| Page Range | 15291-15490 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 15389 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15444 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 15386 - Proposed CERCLA Cost Recovery Settlement for Central Transport, Inc. Superfund Site, Romulus, Wayne County, Michigan | |
| 83 FR 15388 - Proposed Information Collection Request Renewal; Comment Request; Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Regarding the Sulfur Content of Motor Vehicle Gasoline, Gasoline Additives, Denatured Fuel Ethanol and Other Oxygenates, Certified Ethanol Denaturant, and Blender-Grade Pentane | |
| 83 FR 15385 - Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Removal Action by Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser | |
| 83 FR 15389 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 15358 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 15383 - Alternative Method for Calculating Off-Cycle Credits Under the Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Program: Applications From Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and Toyota Motor North America | |
| 83 FR 15355 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Rhode Island Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 15409 - Human Exploration and Operations Research Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15379 - National Advisory Council on Indian Education (NACIE or Council); Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15291 - Weather and Safety Leave | |
| 83 FR 15423 - Submission for Review: Claim for Unpaid Compensation for Deceased Civilian | |
| 83 FR 15374 - Consumer Advisory Board Subcommittee Meetings | |
| 83 FR 15410 - Meeting of Humanities Panel | |
| 83 FR 15431 - Angel Oak Strategic Credit Fund and Angel Oak Capital Advisors, LLC | |
| 83 FR 15454 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR), Security for Government Financing | |
| 83 FR 15454 - VA Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Advisory Committee, Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15424 - Section 407 Proceeding | |
| 83 FR 15354 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Request for Administrative Review-Food Retailers and Wholesalers | |
| 83 FR 15325 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Sablefish in the Bering Sea Subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 83 FR 15396 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Comprehensive Listing of Transactional Documents for Mortgagors, Mortgagees and Contractors Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Healthcare Facility Documents: Proposed Revisions and Updates of Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 15376 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Information Collection in Support of DFARS Part 245, Government Property | |
| 83 FR 15387 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Hazardous Substance Handling and Storage Procedures and Associated Costs Survey | |
| 83 FR 15359 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 241-Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Authorization of Production Activity; Marine Industries Association of South Florida (Yacht Repair/Refitting); Fort Lauderdale, Florida | |
| 83 FR 15360 - Foreign-Trade Zone 158-Vicksburg, Mississippi; Application for Production Authority; MTD Consumer Group Inc., (Textile Grass-Catcher Bags), Verona, Mississippi | |
| 83 FR 15455 - Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15358 - Foreign-Trade Zone 119-Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota; Application for Subzone; AGCO Corporation, Jackson and Round Lake, Minnesota | |
| 83 FR 15359 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 41-Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Limited Authorization of Production Activity; Quad/Graphics, Inc.-Chemical Research\Technology (Offset and Gravure Publication Printing Ink); Hartford and Sussex, Wisconsin | |
| 83 FR 15359 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 82-Mobile, Alabama; Authorization of Production Activity; Aker Solutions, Inc. (Undersea Umbilicals); Mobile, Alabama | |
| 83 FR 15446 - Notice of a Shipping Coordinating Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15359 - Approval of Subzone Status; SDI USA, LLC; Meriden, Connecticut | |
| 83 FR 15364 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final Results | |
| 83 FR 15361 - Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
| 83 FR 15365 - Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
| 83 FR 15400 - Certain Glucosylated Steviol Glycosides, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Joint Motion to Terminate the Investigation Based on Settlement; Termination of the Investigation | |
| 83 FR 15368 - Certain Uncoated Paper From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2017 | |
| 83 FR 15370 - Certain Uncoated Paper From Indonesia: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 83 FR 15377 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environment Impact Statement for the Proposed Alamo Dam Water Control Plan Update; Alamo Lake, Mojave and La Paz Counties, Arizona | |
| 83 FR 15375 - Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery, Remember and Explore Subcommittee and Honor Subcommittee Meeting Notice | |
| 83 FR 15374 - Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery; Meeting Notice | |
| 83 FR 15372 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 15399 - Certain Led Lighting Devices and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation | |
| 83 FR 15398 - Large Power Transformers From Korea | |
| 83 FR 15420 - Northern States Power Company-Minnesota; Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant; Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Correct Inspection Intervals Acceptance Criteria | |
| 83 FR 15381 - Agency Information Collection Extension; Revision to Currently Approved Collection | |
| 83 FR 15447 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; American Airlines, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 15447 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Vieques Air Link, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 15403 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 83 FR 15401 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
| 83 FR 15332 - IFR Operations at Locations Without Weather Reporting | |
| 83 FR 15448 - Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; TxDOT Audit #4 Report | |
| 83 FR 15373 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Washington and Oregon Charter Vessel Survey | |
| 83 FR 15373 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 15372 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 15408 - Proposed Collection, Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 15407 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Construction Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements | |
| 83 FR 15381 - Harris, Marcus M.; Notice of Filing | |
| 83 FR 15381 - Baltimore Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Filing | |
| 83 FR 15382 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 15304 - Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc. Model 700 Series Airplanes; Side-Facing Seats-Installation of Airbag Systems | |
| 83 FR 15301 - Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc. Model 700 Series Airplanes; Interaction of Systems and Structures | |
| 83 FR 15394 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Notice of Appeal or Motion | |
| 83 FR 15393 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Request for the Return of Original Documents | |
| 83 FR 15395 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Application for Civil Surgeon Designation | |
