue to meet the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH throughout the region and prevents the Council from achieving this action's goals and objectives. The potential benefits to habitat from the areas the Council had proposed to close do not outweigh the potential adverse effects on highly valuable EFH and vulnerable groundfish stocks that would result from opening the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area to limited access scallop dredging.
In addition to the quality and importance of the habitat on eastern Georges Bank, the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area is also the Northern Edge Juvenile Cod HAPC. As noted above, the Council initially made this designation in 1998 and reaffirmed the importance of the area in this Amendment. One of the four considerations for HAPC designation is sensitivity to anthropogenic stress. The Council concluded that there are “no known anthropogenic threats to this area beyond those associated with fishing activity.” While there are no fishery restrictions associated with HAPC designations themselves, the designation should result in the Council taking a more precautionary approach to management of those areas, particularly when the only noted human-induced stress is fishing. The final rule for the EFH regulations (67 FR 2343; January 17, 2002) notes, “. . . designation of HAPCs is a valuable way to highlight priority areas within EFH for conservation and management . . . Proposed fishing activities that might threaten HAPCs may likewise receive a higher level of scrutiny.” This guidance suggests that councils should prioritize the protection of HAPCs where fishing is a primary or significant threat to the habitat.
The Council's recommendations in this Amendment would have opened the most vulnerable portions of the HAPC without closing other comparable habitat. The Council did not adequately explain its reasons for concluding that this HAPC should be opened to fishing or how the other areas adequately mitigated or compensated for the impacts of fishing in this area. The Council's recommendation to allow even rotational fishing in this sensitive habitat is inconsistent with its own rationale for the designation that the habitat in this area warrants particular concern and consideration. The Council also did not explain the conditions for allowing fishing in this area that would sufficiently minimize adverse effects. For these reasons, we disapproved the recommendations to remove the Closed Area II Habitat and Groundfish Closure Areas and replace them with the areas described above.
While disapproving the Council's recommendation for eastern Georges Bank will continue to result in lost opportunity costs for the scallop industry, approved changes to current area closures will provide substantial new economic opportunity for the scallop fishery. The Council currently estimates that access into the Closed Area I and Nantucket Lightship areas that were previously closed could increase scallop revenue by $140-$160 million in the next year (based on preliminary information in Scallop Framework Adjustment 29). The Council may choose to revisit habitat management on eastern Georges Bank in a subsequent action that could address the reasons for disapproval.
This rule establishes the Great South Channel HMA. The northeast corner of the HMA (12.5 percent of the area) will be closed to all mobile bottom-tending gears. The effective date of the closure will be delayed by 1 year for hydraulic clam dredges throughout the remainder of the area. The Council considered the unique fishing practices in the surfclam fishery. Based on this information, the Council is working to identify sub-areas
Throughout the development of the action, the Council's technical team expressed concern that the ground cable restriction measures would not minimize the habitat impacts of fishing. NMFS reiterated these concerns several times throughout the development of OHA2 management measures. Ground cables account for a significant portion of a bottom trawl's seabed impact. However, the sediment clouds they create “herd” fish toward the opening of the net. The gear modifications that had been proposed would have reduced the effectiveness of the gear and, in all likelihood, cause vessels to fish longer in order to compensate for reduced catch rates. No studies of the trade-offs between reduced impacts of ground cable removal and the duration or frequency of bottom trawl tows were cited in the EIS for OHA2. As a result, we disapproved this recommendation.
The approved recommendation of the Great South Channel HMA is a compromise between the larger Great South Channel East HMA (identified in the EIS as Alternative 3), located further to the east, and the slightly smaller Nantucket Shoals HMA (identified in the EIS as Alternative 5), located further to the west, closer to Nantucket Island. Bottom habitats in these areas are a mixture of less stable sand and more stable gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates and support fisheries for groundfish, clams, and scallops. The two most significant fisheries in the area are for surfclams and scallops. Scallop dredging is almost entirely restricted to deeper water along the western side of the Great South Channel and to an area east of Cape Cod. Clam dredging occurs in a large area of mixed bottom types in shallower water to the west. While the Council recognized the likelihood of negative economic impacts of these alternatives on the clam fishery, they were also concerned about the negative effects of hydraulic dredges on complex habitats occurring in the region. The discussion and development of more discrete exemption areas is currently occurring in a separate framework adjustment action.
This action also establishes two HAPCs in this sub-region. The Inshore Juvenile Cod HAPC includes waters off the Massachusetts coast to 20 m deep, and overlaps slightly with the Nantucket Shoals and Nantucket Shoals West HMAs. The Great South Channel Juvenile Cod HAPC includes additional waters north and east of the HMAs to a depth of 120 m and partially overlaps the Great South Channel HMA in this sub-region. No management measures were applied specifically to these areas; however, they are designated as HAPCs primarily because they are vulnerable to adverse anthropogenic impacts from non-fishing activities.
Results of the habitat impact analyses in the EIS indicated that the approved measures are expected to have positive habitat impacts compared to leaving the habitat and groundfish closures in the Nantucket Lightship area in place, even with the 1-year delay in closure for clam dredges in most of the area. Impacts to groundfish resources will be approximately the same for both the existing and new measures. The new measures will have a slightly negative economic impact on the groundfish fishery; approximately 1 percent of the total groundfish revenue from the statistical areas covered by the closure are expected to be impacted by this measure. A highly negative economic impact on the clam fishery after the 1-year delay expires would be expected, before more discrete exemption areas are approved and implemented.
The Council has considered how to most effectively manage fishing during the spawning periods of key fish in several actions. During the development of this Amendment, the Council recommended, and NMFS implemented, several modifications to spawning protections for cod and other groundfish through Framework Adjustments 45 and 53. Because these measures were implemented prior to the completion of OHA2, there was much debate over what should be done in this action. Ultimately, the Council recommended, and this action implements, a few minor additional protections to what is required currently.
In the Gulf of Maine, this action establishes two new, relatively small, cod spawning protections. They include the Winter Massachusetts Bay Spawning Closure, which will be in effect from November 1-January 31 of each year. During the closure, the area will be closed to all fishing vessels, with the same exemptions as the existing Gulf of Maine Cod Spawning Protection Area (
Because the Council's recommendation to remove the Closed Area II Groundfish Closure Area in Georges Bank was disapproved, the current year-round restrictions and exemptions remain in effect. Should the Council revisit habitat management on Georges Bank, and recommend the removal of the Closed Area II closure areas, a seasonal restriction would be in place for Closed Area II Groundfish Closure Area and the Closed Area I North Habitat Closed Area from February 1-April 15. During the closure season, the areas will be closed to all commercial and recreational vessels, except those that are transiting, fishing with exempted gears, participating in the mid-water trawl exempted fishery, and fishing with scallop dredges, unless otherwise prohibited elsewhere.