| 83 FR 15391 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 15392 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 15392 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15392 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15425 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade the Shares of the GraniteShares Bitcoin ETF and the GraniteShares Short Bitcoin ETF Under BZX Rule 14.11(f)(4), Trust Issued Receipts | |
| 83 FR 15316 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Grassy Sound Channel, Middle Township, NJ | |
| 83 FR 15315 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MD | |
| 83 FR 15356 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Form BC-170, U.S. Census Employment Application and Form BC-171, Additional Applicant Information | |
| 83 FR 15421 - Information Collection: General Domestic Licenses for Byproduct Material | |
| 83 FR 15422 - Information Collection: 10 CFR Part 140, Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements | |
| 83 FR 15411 - Information Collection: Standards for Protection Against Radiation | |
| 83 FR 15390 - Notice of Approval of Products Under Voucher: Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Vouchers | |
| 83 FR 15453 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review | |
| 83 FR 15356 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights | |
| 83 FR 15410 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 15324 - Notification of Availability and Request for Public Comment on Analysis of a Final Rule To Prohibit the Use of Hired Masters for Sablefish Catcher Vessel Quota Shares Received by Transfer After February 12, 2010 | |
| 83 FR 15393 - Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15446 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company | |
| 83 FR 15445 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company | |
| 83 FR 15389 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 15441 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Listing Requirements Contained in Listing Rule 5635(d) To Change the Definition of Market Value for Purposes of the Shareholder Approval Rules and Eliminate the Requirement for Shareholder Approval of Issuances at a Price Less Than Book Value but Greater Than Market Value | |
| 83 FR 15437 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule With Respect to the Options Regulatory Fee | |
| 83 FR 15442 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Amend the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule With Respect to the Options Regulatory Fee | |
| 83 FR 15427 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Market Data Fees | |
| 83 FR 15434 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Chapter IV of the Exchange's Schedule of Fees | |
| 83 FR 15435 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Chapter VI of the Exchange's Schedule of Fees | |
| 83 FR 15439 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Chapter IV of the Exchange's Schedule of Fees | |
| 83 FR 15444 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review | |
| 83 FR 15445 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review | |
| 83 FR 15360 - Request for Applicants for the Appointment to the United States-India CEO Forum | |
| 83 FR 15378 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application for New Grants Under the Indian Education Professional Development Plan (1894-0001) | |
| 83 FR 15380 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Applications for Emergency Impact Aid for Displaced Students and Assistance for Homeless Children and Youths | |
| 83 FR 15336 - Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Infrastructure Requirement for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard | |
| 83 FR 15343 - Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 | |
| 83 FR 15400 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act | |
| 83 FR 15327 - Transferred OTS Regulations Regarding Fiduciary Powers of State Savings Associations and Consent Requirements for the Exercise of Trust Powers | |
| 83 FR 15354 - Manti-La Sal National Forest; Utah; Monument Management Plan for the Bears Ears National Monument Shash Jáa Unit | |
| 83 FR 15298 - Community Reinvestment Act Regulations; Correction | |
| 83 FR 15310 - Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 15316 - Schedule for Rating Disabilities: The Organs of Special Sense and Schedule of Ratings-Eye | |
| 83 FR 15313 - Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 15412 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations | |
| 83 FR 15458 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and New Source Performance Standards: Petroleum Refinery Sector Amendments |
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Employment and Training Administration
Labor Statistics Bureau
National Endowment for the Humanities
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
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 Personnel Management.
Final rule.
The Office of Personnel Management is issuing new regulations on the granting and recording of weather and safety leave for Federal employees. The Administrative Leave Act of 2016 created four new categories of statutorily authorized paid leave—administrative leave, investigative leave, notice leave, and weather and safety leave—and established parameters for their use by Federal agencies. These regulations will provide a framework for agency compliance with the new statutory requirements regarding weather and safety leave. OPM will issue separate final regulations to address administrative leave, investigative leave, and notice leave at a later date.
Kurt Springmann by email at
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing final regulations to implement the weather and safety leave provisions of the Administrative Leave Act of 2016, enacted under section 1138 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328, 130 Stat. 2000, December 23, 2016). The Administrative Leave Act of 2016, hereafter referred to as “the Act,” added three new sections in title 5 of the U.S. Code that provide for specific categories of paid leave and requirements that apply to each: Section 6329a regarding administrative leave; section 6329b regarding investigative leave and notice leave; and section 6329c regarding weather and safety leave.
OPM published proposed regulations (82 FR 32263) on these new categories of leave on July 13, 2017. The 30-day comment period for the proposed regulations ended on August 14, 2017. After careful consideration of the comments received, and in recognition of the different implementation dates for the new leave categories under the Act, OPM has determined that it would better serve agencies if the final regulations on new subpart P, Weather and Safety Leave, were issued separately from the final regulations on the other leave categories. Accordingly, this
While the Act directed OPM to prescribe (
To the extent that existing agency collective bargaining agreements contain provisions that are inconsistent with the statutory provisions of the Administrative Leave Act (including sections 6329a, 6329b, or 6329c), then the Act supersedes—as of the applicable implementation date—conflicting provisions in agency collective bargaining agreements as a matter of law. For an agency collective bargaining agreement in effect before publication of these regulations, any provisions in the regulations (other than those restating statutory requirements) that are in conflict with the agreement may not be enforced until the expiration of the current term of the agreement. For an agency collective bargaining agreement that takes effect on or after the date these regulations are published, regulatory provisions will supersede conflicting provisions in the agreement during any period of time following the applicable regulatory implementation date. To the extent that the Act and accompanying regulations are not inconsistent with the provisions in agency collective bargaining agreements, those provisions remain in effect until the provisions expire or are renegotiated.
Agencies are responsible for compliance with time limits provided for in the Act and OPM regulations and guidance.
In this final rule, OPM is adding subpart P, Weather and Safety Leave (implementing 5 U.S.C. 6329c) to 5 CFR part 630. Hereafter in this
Weather and safety leave is permitted—at an agency's discretion but subject to statutory and regulatory requirements, agency policies, and lawful collective bargaining provisions—only when an agency determines that employees cannot safely
Both the law and the regulations address recordkeeping and reporting requirements on weather and safety leave with which agencies must comply. Agencies must keep separate records on weather and safety leave.
We received comments relating to the proposed regulations on weather and safety leave from 6 agencies, 4 unions, 1 other organization, and 8 individuals. In the first section below, we address general or overarching comments. In the sections that follow, we address comments related to specific portions of the regulations.
If OPM regulatory requirements that go beyond statutory requirements conflict with an existing agency collective bargaining agreement, those regulatory requirements may not be implemented until the expiration of the current term of the agreement. (See section 7116(a)(7).) However, for any agency collective bargaining agreement that takes effect on or after the date these regulations are published, regulatory provisions will supersede conflicting provisions in the agreement during any period of time following the regulatory implementation date (30th day following publication). Once applicable, OPM regulations will have the force of law and be binding on agencies.
Once OPM regulations are in force, we will also expect agencies to comply with any related OPM guidance concerning compliance with the Act or regulations, and such guidance may itself impact an agency's collective bargaining obligations. For example, if the negotiability of a proposal or provision is at issue before the FLRA or Courts in the future, an agency may rely upon OPM's regulations and guidance as reasons why the proposal or provision would be contrary to law under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and, therefore, be nonnegotiable.
Employees with telework agreements gain the benefits of teleworking, but generally will not be granted weather/safety leave when a weather/safety event can be reasonably anticipated. Warnings for these anticipated events are usually broadcast in the media well in advance and, for that reason, teleworkers are generally expected to know that they need to be prepared to work from home when the event occurs. Because agencies may provide weather/safety leave to teleworkers when, in the agency's judgment, the event could not be reasonably anticipated and an employee is otherwise prevented from performing work, there is no need for teleworkers to be prepared to telework on days when a major event is not anticipated unless it coincides with an already scheduled telework day. There is no requirement for employees to maintain their residence in a continuous telework-ready state or dedicate any part of their residence for telework purposes beyond any requirements in connection with their normally scheduled telework. For employees who have a regular telework schedule, there is essentially no difference between activities required to maintain a residence in a telework-ready state when expecting a weather event and maintaining it in a telework ready state when preparing for any other telework day, nor is there any meaningful difference in how an employee would dedicate space in their residence under these respective scenarios. OPM also notes that these regulations do not require mandatory telework during emergency closures, but instead bar
In addition to the changes noted above, OPM made minor technical changes to § 630.1604 to improve clarity. We also changed “approve” to “provide” in several places in §§ 630.1605(a) and 630.1606(c) where the context was the providing of leave, since the term “approve” might suggest
The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this rule in accordance with E.O. 13563 and 12866.
This rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because the rule is related to agency organization, management, or personnel.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will apply only to Federal agencies and employees.
Government employees.
Office of Personnel Management.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM is amending part 630 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. chapter 63 as follows: Subparts A through E issued under 5 U.S.C. 6133(a) (read with 5 U.S.C. 6129), 6303(e) and (f), 6304(d)(2), 6306(b), 6308(a) and 6311; subpart F issued under 5 U.S.C. 6305(a) and 6311 and E.O. 11228, 30 FR 7739, 3 CFR, 1974 Comp., p. 163; subpart G issued under 5 U.S.C. 6305(c) and 6311; subpart H issued under 5 U.S.C. 6133(a) (read with 5 U.S.C. 6129) and 6326(b); subpart I issued under 5 U.S.C. 6332, 6334(c), 6336(a)(1) and (d), and 6340; subpart J issued under 5 U.S.C. 6340, 6363, 6365(d), 6367(e), 6373(a); subpart K issued under 5 U.S.C. 6391(g); subpart L issued under 5 U.S.C. 6383(f) and 6387; subpart M issued under Sec. 2(d), Public Law 114-75, 129 Stat. 641 (5 U.S.C. 6329 note); and subpart P issued under 5 U.S.C. 6329c(d).
(a) This subpart implements 5 U.S.C. 6329c, which allows an agency to provide a separate type of paid leave when weather or other safety-related conditions prevent employees from safely traveling to or safely performing work at an approved location due to an act of God, terrorist attack, or other applicable condition. Section 6329c(d) directs OPM to prescribe regulations to carry out the statutory provisions on weather and safety leave, including regulations on the appropriate uses and the proper recording of this leave.
(b) This subpart applies to an employee as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105 who is employed in an agency, but does not apply to an intermittent employee who, by definition, does not have an established regular tour of duty during the administrative workweek.
(c) As provided in 5 U.S.C. 6329c(e), this subpart applies to employees described in subsection (b) of 38 U.S.C. 7421, notwithstanding subsection (a) of that section.
In this subpart:
Subject to other provisions of this subpart, an agency may grant weather and safety leave to employees only if they are prevented from safely traveling to or safely performing work at a location approved by the agency due to—
(a) An act of God;
(b) A terrorist attack; or
(c) Another condition that prevents an employee or group of employees from safely traveling to or safely performing work at an approved location.