This action removes the May Georges Bank Spawning Closure. Sector vessels are exempted from this seasonal closure, rendering it virtually non-existent. Removing the closure should minimally reduce the administrative burden for sectors, as they will no longer have to request this exemption.
In order to highlight research needs, particularly relating to evaluating the assumptions of the Swept Area Seabed Impact (SASI) model that the Council used as the basis for HMA development, this rule establishes two Dedicated Habitat Research Areas (DHRA), which will be in effect for 3 years, at which time the Regional Administrator will
This action establishes the Georges Bank DHRA (footprint is the same as the existing Closed Area I South Habitat Closure) and the Stellwagen DHRA (footprint within the existing Western Gulf of Maine Habitat Closure). The Georges Bank DHRA is closed to all mobile bottom-tending gear. The Stellwagen DHRA is closed to all commercial mobile bottom-tending gear, commercial sink gillnet gear, and commercial demersal longline gear. Maps and coordinates of the approved DHRAs can be found in Volume 3 of the EIS.
The designation or removal of HMAs and changes to fishing restrictions within HMAs may be considered in a framework adjustment. In addition, this action establishes a review process to evaluate the performance of habitat and spawning protection measures. Finally, this action establishes a process for the Council to identify and periodically revise research priorities to improve habitat and spawning area monitoring.
This rule implements measures for all of the approved measures. In order to improve clarity of the habitat-related management measures, we have reorganized § 648.81 to refer solely to year-round and seasonal closures designed for purposes of groundfish protection. All habitat-related measures, including the newly approved and existing HMAs and their accompanying regulatory text, the DHRAs and their accompanying text, and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Deep-Sea Coral Protection area can be found in a new subpart (subpart Q). In addition, the Council stated that all areas currently closed to scallop dredging should remain closed upon the implementation of OHA2 so that the Scallop Committee can better incorporate newly opened areas in the rotational management program. The existing EFH closures currently reside in both the groundfish (§ 648.81) and scallop (§ 648.61) regulations. This action adds the groundfish closed areas that would otherwise be removed by this action to the scallop closure section (§ 648.61) to ensure that the restrictions on scallop fishing remain in place until a subsequent scallop action can modify them. The decisions related to scallop fishing year 2018 access are being implemented via Framework Adjustment 29 to the Atlantic Scallop FMP. The regulations also update cross-references and definitions as needed. The Council deemed the regulations as necessary and appropriate, as required in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, on March 28, 2017.
As described above, the differences from the proposed rule relate to the recommended measures that were disapproved by NMFS. Closed Area II Habitat Closure regulations will be reassigned to the new habitat management section in Subpart Q, while the Closed Area II Groundfish Closure Area will remain codified in § 648.81. Cross-references from other sections have also been updated to reflect these changes.
The Notice of Availability for this Amendment was published on October 6, 2017 (82 FR 46749), and the proposed rule was published on November 5, 2017 (82 FR 51492). The comment periods for both ended on December 5, 2017. In total, 72 comments were received; many of these comments were submitted on behalf of environmental or fishing organizations or businesses. Seventeen of the comments were not relevant to the issues under discussion in this action and were nominally about the commenter(s) concerns regarding global climate change. Those comments are not addressed here.
We disagree that opening a portion of the Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area is inconsistent with the current restriction on recreational anglers. The Council manages Gulf of Maine cod with an overall annual catch limit (ACL) and distinct sub-ACLs for various aspects of the fishery. We believe this system is sufficient to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. Specific management measures are developed to address the unique nature of both the commercial and recreational fisheries. The commercial fleet is primarily managed using a sector system, which further allocates the commercial sub-ACL to fishing sectors. The recreational sub-ACL is managed by setting an open fishing season, minimum fish size, and possession limit for the recreational and for-hire sectors that will prevent the sub-ACL from being exceeded.
The approved measures would reduce the area protected by about 25 percent; however, the area remaining closed has more vulnerable habitat than the area being opened. As described in the EIS, measures implemented by this rule will have a positive impact on groundfish, albeit slightly less beneficial than the status quo. Overall, however, NMFS determined that the collective measures in the Gulf of Maine represent an improvement to groundfish protections.
The Great South Channel HMA is being approved with the clam dredge exemption, contrary to the recommendations in some of these comments. The area covered by the Great South Channel HMA is currently open to fishing, including by hydraulic clam dredges, scallop dredges, and groundfish trawls. The majority of the area would be open only to clam dredges for 1 year while the Council attempts to develop more specific exemption areas. The Council notes that hydraulic clam dredges are capable of fishing in discrete areas of less vulnerable habitat around more complex structure. If, in the coming year, the Council is unable to develop a solution that effectively minimizes the adverse effects of fishing in this area while minimizing the economic impacts to the clam fishery, the exemption will expire, and hydraulic clam dredges would be prohibited throughout the HMA.
On Georges Bank, we partially agree with the recommendations to leave Closed Areas I and II as they are now. We are implementing the Council's recommendation to remove the Closed Area I groundfish and habitat closed area designations, but we are also implementing a seasonal spawning closure for Closed Area I North and a DHRA closed to mobile bottom-tending gear in Closed Area I South. We have disapproved the Council's recommendation for Closed Area II for the reasons described in the preamble of this rule.
TNC expressed concerns with new habitat closed areas on Georges Bank and framework provisions that establish a pathway to allow exemptions for hydraulic clam dredge gear in habitat closed areas. Specifically, TNC is opposed to the Council's recommendation on Georges Bank, citing their Weighted Persistence Analysis, which is an analysis and that it supports the concerns noted by NMFS in the proposed rule. TNC also opposes the exemption for hydraulic clam dredges and suggests that a workshop should be held to review very high-resolution data to identify exemption areas that would be compatible with requirements to prevent adverse impacts of fishing. The letter contends that the TNC analysis showed that, apart from the Northern Edge Reduced Impact HMA, the Council recommended management measures are not located in high habitat value areas. According to TNC, this verifies the concerns the Agency expressed regarding the Georges Bank area in its request for comments. Because TNC feels that the proposed management measures for Georges Bank do not protect high value habitat, they strongly recommended that NMFS disapprove these provisions.
Further, as TNC wrote in its comments in 2015, surfclam/ocean quahog vessel monitoring system data show that this fishery, while largely concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic and Southern New England regions, is active in the Great South Channel, off Cape Cod, and on Georges Bank. TNC also asserts that hydraulic surfclam gear is highly destructive to structured habitats, and has a lesser impact in high-energy sand habitats. TNC suggests that a collaborative workshop process informed by very high-resolution spatial data could be used to identify exemption areas that would be compatible with requirements to prevent adverse impacts of fishing.