(a) OPM is responsible for prescribing regulations and guidance related to the appropriate use of leave under this subpart and the proper recording of such leave, including OPM guidance on Governmentwide dismissal and closure policies and procedures that provides for use of consistent terminology in describing various operating status scenarios. In issuing any operating status announcements for the Washington, DC, area, OPM must make the specific policies and procedures related to those announcements consistent with the regulations in this subpart and with OPM's Governmentwide guidance.
(b) Employing agencies are responsible for—
(1) Establishing and applying policies and procedures related to use of leave under this subpart that are consistent with OPM regulations and guidance described in paragraph (a) of this section; and
(2) Using terminology required by OPM-issued Governmentwide guidance in any agency-specific operating status announcements they issue (for a specific geographic location or area).
(a)
(2)(i) If, in the agency's judgment, the conditions in § 630.1603 could not reasonably be anticipated, an agency may provide leave under this subpart to the extent an employee was not able to prepare for telework as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section and is otherwise unable to perform productive work at the telework site.
(ii) If an employee is prevented from safely working at the approved telework site due to circumstances, arising from one or more of the conditions in § 630.1603, applicable to the telework site, an agency may, at its discretion, provide leave under this subpart to the employee.
(iii) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, an agency may decide not to provide leave under this subpart when the conditions in § 630.1603 do not prevent the employee from safely traveling to or safely performing work at a regular worksite, even if the affected day is a scheduled telework day.
(3) In making a determination under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, an agency must evaluate whether any of the conditions in § 630.1603 could be reasonably anticipated and whether the employee took reasonable steps (within the employee's control) to prepare to perform telework at the approved telework site. For example, if a significant snowstorm is predicted, the employee may need to prepare by taking home any equipment (
(b)
(1) The agency determines that travel to or performing work at the worksite is unsafe for emergency employees, in which case the agency may require the employees to work at another location, including a telework site as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, as appropriate; or
(2) The agency determines that circumstances justify granting leave under this subpart to emergency employees.
(a) An agency must use the same minimum charge increments for weather and safety leave as it does for annual and sick leave under § 630.206.
(b) Employees may be granted weather and safety leave only for hours within the tour of duty established for purposes of charging annual and sick leave when absent. For full-time employees, that tour is the 40-hour basic workweek as defined in 5 CFR 610.102, the basic work requirement established for employees on a flexible or compressed work schedule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 6121(3), or an uncommon tour of duty under § 630.210.
(c) Employees may not receive weather and safety leave for hours during which they are on other preapproved leave (paid or unpaid) or paid time off. Agencies should not provide weather and safety leave to an employee who, in the agency's judgment, is cancelling preapproved leave or paid time off, or changing a regular day off in a flexible or compressed work schedule, for the primary purpose of obtaining weather and safety leave.
(a)
(b)
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; correction.
This document supplements and corrects the preamble of the final rule that was published in the
Effective April 10, 2018 and applicable beginning January 1, 2018.
This document supplements and corrects the
The Agencies ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in the effective date of a final rule after the date of its publication in the
The Agencies do not believe that this correction document constitutes a rule that would be subject to APA notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements. The document corrects and supplements the Agencies' discussion of public comments in the
Moreover, even if the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements applied to this rule, the Agencies find that there is good cause to waive those requirements because they are unnecessary as the CRA final rule had been previously subjected to the notice and comment procedures. As noted above, the Agencies are merely supplementing and correcting a discussion of public comments in the
In the
After analyzing the two additional comment letters, the Agencies have determined that no changes to the regulatory text in the CRA final rule are necessary. However, the Agencies are revising the administrative record to include the correct number of public comments received, the analysis of all comments received, and the Agencies' responses to the comments.
1. On page 55734, the third full paragraph in the third column is revised to read as follows:
“Together, the Agencies received four comment letters on the proposed amendments. One comment was from a community organization, two comment letters were from industry trade associations, and one comment was from a financial institution. Commenters generally supported the changes proposed by the Agencies, although each also raised concerns regarding certain aspects of the proposed rule and made other suggestions not related to the proposal. As explained below, the Agencies are finalizing the amendments as proposed.”
2. On page 55735, the second full paragraph in the third column (continued in the first column on page 55736) and the first full paragraph in the first column on page 55736 are revised, and one paragraph is added following them to read as follows:
“The Agencies received three comment letters addressing this proposed revision. Two of the commenters supported the Agencies' efforts to conform the definition of “home mortgage loan” in the Agencies' CRA regulations to the scope of reportable transactions in Regulation C; one commenter opposed it. Of the two commenters supporting the proposed amendments, a community organization noted that some banks expressed concern that including home equity products (closed-end home equity loans and open-end home equity lines of credit) in CRA evaluations could have the effect of lowering the overall percentage of home mortgage loans made to low- and moderate-income borrowers and suggested that the Agencies consider evaluating home equity lending separately from other types of home lending. This commenter also urged the Agencies to consider loan purchases separately from originations during the CRA evaluation. A trade association opposed the proposed amendment to the “home mortgage loan” definition. This commenter recommended that data related to home equity products not be included in the CRA reports provided to the Agencies and the Agencies' analysis of home mortgage loans for purposes of the CRA evaluation. The commenter suggested that the Agencies only consider home equity-related data at the option of the financial institution. The commenter stated that treating home equity products in the same manner as purchase money mortgages or other real estate-secured lending fails to address the significant differences in the availability and use of these products across different geographies and income.
“The Agencies have considered all comments and are finalizing the amendment to the “home mortgage loan” definition as proposed. First, the commenter's suggestion to consider home mortgage loan purchases separately from loan originations would require a change to the lending test in the CRA regulations (12 CFR 25.22, 195.22, 228.22, and 345.22), which is beyond the scope of the proposed amendments. Second, excluding home equity loans and home equity lines of credit from the “home mortgage loan” definition would create an inconsistency between the CRA and HMDA regulations and a separate reporting requirement for CRA reporters that are also HMDA reporters. The change in the “home mortgage loan” definition does not require that the Agencies evaluate home mortgage loans with different purposes (
“As we stated in the proposed rule, the Agencies have relied on the scope of HMDA-reportable transactions to define “home mortgage loan” in the CRA regulations, in order to reduce burden on institutions by avoiding unnecessary costs and confusion, and have made conforming changes when the scope of HMDA-reportable transactions has changed, provided that the revised terms continue to meet the statutory purposes of the CRA. The Agencies are aware that the Bureau announced its intention to open a rulemaking to reconsider various aspects of the 2015 HMDA Rule in its December 21, 2017, Public Statement on Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Compliance, which is available at
3. On page 55736, the first and second full paragraphs in the second column are revised and two paragraphs are added following them to read as follows:
“The Agencies received three comments addressing the proposed revision. These commenters supported amending the definition of “consumer lending” in the Agencies' CRA regulations to conform to changes in the scope of loans reportable under Regulation C, which will be effective January 1, 2018, but made additional suggestions, including some not related to the proposal. A trade association urged the Agencies to consider automatically home improvement loans not secured by a dwelling if the financial institution opts to have them considered. This commenter also suggested that if the financial institution opts not to have such loans considered, then the Agencies should not require the institution to produce data on those loans for CRA evaluation. A community organization suggested that the Agencies should have examiners evaluate consumer lending, including home improvement lending not secured by a dwelling, during CRA exams when such lending constitutes a “significant amount” of the bank's business rather than a “substantial majority,” as is currently required under 12 CFR __.22(a)(1). Another trade association encouraged the Agencies to create a fifth category under the “consumer loan” definition to take the place of the “home equity loan” category, which the Agencies proposed to remove as a result of home equity loans and home equity lines of credit being included in the amended definition of “home mortgage loan.”
“The Agencies have considered the comments and are finalizing the definition of “consumer lending” as proposed. First, the commenters' suggestions to defer always to the financial institution on the inclusion of unsecured home improvement loans and to change “substantial majority” to “significant amount” would require a change to the CRA regulations beyond the scope of the proposed amendments. Specifically, consumer loans are considered in the large bank lending test under 12 CFR __.22(a)(1) under two circumstances: “if the bank has collected and maintained [data], as required under 12 CFR __.42(c)(1), and elects to have those loans considered” or “[i]f consumer lending constitutes a substantial majority of a bank's business.” 12 CFR __.22(a)(1). Thus, in the case of financial institutions evaluated under the large bank lending test, following these commenters' recommendations would require a regulatory change in the retail lending test under 12 CFR __.22(a)(1), which was not proposed.
“Further, in regard to the commenter's suggestion to use “significant amount” instead of “substantial majority,” loan products evaluated in the small and intermediate small bank tests are generally based on the financial institution's major product lines, or primary products, whichever term applies depending on the supervising agency. The categorization of consumer loans by type applies solely to financial institutions evaluated using the large bank lending test. The selection of major product lines, or primary products, for small and intermediate small banks typically involves a review of loan originations during the evaluation period, by loan type, along with a discussion with bank management to understand the bank's business focus. As a result, examiners already may include or exclude home improvement loans in evaluating bank performance if they are not a major product line, or primary product, as applicable.
“Second, the Agencies do not believe that creating a fifth, “home improvement,” category of consumer loans is warranted given the flexibility already provided through the supervisory process. Additionally, creating a separate “home improvement loan” category of consumer loans could result in additional burden for many financial institutions, particularly community banks, through the separate tracking of loans and could result in a double counting of loans, under HMDA and CRA, for home improvement purposes that are secured by a dwelling. For these reasons, the Agencies opted to consider home improvement loans not secured by a dwelling included in evaluating performance under the large bank lending test under the existing consumer loan categories of “other secured” and “other unsecured,” rather than to create a new category of consumer loans. Accordingly, the Agencies are finalizing the definition of “consumer lending” as proposed. We note, however, that although the Agencies are not adopting changes pursuant to the commenters' recommendations, the Agencies regularly review examination policies, procedures, guidance, and the CRA
4. On page 55736, the first full paragraph in the third column is revised to read as follows:
“The Agencies received two comments on the proposed changes to the CRA public file content requirements. One trade association supported the Agencies' efforts to streamline the public file content requirements to make it consistent with the new HMDA public disclosure requirements. Another trade association suggested that because financial institutions will no longer need to provide HMDA Loan Application Registers to the public, financial institutions should also not be required to produce their CRA Loan Application Registers (CRA LARs) so as to reduce regulatory burden. Changing the requirements in the CRA public file with respect to CRA LARs would require a regulation change that was not proposed by the Agencies and did not have the benefit of notice and comment. Accordingly, the Agencies are adopting the revisions as proposed.”