The Fishermen's Alliance also expressed strong support for the removal of the Nantucket Lightship and Closed Area I closures, noting the significance of the areas to the small boat scallop fishery (
The Council took issue with how the preamble of the proposed rule implied that scallop fishing in the Reduced Impact HMA would be unlimited, contending that while the Council was not prescriptive about how rotational scallop fisheries on the northern edge might be conducted, this statement ignores the eighteen years of successful rotational sea scallop management since Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP) formally adopted the approach. The Council also expressed concern that the preamble misconstrues the economic analysis in Volume 5 of the EIS with regard to the scallop fishery loss of opportunity versus realized costs. The Council states that they are confident that rational rotational management can be conducted on the northern edge while minimizing the adverse effects of fishing.
Finally, the Council responded to the concern that it did not give due consideration to the northern edge's status as an HAPC when deciding on measures to minimize adverse effects. The rationale for the HAPC given in the EIS notes that complex gravel habitats, especially those with structure-forming epifauna, provide cover for juvenile cod, reducing predation during a critical life history stage that may be a bottleneck for this species.
We disagree that the restrictions on gears capable of catching groundfish are unnecessary in the Western Gulf of Maine and Cashes Ledge groundfish closure areas and that these areas were not intended to support the Council's stated goals of improving protection of critical life stages, including spawning groundfish. In advance of the April 2015 Council meeting, where a motion was made to continue the protections on Cashes Ledge, NMFS advised the Council that the Council's goal of “improving” juvenile groundfish habitat protections would not likely be achieved without the Cashes Ledge Closure Area, particularly in combination with the reduced groundfish protections from the Western Gulf of Maine.
NMFS staff reviewed the audio recording of the April 2015 Council meeting in response to this comment. It is clear from that recording that the maker of the adopted motion for the Central Gulf of Maine made the recommendation in response to the Regional Administrator's letter dated April 14, 2015, noting our concerns relating to the Habitat Committee's recommendations in light of the Gulf of Maine cod stock status. This letter stated specifically “there is insufficient information in the record to show that the Committee's recommended preferred alternative improves juvenile groundfish habitat protections and would likely fail to meet the Council's stated goals and objectives.” We agree that the Council discussion on the motion was clear that the intention was for cod protection given its current status, and that when the cod is considered healthy, the Council should consider the utility of the Cashes Ledge Closure Area under those conditions. NMFS would support a review of this area, as well as the Western Gulf of Maine Groundfish Closure measures, when cod and other groundfish stocks are rebuilt. The Council can revisit the overall objectives and collection of management measures in the Northeast Multispecies FMP as stock conditions change. This review should include all measures that have been implemented or maintained in support of rebuilding stocks that may no longer be necessary when stocks recover.
AFM supported the proposal to align the eastern boundary of the Western Gulf of Maine Groundfish Closure Area with the Western Gulf of Maine Habitat Closure Area, as well as the exemption to allow shrimp trawls in the northwest portion of the area. AFM did not support maintaining the current groundfish restrictions in the Western Gulf of Maine Closure Areas, noting that groundfish mortality objectives are met through annual catch limits and accountability measures, and the use of fixed gear to target groundfish (as is allowed for recreational fishing) would not negatively affect any habitat objectives for this area.
AFM supported removal of the Closed Area I and II Groundfish Closure Areas. AFM contends that the proposed exceptions to the Northern Edge should include all mobile tending bottom gear. AFM asserted that the groundfish trawl fleet with the capacity to fish offshore has been greatly reduced by low annual catch limits, and therefore the intensity and frequency of trawl access to the Northern Edge would be minimal. AFM also supported the proposal for seasonal spawning closures on Georges Bank.
The Conservation NGOs' letter contends that OHA2 and its EIS fail to recognize the ecological importance of minimizing the impacts of fishing on EFH and actions are inconsistent with the OHA2's goals and related legal requirements. The Conservation NGOs contend that the management attention and analytical approaches on the vulnerable complex benthic habitats is too narrowly focused and does not acknowledge the potential for adverse effects to sandy or mud bottoms or the water column from fishing. The Conservation NGOs argue that this is a major deficiency of the Amendment from a Magnuson-Stevens Act, NEPA, and ESA perspective. This letter argues that the statutory task is not limited to minimizing the physical impacts of fishing gears on hard, complex benthic areas to which the bulk of the analysis in the EIS has been focused.
Practicability does not mean to the extent possible. NMFS disagrees with the assertion that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires any EFH protection that is possible. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires minimizing adverse fishing impacts to the extent practicable. NMFS agrees that this consideration includes what is feasible. But feasible means that which is capable of being done. “What is capable” is determined by an analysis and consideration of of the nature and extent of the adverse effect from fishing on EFH and the long- and short-term costs and benefits of potential management measures to EFH, associated fisheries, and the nation.
The Conservation NGOs do not provide any information that was overlooked that would have better informed the Council's actions or our decision. Nor do they provide information that contradicts our decision. The groups specifically point to the Bigelow Bight areas designed by the CATT as an example that would have better informed the Council's decision if it were included within the range of alternatives. However, a large version of that area was incorporated in Western Gulf of Maine Alternatives 3 and 4, and a smaller version was in Western Gulf of Maine Alternative 5. Some of the CATT areas in the Western Gulf of Maine extended into state waters, and the Council determined it would be inappropriate and ineffective to implement closures in state waters
The SASI model that was used as a first step in identifying potential HMAs included an analysis of the effects of fixed gears, such as lobster traps, and concluded that those impacts are minimal. For this reason, they were not considered when developing gear management options in OHA2. As described in the response to Comment #15, NMFS determined that the impacts to non-rocky habitats were addressed appropriately. Further, the Council analyzed and selected preferred alternatives partly based on output from the SASI model as well as information from a number of other sources, not just the vulnerability scores from the model. We are not sure what is meant by “all the adverse environmental effects to EFH associated with the alternatives.” The only effect the Council is obligated to minimize is adverse impacts from fishing. To the extent that these effects are mitigated by natural disturbance factors, these were considered by the Council and NMFS in selecting and approving final HMA alternatives.
The letter also argues that it is inconsistent with statutory purposes and the goals and objectives of the Amendment to reduce the size of the existing Cashes Ledge Habitat Closure area by 27 percent. In addition, the commenters suggest that the Council's proposed action in this sub-region was based in part on poor quality substrate data and a reliance on “general knowledge,” particularly in regard to the extent of rocky bottom in the vicinity of Cashes Ledge and the predominance of muddy substrate in the deeper portions of the Cashes Ledge Closure Area. Re-designating current groundfish closures as habitat closures and expanding the existing protections for the Cashes Ledge Closure Area to include all gears would also represent an appropriate precautionary approach in light of the lack of survey data available for this area and the severely depleted status of Gulf of Maine cod.