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 13, 2018.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Model 700 series airplanes. These airplanes will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. These design features are systems that affect structural performance, either directly or as a result of a failure or malfunction. The influence of these systems and their failure conditions must be taken into account when showing compliance with the FAA's requirements. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on Textron Aviation Inc. on April 10, 2018. Send comments on or before May 25, 2018.
Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2018-0293 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Greg Schneider, Airframe and Cabin Safety Section, AIR-675, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198; telephone 206-231-3213; email
The substance of these special conditions previously has been published in the
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On November 20, 2014, Textron applied for a type certificate for their new Model 700 series airplanes. The Textron Model 700 series airplanes are transport-category, twin turbofan-powered airplanes with standard seating provisions for up to 12 passengers and 2 crewmembers, and a maximum takeoff weight of 39,500 lbs.
Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Textron must show that the Model 700 series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by amendments 25-1 through 25-141.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design features, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Textron Model 700 series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17.
The Textron Model 700 series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:
These airplanes are equipped with systems (
Current regulations do not take into account the effects of systems on structural performance including normal operation and failure conditions. Special conditions are needed to account for these features. These special conditions define criteria to be used in the assessment of the effects of these systems on structures. The general approach of accounting for the effect of system failures on structural performance is extended to include any system in which partial or complete failure, alone or in combination with other system partial or complete failures, would affect structural performance.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Textron Model 700 series airplanes. Should Textron apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Textron Aviation Inc. Model 700 series airplanes.
For airplanes equipped with systems that affect structural performance, either directly or as a result of a failure or malfunction, the influence of these systems and their failure conditions must be taken into account when showing compliance with the requirements of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25, subpart C and D.
The following criteria must be used for showing compliance with these special conditions for airplanes equipped with flight control systems, autopilots, stability augmentation systems, load alleviation systems, flutter control systems, fuel management systems, and other systems that either directly, or as a result of failure or malfunction, affect structural performance. If these special conditions are used for other systems, it may be necessary to adapt the criteria to the specific system.
1. The criteria defined herein only addresses the direct structural consequences of the system responses and performances and cannot be considered in isolation but should be included in the overall safety evaluation of the airplane. These criteria may, in some instances, duplicate standards already established for this evaluation. These criteria are only applicable to structures whose failure could prevent continued safe flight and landing. Specific criteria that define acceptable limits on handling characteristics or stability requirements when operating in the system degraded or inoperative mode are not provided in these special conditions.
2. Depending upon the specific characteristics of the airplane, additional studies may be required that go beyond the criteria provided in these special conditions in order to demonstrate the capability of the airplane to meet other realistic conditions, such as alternative gust or maneuver descriptions for an airplane equipped with a load alleviation system.
3. The following definitions are applicable to these special conditions:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
4. General. The following criteria will be used in determining the influence of a system and its failure conditions on the airplane structure.
5. System fully operative. With the system fully operative, the following apply:
a. Limit loads must be derived in all normal operating configurations of the system from all the limit conditions specified in 14 CFR part 25, subpart C (or defined by special condition or equivalent level of safety in lieu of those specified in part 25, subpart C), taking into account any special behavior of such a system or associated functions or any effect on the structural performance of the airplane that may occur up to the limit loads. In particular, any significant nonlinearity (rate of displacement of control surface, thresholds or any other system nonlinearities) must be accounted for in a realistic or
b. The airplane must meet the strength requirements of 14 CFR part 25 (static strength, residual strength), using the specified factors to derive ultimate loads from the limit loads defined above. The effect of nonlinearities must be investigated beyond limit conditions to ensure the behavior of the system presents no anomaly compared to the behavior below limit conditions. However, conditions beyond limit conditions need not be considered when it can be shown that the airplane has design features that will not allow it to exceed those limit conditions.
c. The airplane must meet the aeroelastic stability requirements of § 25.629.
6. System in the failure condition. For any system failure condition not shown to be extremely improbable, the following apply:
a. At the time of occurrence. Starting from 1-g level flight conditions, a realistic scenario, including pilot corrective actions, must be established to determine the loads occurring at the time of failure and immediately after failure.
i. For static strength substantiation, these loads, multiplied by an appropriate factor of safety that is related to the probability of occurrence of the failure, are ultimate loads to be considered for design. The factor of safety (FS) is defined in Figure 1.
ii. For residual strength substantiation, the airplane must be able to withstand two thirds of the ultimate loads defined in subparagraph (6)(a)(i). For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.
iii. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to the speeds defined in § 25.629(b)(2). For failure conditions that result in speeds beyond V
iv. Failures of the system that result in forced structural vibrations (oscillatory failures) must not produce loads that could result in detrimental deformation of primary structure.
b. For the continuation of the flight. For the airplane, in the system failed state and considering any appropriate reconfiguration and flight limitations, the following apply:
i. The loads derived from the following conditions (or defined by special condition or equivalent level of safety in lieu of the following conditions) at speeds up to V
(1) The limit symmetrical maneuvering conditions specified in § 25.331 and in § 25.345.
(2) the limit gust and turbulence conditions specified in § 25.341 and in § 25.345.
(3) the limit rolling conditions specified in § 25.349 and the limit unsymmetrical conditions specified in § 25.367 and § 25.427(b) and (c).
(4) the limit yaw maneuvering conditions specified in § 25.351.
(5) the limit ground loading conditions specified in §§ 25.473, 25.491, 25.493(d) and 25.503.
ii. For static strength substantiation, each part of the structure must be able to withstand the loads in paragraph (6)(b)(i) of the special condition multiplied by a factor of safety depending on the probability of being in this failure state. The factor of safety is defined in Figure 2.