NMFS does not agree that this area should be designated as an HMA in order to prohibit all commercial fishing activity, including mid-water gillnets and trawls. Mid-water gears are not designed or intended to contact the bottom and do not impact marine habitats in any significant way so there is no need to prohibit their use in this area. In addition, the analysis in the EIS indicates that the Cashes Ledge HMA could be reduced in size without compromising the habitat protection benefits of the closure. NMFS agrees, and is implementing the Council's recommendation to modify the HMA on Cashes Ledge. NMFS agrees that substrate and resource survey data quality is poor in the central Gulf of Maine, but is convinced that the Council made the best possible use of available scientific information and did not make any unjustifiable decisions when selecting preferred alternatives in this sub-region.
NMFS disagrees that that the exemption for shrimp trawls in the northwest corner of the closed area negatively impact the protective measures of the closures. Shrimp trawls are not allowed to have ground cables; they are used in deeper, muddy bottom habitats; and are equipped with a grate to reduce the catch of juvenile groundfish. Furthermore, the shrimp resource is currently in very poor shape to the extent that fishing has been completely or severely restricted in recent years.
Further, the letter notes that there is little, if any, social or economic cost to continuing the closed habitat areas on Georges Bank because these areas have
Further, unlike the Northern Edge HAPC, the Great South Channel Juvenile Cod HAPC is vulnerable to non-fishing impacts, as well as fishing impacts. The Council considered the HAPC and how to mitigate or compensate for adverse fishing impacts. NMFS determined that the Council's approach to overlaying fishing restrictions on the substantial amount of complex, gravel, cobble, and boulder habitat within the HMA, but outside of the HAPC, is an appropriate approach in this area, rather than simply relying on the boundaries of the HAPC to dictate where the HMA protections should be.
FSF notes that the Magnuson-Stevens Act allows actions for habitat management only within a “practicability” standard, and requires FMPs only to avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse impacts to habitat from fishing, and that the Council's recommendations properly weighed these mandates in choosing preferred alternatives from the many options available. That is, the letter contends the Council's recommendations balanced a comprehensive and strategic approach to protecting the improvement of fish habitat in New England with economic benefits to fisheries communities and the achievement of optimum yield.
However, this is not likely to happen in the region affected by this action. With the exception of the clam fishery operating in proposed habitat management area east of Nantucket, none of the new HMAs that were approved are located in areas where there is much mobile bottom-tending gear fishing activity that could be displaced into vulnerable habitat areas. Hydraulic clam dredge vessels that fish here are likely to shift into nearby, less vulnerable sandy habitats in the current Nantucket Lightship Habitat Management Area (which will open because of OHA2) if and when they are required to stop fishing in the new Great South Channel HMA. In general, any vessel that is forced to leave a recently closed area is more likely to move into an area that is already being fished rather than a new undisturbed area, in which case the effects of the additional effort will have little added impact on the quality of bottom habitats. In this more likely scenario, the habitat benefits of prohibiting fishing in a closed area would exceed the habitat losses caused by additional bottom contact in an open area.
We agree that it is important to evaluate the benefits of spatial habitat management measures across individual groundfish stocks and that the effects of these alternatives on the Georges Bank cod stock in the Great South Channel and Georges Bank sub-region was not explicitly weighed against each other in this action. Nevertheless, this action includes the goal of improving groundfish protections overall. Because the Georges Bank cod stock is in such poor condition, protection for juvenile cod in both the Great South Channel and on the northern edge of Georges Bank is a positive element of this action. Improving benefits to the Georges Bank stock of cod is best achieved by approving the Great South Channel HMA and disapproving the proposed HMA in Closed Area II. Further, the rationale for the Council's proposals on eastern Georges Bank does not adequately justify allowing an increase in adverse effects from fishing on an HAPC that was designated specifically because of its vulnerability to fishing.
The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, determined that the approved portions of OHA2 are necessary for the conservation and management of the New England Fishery Management Council's fishery management plans and that the final rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
The Council prepared a final environmental impact statement for the Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2. The EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on October 18, 2017. A notice of availability was published on October 27, 2017 (82 FR 49802). In approving the amendment on January 3, 2018, NMFS issued a Record of Decision (ROD) identifying the selected alternative. A copy of the ROD is available from NMFS (see
This rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866. Thus, this final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. For the reasons stated earlier regarding updated scallop biomass information, in the accompanying EIS, and “Description of Methods and Supplemental Analysis of Economic Benefits of OHA2,” we anticipate this rule will result in additional harvest opportunities.
Congressional Review Act: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is major under 5 U.S.C. 801
This rule does not contain policies with Federalism, as defined in E.O. 13132, or “takings,” as clarified in E.O. 12630.
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) establishes procedural requirements applicable to rulemaking by Federal agencies. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure public access to the Federal rulemaking process and to give the public opportunity for comment as well as adequate notice. Because this rule opens some areas that are currently closed, those portions of the regulations are relieving restrictions and, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), are not subject to the APA's requirement for a 30-day delay in effectiveness.
Additionally, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for the remainder of the rule's provisions because such a delay is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The delayed effectiveness is intended to provide adequate time for the affected public to comply with the new regulations. Because this rule is being implemented at the start of the fishing year when these types of changes are typically implemented and expected, there is minimal effort or time needed for vessel owners to come into compliance with the new measures, which generally only requires updating navigation systems to identify the new areas. In addition, fishermen are accustomed to adjusting to changes in available fishing areas.
Implementing the measures at the start of the fishing provide allows the fishing industry the maximum amount of time to fish in newly available areas. As such, the delay in effectiveness is unnecessary to allow sufficient time for vessel owners to comply with the new structure. Further, because NMFS's partial approval of the Council's recommendations was announced in early January, the affected public,
Although this rule does impose new restrictions in that certain areas previously opened will be closed, the overall impact of the measures being implemented is a reduction in management restrictions in the majority of the areas considered. Particularly significant is the removal of Closed Area I and the Nantucket Lightship Closure Areas that will allow the scallop fishery, via Scallop Framework Adjustment 29, to establish access areas and allocations that are projected to result in an additional $140-160 million in potential fishing revenue for the scallop fishery in the coming year. The regulated entities will benefit far more from these provisions that lift restrictions going into immediate effect, than they would be disadvantaged by the waiver of the 30-day delay for the aspects of the rule that impose restrictions. Even in areas that are resulting in new closures, the impacts are minimal because the Eastern Maine HMA closure is not expected to have any immediate impact on mobile bottom-tending gear fishing; the hydraulic clam dredge fishery is
A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared for this action. The FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council (see
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as a small entity compliance guide was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), and the guide,
A statement of the necessity for and for the objectives of this action are contained in the Omnibus Amendment EIS, Volume 1, and in the preamble to this final rule, and is not repeated here.
No significant issues relative to the IRFA were raised in the public comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business as one that is:
• Independently owned and operated;
• Not dominant in its field of operation;
• Has annual receipts that do not exceed—
○ $20.5 million in the case of commercial finfish harvesting entities (NAIC
○ $5.5 million in the case of commercial shellfish harvesting entities (NAIC 114112)
○ $7.5 million in the case of for-hire fishing entities (NAIC 114119); or
• Has fewer than—
○ 750 employees in the case of fish processors
○ 100 employees in the case of fish dealers.
This rule affects commercial and recreational fish harvesting entities engaged in fisheries throughout New England that utilize bottom-trawls (large and small mesh), longlines, rod and reel, gillnets, pots and traps, scallop dredges, and hydraulic clam dredges. The gears primarily affected by this action are two non-mutually exclusive fishing operations: Fishermen using gears capable of catching groundfish and fishermen using mobile bottom-tending gears. Individually permitted vessels may hold permits for several fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are regulated by several different FMPs. Furthermore, multiple-permitted vessels and/or permits may be owned by entities affiliated by stock ownership, common management, identity of interest, contractual relationships, or economic dependency. For the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, the ownership entities, not the individual vessels, are considered the regulated entities.
Ownership entities are defined as those entities with common ownership personnel as listed on the permit application. Only permits with identical ownership personnel are categorized as an ownership entity. For example, if five permits have the same seven persons listed as co-owners on their permit application, those seven persons would form one ownership entity that holds those five permits. If two of those seven owners also co-own additional vessels, these two persons would be considered a separate ownership entity.
On June 1 of each year, NMFS identifies ownership entities based on a list of all permits for the most recent complete calendar year. The current ownership dataset used for this analysis was created based on calendar year 2014 and contains average gross sales associated with those permits for calendar years 2012 through 2014.
In addition to classifying a business (ownership entity) as small or large, a business can also be classified by its primary source of revenue. A business is defined as being primarily engaged in fishing for finfish if it obtains greater than 50 percent of its gross sales from sales of finfish. Similarly, a business is defined as being primarily engaged in fishing for shellfish if it obtains greater than 50 percent of its gross sales from sales of shellfish.
A description of the specific permits that are likely to be affected by this action is provided below, along with a discussion of the impacted businesses, which can include multiple vessels and/or permit types.
NMFS issued a final rule establishing a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA compliance purposes only (80 FR 81194; December 29, 2015). The $11 million standard became effective on July 1, 2016, and is intended to be used in place of the SBA's current standards of $20.5 million, $5.5 million, and $7.5 million for the finfish (NAICS 114111), shellfish (NAICS 114112), and other marine fishing (NAICS 114119) sectors, respectively, of the U.S. commercial fishing industry.
The Council took final action on OHA2 in June 2015, and the analyses in support of this action were developed throughout the decision process and following the Council's action, but prior to July 1, 2016. This analysis was not updated to reflect a small business re-classification for all of the vessels affected by this amendment using our new size-standards because we have determined that this analysis provides a sufficient estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule applies for purposes of determining this action's impacts on small entities and the considerations required under the RFA. For the fisheries directly affected by this rule, RFA analyses have been completed on other actions since the implementation of the revised size standard. As described in the IRFA, data showed a change in the total number of entities from the last fishery
Table 2 describes revenue by business type (large or small) and Table 3 describes the total number of commercial business entities potentially regulated by the action. As of the time of the Council's decisionmaking (2015), there were 4,071 small businesses (925 finfish, 2,713 shellfish, 433 for-hire) and 18 large businesses (all shellfish) potentially affected by this action. For fisheries utilizing mobile bottom-tending gear, the approved action directly regulates affected entities through restrictions on when and where vessels may fish to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on essential fish habitat. For fisheries that use gears capable of catching groundfish, this final rule additionally restricts location and timing of fishing to minimize impacts on spawning groundfish. According to the EIS, individuals fishing with mobile bottom-tending gear and midwater trawls tend to generate a substantial portion of their revenue from other gear types. The vast majority of individuals either fishing with mobile bottom-tending gear capable of catching groundfish or for-hire do not deviate from that mode, which could relate to the specialized nature of either the vessels or the captains' skills needed for these types of fishing.
The action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and the rule does not impose any other reporting or record-keeping requirements. This final rule requires compliance only with standard fishing-related issues, including compliance with gear restricted fishing areas or seasons.
The economic impacts of each type of habitat management measure are discussed in more detail in Volumes 3, 4, and 5 of the EIS. Because the primary objective of the Amendment is to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, a variety of combinations of areas could have achieved those goals. The EFH and HAPC designations are primarily administrative in nature and are not expected to result in any direct economic impacts to the fisheries; although, indirect positive affects to stocks are expected.
In general, the overall approved changes are relatively modest, particularly when compared to other alternatives considered. The majority of areas approved are already closed to fishing. The current open areas that will close include the Eastern Maine HMA and the Great South Channel HMA. As described above, there is currently very little mobile bottom-tending gear fishing in the Eastern Maine HMA because groundfish stocks have decreased locally in that region. The Great South Channel HMA was designed to minimize impact to the scallop fishery, particularly the design of the eastern boundary. Scallops occur primarily at depths beyond the closure boundary. There is not a significant amount of trawl fishing in that area because of the high level of natural disturbance. The hydraulic clam fishery will be allowed to continue to operate in this HMA for 1 year, while the Council develops more discrete exemption areas. It is expected that the subsequent action will attempt to balance the economic needs of the clam fishery with the objectives of OHA2 and the EFH protections required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The approved measures that will increase fishing opportunities include: (1) Modifying the Western Gulf of Maine Groundfish Closure Area by aligning the eastern boundary with the Habitat Closure Area; (2) modifying the Jeffreys Bank Habitat Closure Area and exposing the deeper, northern portion to potential fishing; (3) eliminating the Nantucket Lightship Groundfish and Habitat Closure Areas; and (4) implementing Closed Area I North as a seasonal, versus year-round, closure area. The partial opening of the areas in the Gulf of Maine are expected to result in modest increases in groundfish revenue. The opening of the Nantucket Lightship and Closed Area I Closure Areas are expected to result in notable increases in scallop fishing. Scallop Framework Adjustment 29, which is intended to set management measures for the 2018 and 2019 scallop fishing years, estimates that with access to these newly opened areas will result in an additional $140-160 million to the scallop fishery beyond what the status quo measures would have generated.