If P
iii. For residual strength substantiation, the airplane must be able to withstand two thirds of the ultimate loads defined in paragraph (6)(b)(ii) of the special condition. For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.
iv. If the loads induced by the failure condition have a significant effect on fatigue or damage tolerance then their effects must be taken into account.
v. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to a speed determined from Figure 3. Flutter clearance speeds V′ and V″ may be based on the speed limitation specified for the remainder of the flight using the margins defined by § 25.629(b).
If Pj is greater than 10
vi. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must also be shown up to V′ in Figure 3 above, for any probable system failure condition combined with any damage required or selected for investigation by § 25.571(b).
c. Consideration of certain failure conditions may be required by other sections of 14 CFR part 25 regardless of calculated system reliability. Where analysis shows the probability of these failure conditions to be less than 10
7. Failure indications. For system failure detection and indication, the following apply:
a. The system must be checked for failure conditions, not extremely improbable, that degrade the structural capability below the level required by part 25 or significantly reduce the reliability of the remaining system. As far as reasonably practicable, the flight crew must be made aware of these failures before flight. Certain elements of the control system, such as mechanical and hydraulic components, may use special periodic inspections, and electronic components may use daily checks, in lieu of detection and indication systems to achieve the objective of this requirement. These certification maintenance requirements must be limited to components that are not readily detectable by normal detection and indication systems and where service history shows that inspections will provide an adequate level of safety.
b. The existence of any failure condition, not extremely improbable, during flight that could significantly affect the structural capability of the airplane and for which the associated reduction in airworthiness can be minimized by suitable flight limitations, must be signaled to the flight crew. For example, failure conditions that result in a factor of safety between the airplane strength and the loads of 14 CFR part 25, subpart C, below 1.25, or flutter margins below V″, must be signaled to the crew during flight.
8. Dispatch with known failure conditions. If the airplane is to be dispatched in a known system failure condition that affects structural performance, or affects the reliability of the remaining system to maintain structural performance, then the provisions of this special condition must be met, including the provisions of paragraph (5) for the dispatched condition, and paragraph (6) for subsequent failures. Expected operational limitations may be taken into account in establishing Pj as the probability of failure occurrence for determining the safety margin in Figure 1. Flight limitations and expected operational limitations may be taken into account in establishing Qj as the combined probability of being in the dispatched failure condition and the subsequent failure condition for the safety margins in Figures 2 and 3. These limitations must be such that the probability of being in this combined failure state and then subsequently encountering limit load conditions is extremely improbable. No reduction in these safety margins is allowed if the subsequent system failure rate is greater than 10
Issued in Des Moines, Washington.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron), Model 700 series airplanes that feature an inflatable airbag system on multiple-place and single-place side-facing seats (
This action is effective on Textron Aviation Inc. on April 10, 2018. Send comments on or before May 25, 2018.
Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2018-0247 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Alan Sinclair, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Section, AIR-675, Transport Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, Washington 98198-6547, telephone 206-231-3215, email
The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is unnecessary because the substance of these special conditions has been published in the
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On November 20, 2014, Textron applied for a type certificate for the Textron Model 700 series airplanes. The Textron Model 700 series airplanes are low-wing, executive jet airplanes with seating provisions for 2 crewmembers and up to 12 passengers. These airplanes will have a maximum takeoff weight of 38,514 lbs.
Textron's proposed passenger seating arrangement(s) include a baseline 9-place and an optional 8-place and 10-place configuration. The baseline configuration includes a forward right hand belted single-place side-facing seat. An optional 10-place seat configuration includes a left hand, aft-belted, three-place side-facing couch. The multiple-place and single-place side-facing seats can be occupied for taxi, takeoff, and landing, and incorporate an inflatable airbag occupant protection system integrated into the side-facing seats. The FAA determined that inflatable airbag systems are a novel or unusual design feature and the existing airworthiness regulations do not provide adequate or appropriate safety standards.
Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Textron must show that the Textron Model 700 series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-141.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Textron Model 700 series airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Textron Model 700 series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
An inflatable airbag system on multiple-place and single-place side-facing seats installed in Textron Model 700 series airplanes, in order to reduce the potential for both head and leg injury in the event of an accident.
Side-facing seats are considered a novel design for transport category airplanes that include §§ 25.562 and 25.785 at Amendment 25-64 in their certification basis, and were not considered when those airworthiness standards were issued. The FAA has determined that the existing regulations do not provide adequate or appropriate safety standards for occupants of side-facing seats. To provide a level of safety
On June 16, 1988, 14 CFR part 25 was amended by Amendment 25-64 to revise the emergency-landing conditions that must be considered in the design of transport category airplanes. Amendment 25-64 revised the static-load conditions in § 25.561, and added a new § 25.562 that required dynamic testing for all seats approved for occupancy during takeoff and landing. The intent of Amendment 25-64 was to provide an improved level of safety for occupants on transport category airplanes. However, because most seating on transport category airplanes is forward-facing, the pass/fail criteria developed in Amendment 25-64 focused primarily on these seats. For some time, the FAA granted exemptions for the multiple-place side-facing-seat installations because the existing test methods and acceptance criteria did not produce a level of safety equivalent to the level of safety provided for forward- and aft-facing seats. These exemptions were subject to many conditions that reflected the injury-evaluation criteria and mitigation strategies available at the time of the exemption issuance.