In the Eastern Gulf of Maine, this action establishes the Small Eastern Maine Habitat Management Area (HMA), closed to all mobile bottom-tending gears. (Note, the regulations refer to this area as simply the “Eastern Maine HMA.”) Other alternatives considered would have continued with no habitat management in this sub-region or implemented one or more additional areas. The Toothaker Ridge HMA, the Large Eastern Maine HMA, the Machias HMA, and the Small Eastern Maine were assembled into two alternatives. The EIS concluded, and NMFS agreed, that the Small Eastern Maine HMA achieves a notable level of protection for vulnerable habitat without significant economic impacts.
In the Central Gulf of Maine, this action maintains the existing Cashes Ledge Groundfish Closure Area, modifies the existing Jeffreys Bank and Cashes Ledge Habitat Closure Areas, with their current fishing restrictions and exemptions, establishes the Fippennies Ledge HMA, closed to mobile bottom-tending gears, and the Ammen Rock HMA, closed to all fishing except lobster traps. Other alternatives considered would have various combinations of eight total areas. In addition to the areas recommended as preferred, the Council considered habitat management in the existing Jeffreys Bank and Cashes Ledge habitat closure areas, two areas on Platts Bank and a small area on the top of Fippennies Ledge. The Council did not recommend the areas on Platts Bank because of the concern regarding the displacement of current fishing and the economic impact to a sub-set of the fleet. The final approved measures provide the best habitat protection without significant economic impacts.
In the Western Gulf of Maine, this action maintains the existing Western Gulf of Maine Habitat Closure Area, closed to mobile bottom-tending gears, and modifies the eastern boundary of the Western Gulf of Maine [Groundfish]
On Georges Bank, this final action maintains the Closed Area II groundfish and habitat closure areas, but removes the Closed Area I groundfish and habitat closures as year-round closures.
Various combinations of 19 areas, including the 5 existing habitat and groundfish closed areas, were considered for this sub-region. When combined, these areas covered nearly the entire Bank area from the Hague Line up to the Great South Channel. Some areas were deemed too costly from an economic standpoint because of their size or specific location. These areas included the two alternatives across the majority of the bank: The Northern Georges mobile bottom-tending gear closure (Alternative 8) and the Northern Georges gear modification area (Alternatives 5). Various options of smaller areas on Georges Shoal, namely the Georges Shoal 1 (Alternative 5), Georges Shoal Gear Modification Area (Alternative 4), Georges Shoal 2 (Alternative 7), and Western HMA (Alternative 9), were also considered. Further variations focused more on the northern edge, included the Northern Edge HMA in Alternatives 3 and 4; two variations of expanding the existing Closed Area II habitat closure (Alternatives 6A and 6B); the EFH South HMA as part of Alternative 7; the Eastern HMA and a Mortality Closure in Alternative 9. The Council's recommendation (Alternative 10) was disapproved for the reasons described above. The final approved measures maintain a long-standing closure, but opens Closed Area I. As described above, the opening of Closed Area I is expected to result in significant economic gains for the scallop fishery.
In the Great South Channel, this action establishes the Great South Channel HMA, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear, except hydraulic clam dredges for 1 year, outside of the northeast corner of the area. The Nantucket Lightship Habitat Closure Area and the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area are removed. Other alternatives were variations around the approved alternative, some extending farther to the east, and some extending farther to the west. The Council also recommended an HMA on Cox Ledge that would have prohibited hydraulic clam dredges and ground cables on trawl vessels. That recommendation was disapproved for the reasons described above. The Council also considered a single box to cover both Cox Ledge areas. The opening of the Nantucket Lightship Closure Areas is expected to result in significant economic gains for the scallop fishery in 2018 and 2019.
In the Gulf of Maine, the final rule establishes two new, relatively small cod spawning protections. They include the Winter Massachusetts Bay Spawning Closure, which would be in effect from November 1-January 31 of each year, and a 2-week closure (April 15-April 30) within statistical area 125. Other alternatives considered would have reinstated or added to existing rolling closures in the Western Gulf of Maine.
On Georges Bank, this action establishes the existing Closed Area II Groundfish Closure Area and the Closed Area I North Habitat Closed Area as seasonal closures from February 1-April 15, and removes the May Georges Bank Spawning Closure. The Council considered making all of the existing Closed Area I groundfish closure area a seasonal spawning closure, but instead chose just the subset of that area in the northern portion.
Management alternatives in both regions included all commercial gears capable of catching groundfish (recreational fishing exempted), all commercial and recreational gears capable of catching groundfish, and an exemption for scallop dredges.
This action establishes two DHRAs. The DHRAs will be effective for 3 years, at which time the Regional Administrator would consult with the Council as to whether the designation should be retained. The Council considered three potential DHRAs, with varying management restrictions within them. The action establishes the Georges Bank DHRA (footprint is the same as the existing Closed Area I South Habitat Closure) and the Stellwagen DHRA (footprint within the existing Western Gulf of Maine Habitat Closure). The Council considered two “reference areas” within the Stellwagen DHRA that would have prohibited all fishing, including recreational groundfish fishing. No reference area was recommended and none will be implemented. The Georges Bank DHRA is closed to all mobile bottom-tending gear. The Stellwagen DHRA is closed to all mobile bottom-tending gear, sink gillnet gear, and demersal longline gear.
Through this action, the designation or removal of HMAs and changes to fishing restrictions within HMAs may be considered in a future framework adjustment. In addition, this action establishes a review process to evaluate the performance of habitat and spawning protection measures. Finally, this action establishes a commitment by the Council to identify and periodically revise research priorities to improve habitat and spawning area monitoring. Alternatively, the Council considered not implementing a new process for habitat and spawning protection measures review and modification and using the existing ad-hoc process under its authority currently.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(m) * * *
(1)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) * * *
(10) Fish with bottom-tending gear within the Frank R. Lautenberg Deep-sea Coral Protection Area described at § 648.372, unless transiting pursuant to § 648.372(d), fishing lobster trap gear in accordance with § 697.21 of this chapter, or fishing red crab trap gear in accordance with § 648.264. Bottom-tending gear includes but is not limited to bottom-tending otter trawls, bottom-tending beam trawls, hydraulic dredges, non-hydraulic dredges, bottom-tending seines, bottom longlines, pots and traps, and sink or anchored gill nets.
(11) If fishing with bottom-tending mobile gear, fish in, enter, be on a fishing vessel in, the EFH closure areas described in § 648.371, unless otherwise exempted.
(12) Unless otherwise exempted, fish in the Dedicated Habitat Research Areas defined in § 648.371.
(i) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(
(k) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) Use, set, haul back, fish with, possess on board a vessel, unless stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2, or fail to remove, sink gillnet gear and other gillnet gear capable of catching NE multispecies, with the exception of single pelagic gillnets (as described in § 648.81(b)(2)(ii) and (d)(5)(ii)), in the areas and for the times specified in § 648.80(g)(6)(i) and (ii), except as provided in § 648.80(g)(6)(i) and (ii), and § 648.81(b)(2)(ii) and (d)(5)(ii), or unless otherwise authorized in writing by the Regional Administrator.
(ii)
(A)
(
(7) * * *
(i) * * *
(A)
(B)
(C)
(
(
(D)
(E) [Reserved]
(F)
(G) [Reserved]
(ii)
(12) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) Enter or fish in Closed Area II as specified in § 648.81(a)(5), unless declared into the area in accordance with § 648.85(b)(3)(v) or (b)(8)(v)(D).
(16) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) Fail to comply with the requirements specified in § 648.81(d)(5)(v) when fishing in the areas described in § 648.81(b)(3) and (4) and (d) during the time periods specified.
(r) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Fish with midwater trawl gear in any Northeast Multispecies Closed Area, as defined in § 648.81(a)(3) through (5) and (c)(3) and (4), without a NMFS-approved observer on board, if the vessel has been issued an Atlantic herring permit.
(vi) Slip or operationally discard catch, as defined at § 648.2, unless for one of the reasons specified at § 648.202(b)(2), if fishing any part of a tow inside the Northeast Multispecies Closed Areas, as defined at § 648.81(a)(3) through (5) and (c)(3) and (4).
From June 15 through October 31 of each year, no fishing vessel may fish with scallop dredge gear in the portion of Closed Area II, as specified in §§ 648.61(c)(4) and 648.81(c)(4), north of 41°30′ N lat.
(a) The Sea Scallop Rotational Area Management Program consists of Scallop Rotational Areas, as defined in § 648.2. Guidelines for this area rotation program (
(c) * * *
(1) The Closed Area I Scallop Rotational Area 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), and so that the line connecting points CAIA3 and CAIA4 is the same as the portion of the western boundary line of Closed Area I, defined in § 648.61(c)(3), that lies between points CAIA3 and CAIA4:
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(9) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Unless otherwise prohibited in § 648.81, § 648.370, or § 648.371, a vessel subject to the minimum mesh size restrictions specified in paragraph (a)(3) or (4) of this section may fish with or possess nets with a mesh size smaller than the minimum size, provided the vessel complies with the requirements of paragraph (a)(5)(ii) or (a)(9)(ii) of this section, and § 648.86(d), from July 15 through November 15, when fishing in Small Mesh Area 1; and from January 1 through June 30, when fishing in Small Mesh Area 2. While lawfully fishing in these areas with mesh smaller than the minimum size, an owner or operator of any vessel may not fish for, possess on board, or land any species of fish other than: Silver hake and offshore hake, combined, and red hake—up to the amounts specified in § 648.86(d); butterfish, Atlantic mackerel, or squid, up the amounts specified in § 648.26; spiny dogfish, up to the amount specified in § 648.235; Atlantic herring, up to the amount specified in § 648.204; and scup, up to the amount specified in § 648.128.
(11)
(i) * * *
(C) The exemption does not apply to the Cashes Ledge Closure Area or the Western GOM Area Closure specified in § 648.81(a)(3) and (4), respectively.
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(18)
(19)
(d) * * *
(2) When fishing under this exemption in the GOM/GB Exemption Area, as defined in paragraph (a)(17) of this section, the vessel has on board a letter of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator, and complies with the following restrictions:
(i) The vessel only fishes for, possesses, or lands Atlantic herring, blueback herring, or mackerel in areas north of 42°20′ N lat. and in the areas described in § 648.81(c)(3) and (4); and Atlantic herring, blueback herring, mackerel, or squid in all other areas south of 42°20′ N. lat.; and
(5) To fish for herring under this exemption, a vessel issued an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited Access
(g) * * *
(6)
(ii)
(a)
(2)
(i) Fishing with or using exempted gear as defined under this part, except for pelagic gillnet gear capable of catching NE multispecies, unless fishing with a single pelagic gillnet not longer than 300 ft (91.4 m) and not greater than 6 ft (1.83 m) deep, with a maximum mesh size of 3 inches (7.6 cm), provided that:
(A) The net is attached to the boat and fished in the upper two-thirds of the water column;
(B) The net is marked with the owner's name and vessel identification number;
(C) No regulated species or ocean pout are retained; and
(D) No other gear capable of catching NE multispecies is on board;
(ii) Fishing in the Midwater Trawl Gear Exempted Fishery as specified in § 648.80(d);
(iii) Fishing in the Purse Seine Gear Exempted Fishery as specified in § 648.80(e);
(iv) Fishing under charter/party or recreational regulations specified in § 648.89, provided that:
(A) A letter of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator is onboard the vessel, which is valid from the date of enrollment until the end of the fishing year;
(B) No harvested or possessed fish species managed by the NEFMC or MAFMC are sold or intended for trade, barter or sale, regardless of where the fish are caught;
(C) Only rod and reel or handline gear is on board the vessel; and
(D) No NE multispecies DAS are used during the entire period for which the letter of authorization is valid.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(ii) Unless otherwise restricted under the EFH Closure(s) specified in paragraph (h) of this section, paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section does not apply to persons on fishing vessels or fishing vessels—
(A) Fishing with gears as described in paragraph (a)(2) this section.
(B) Fishing with tuna purse seine gear outside of the portion of Closed Area II known as the Habitat Area of Particular Concern, as described in § 648.370(g).
(C) Fishing in the CA II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP or the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP Program as specified in § 648.85(b)(3)(ii) or (b)(8)(ii), respectively.
(D) Transiting the area, provided the vessel's fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2; and
(
(
(E) Fishing for scallops within the Closed Area II Access Area defined in § 648.59(c)(3), during the season specified in § 648.59(c)(4), and pursuant to the provisions specified in § 648.60.
(b)
(2)
(i) That has not been issued a NE multispecies permit that is fishing exclusively in state waters;
(ii) That is fishing with or using exempted gear as defined under this part, excluding pelagic gillnet gear capable of catching NE multispecies, except for a vessel fishing with a single pelagic gillnet not longer than 300 ft (91.4 m) and not greater than 6 ft (1.83 m) deep, with a maximum mesh size of 3 inches (7.6 cm), provided:
(A) The net is attached to the vessel and fished in the upper two-thirds of the water column;
(B) The net is marked with the vessel owner's name and vessel identification number;
(C) No regulated species or ocean pout are retained; and
(D) No other gear capable of catching NE multispecies is on board;
(iii) That is fishing as a charter/party or recreational fishing vessel, provided that:
(A) With the exception of tuna, fish harvested or possessed by the vessel are not sold or intended for trade, barter, or sale, regardless of where the species are caught;
(B) Any gear other than pelagic hook and line gear, as defined in this part, is properly stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2; and
(C) No regulated species or ocean pout are retained; and
(iv) That is transiting pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(ii) Unless otherwise restricted in this part, the Spring Massachusetts Bay Spawning Protection Area closure does not apply to a fishing vessel or person on a fishing vessel that meets the criteria in paragraphs (d)(5)(ii) through (vi) and (x) of this section (listed under the exemptions for the GOM Cod Protection Closures). This includes recreational vessels meeting the criteria specified in paragraphs (d)(5)(v)(A) through (D) of this section.
(c)
(2)
(i) That is fishing with or using exempted gear as defined under this part, excluding pelagic gillnet gear capable of catching NE multispecies, except for vessels fishing with a single pelagic gillnet not longer than 300 ft (91.4 m) and not greater than 6 ft (1.83 m) deep, with a maximum mesh size of 3 inches (7.6 cm), provided:
(A) The net is attached to the vessel and fished in the upper two-thirds of the water column;
(B) The net is marked with the vessel owner's name and vessel identification number;
(C) No regulated species or ocean pout are retained; and
(D) No other gear capable of catching NE multispecies is on board.
(ii) That is fishing for scallops consistent with the requirements of the scallop fishery management plan, including rotational access program requirements specified in § 648.59.
(iii) That is fishing in the mid-water trawl exempted fishery.
(iv) That is transiting pursuant to the requirements described in § 648.2.
(3)
(4)
(d)
(2)
(3)
(ii) GOM Cod Protection Closure II is in effect from June 1 through June 30.
(iii) GOM Cod Protection Closure III is in effect from November 1 through January 31.
(iv) GOM Cod Protection Closure IV is in effect from October 1 through October 31.
(v) GOM Cod Protection Closure V is in effect from March 1 through March 31.
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(5)
(i) No multispecies permit has been issued and the vessel is fishing exclusively in state waters;
(ii) Fishing with or using exempted gear as defined under this part, except for pelagic gillnet gear capable of catching NE multispecies, unless fishing with a single pelagic gillnet not longer than 300 ft (91.4 m) and not greater than 6 ft (1.83 m) deep, with a maximum mesh size of 3 inches (7.6 cm), provided that:
(A) The net is attached to the boat and fished in the upper two-thirds of the water column;
(B) The net is marked with the owner's name and vessel identification number;
(C) No regulated species are retained; and
(D) No other gear capable of catching NE multispecies is on board;
(iii) Fishing in the Midwater Trawl Gear Exempted Fishery as specified in § 648.80(d);
(iv) Fishing in the Purse Seine Gear Exempted Fishery as specified in § 648.80(e);
(v) Fishing under charter/party or recreational regulations specified in § 648.89, provided that:
(A) A vessel fishing under charter/party regulations in a GOM cod protection closure described under paragraph (f)(4) of this section, has on board a letter of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator that is valid from the date of enrollment through the duration of the closure or 3 months duration, whichever is greater;
(B) No harvested or possessed fish species managed by the NEFMC or MAFMC are sold or intended for trade, barter or sale, regardless of where the fish are caught;
(C) Only rod and reel or handline gear is on board; and
(D) No NE multispecies DAS are used during the entire period for which the letter of authorization is valid;
(vi) Fishing with scallop dredge gear under a scallop DAS or when lawfully fishing in the Scallop Dredge Fishery Exemption Area as described in § 648.80(a)(11), provided the vessel does not retain any regulated NE multispecies during a trip, or on any part of a trip;
(vii) Fishing in the Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery, as specified in § 648.80(a)(15), or in the Small Mesh Area II Exemption Area, as specified in § 648.80(a)(9);
(viii) Fishing on a sector trip, as defined in this part, and in the GOM Cod Protection Closures IV or V, as specified in paragraphs (f)(4)(iv) and (v) of this section; or
(ix) Fishing under the provisions of a Northeast multispecies Handgear A permit, as specified at § 648.82(b)(6), and in the GOM Cod Protection Closures IV or V, as specified in paragraphs (f)(4)(iv) and (v) of this section.
(x) Transiting the area, provided it complies with the requirements specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
(e)
(2) Private recreational or charter/party vessels fishing under the Northeast multispecies provisions specified at § 648.89 may transit the GOM Cod Spawning Protection Area, as defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, provided all bait and hooks are removed from fishing rods, and any regulated species on board have been caught outside the GOM Cod Spawning
(f)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i)
(ii) * * *
(B) The GOM Cod Protection Closures IV and V specified in § 648.81(d)(4)(iv) and (v).
(e)
(ii) A vessel fishing under charter/party regulations may not fish in the GOM Cod Spawning Protection Area specified at § 648.81(b)(3) during the time period specified in that paragraph, unless the vessel complies with the requirements specified at § 648.81(b)(2)(iii).
(b)
(a) Midwater trawl gear may only be used by a vessel issued a valid herring permit in the GOM/GB Exemption Area as defined in § 648.80(a)(17), provided it complies with the midwater trawl gear exemption requirements specified under the NE multispecies regulations at § 648.80(d), including issuance of a Letter of Authorization.
Unless otherwise specified, no fishing vessel or person on a fishing vessel may fish with bottom-tending mobile gear in the areas defined in this section. Copies of charts depicting these areas are available from the Regional Administrator upon request.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2) No fishing vessel, including private and for-hire recreational fishing vessels, may fish in the Ammen Rock
(f)
(2)
(g)
(h)
(2)
(ii) The Hydraulic clam dredge exemption is effective until April 9, 2019, after which, no vessels fishing with hydraulic clam dredges may fish within the Great South Channel HMA.
(iii) The hydraulic clam dredge exemption does not apply in the area defined as the straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated:
(i)
(j)
(k)
(a)
(b)
(2) Vessels fishing with bottom-tending mobile gear, sink gillnet gear, or demersal longline gear are prohibited from fishing in the Stellwagen DHRA, unless otherwise exempted.
(c)
(2) Vessels fishing with bottom-tending mobile gear are prohibited from fishing in the Georges Bank DHRA, unless otherwise exempted.
(d)
(e)
(2) After initiation of the review and consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council, the Regional Administrator may remove a DHRA. The following criteria will be used to determine if DHRA should be maintained:
(i) Documentation of active and ongoing research in the DHRA area, in the form of data records, cruise reports or inventory samples with analytical objectives focused on the DHRA topics, described in paragraph (a) of this section; and
(ii) Documentation of pending or approved proposals or funding requests (including ship time requests), with objectives specific to the DHRA topics, described in paragraph (a) of this section.
(3) The Regional Administrator will make any such determination in accordance with the APA through notification in the
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(d)
| 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 |