The FAA also issued special conditions to address single-place side-facing seats based on the data available at the time the FAA issued those special conditions. Continuing concerns regarding the safety of side-facing seats prompted the FAA to conduct research to develop an acceptable method of compliance with §§ 25.562 and 25.785(b) for side-facing seat installations. That research has identified injury considerations and evaluation criteria in addition to those previously used to approve side-facing seats (see published report DOT/FAA/AR-09/41, July 2011).
One particular concern that was identified during the FAA's research program, but not addressed in the previous special conditions, was the significant leg injuries that can occur to occupants of both single- and multiple-place side-facing seats. Because this type of injury does not occur on forward- and aft-facing seats, the FAA determined that, to achieve the level of safety envisioned in Amendment 25-64, additional requirements would be needed as compared to previously issued special conditions. Nonetheless, the research has now allowed the development of a single set of special conditions that is applicable to all fully side-facing seats.
On November 5, 2012, the FAA released Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1, “Technical Criteria for Approving Side-Facing Seats,” to update existing FAA certification policy on §§ 25.562 and 25.785(a) at Amendment 25-64 for single- and multiple-place side-facing seats. This policy addresses both the technical criteria for approving side-facing seats and the implementation of those criteria. The FAA methodology detailed in Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1 was used to establish a new set of proposed special conditions that incorporated conditions for exemptions developed prior to the policy and included in these new special conditions, others that reflect current research findings specifically for neck and leg protection. We have frequently issued these new special conditions for airbag systems in the shoulder belts. While the Textron design integrate the airbag systems into the side-facing seats that deploy from a different location then the shoulder belts, the airbag will inflate at the same locations as those in the shoulder belts. Therefore, the FAA is using the same special conditions as for airbag systems in shoulder belts for this Textron design as the airbag system functions the same.
In Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1, conditions 1 and 2 are applicable to all side-facing seat installations, whereas conditions 3 through 16 represent additional requirements applicable to side-facing seats equipped with an airbag system in the shoulder belt. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Textron Model 700 series airplanes Should Textron apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis.
In addition to the requirements of §§ 25.562 and 25.785, the following special condition numbers 1 and 2 are part of the type certification basis of the Textron Model 700 series airplanes with side-facing seat installations. For seat places equipped with airbag systems, additional special condition numbers 3 through 16 are part of the type certification basis.
1. Additional requirements applicable to tests or rational analysis conducted to show compliance with §§ 25.562 and 25.785 for side-facing seats:
a. The longitudinal test(s) conducted in accordance with § 25.562(b)(2) to show compliance with the seat-strength requirements of § 25.562(c)(7) and (8), and these special conditions must have an ES-2re anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) (49 CFR part 572, subpart U) or equivalent, or a Hybrid-II ATD (49 CFR part 572, subpart B, as specified in § 25.562) or equivalent, occupying each seat position and including all items contactable by the occupant (
b. The longitudinal test(s) conducted in accordance with § 25.562(b)(2), to show compliance with the injury assessments required by § 25.562(c) and these special conditions, may be conducted separately from the test(s) to show structural integrity. In this case, structural-assessment tests must be conducted as specified in paragraph 1a, above, and the injury-assessment test must be conducted without yaw or floor misalignment. Injury assessments may be accomplished by testing with ES-2re ATD (49 CFR part 572, subpart U) or equivalent at all places. Alternatively, these assessments may be accomplished by multiple tests that use an ES-2re at the seat place being evaluated, and a Hybrid-II ATD (49 CFR part 572, subpart B, as specified in § 25.562) or equivalent used in all seat places forward of the one being assessed, to evaluate occupant interaction. In this case, seat places aft of the one being assessed may be unoccupied. If a seat installation includes adjacent items that are contactable by the occupant, the injury potential of that contact must be assessed. To make this assessment, tests may be conducted that include the actual item, located and attached in a representative fashion. Alternatively, the injury potential may be assessed by a combination of tests with items having the same geometry as the actual item, but having stiffness characteristics that would create the worst case for injury (injuries due to both contact with the item and lack of support from the item).
c. If a seat is installed aft of structure (
d. To accommodate a range of occupant heights (5th percentile female to 95th percentile male), the surface of items contactable by the occupant must be homogenous 7.3 inches (185 mm) above and 7.9 inches (200 mm) below the point (center of area) that is contacted by the 50th percentile male size ATD's head during the longitudinal test(s) conducted in accordance with paragraphs 1a, 1b, and 1c, of these special conditions. Otherwise, additional head-injury criteria (HIC) assessment tests may be necessary. Any surface (inflatable or otherwise) that provides support for the occupant of any seat place must provide that support in a consistent manner regardless of occupant stature. For example, if an inflatable shoulder belt is used to mitigate injury risk, then it must be demonstrated by inspection to bear against the range of occupants in a similar manner before and after inflation. Likewise, the means of limiting lower-leg flail must be demonstrated by inspection to provide protection for the range of occupants in a similar manner.
e. For longitudinal test(s) conducted in accordance with § 25.562(b)(2) and these special conditions, the ATDs must be positioned, clothed, and have lateral instrumentation configured as follows:
i.
(1) Lower the ATD vertically into the seat while simultaneously (see Figure 2 for illustration):
(a) Aligning the midsagittal plane (a vertical plane through the midline of the body; dividing the body into right and left halves) with approximately the middle of the seat place.
(b) Applying a horizontal x-axis direction (in the ATD coordinate system) force of about 20 lbs. (89 N) to the torso at approximately the intersection of the midsagittal plane and the bottom rib of the ES-2re or lower sternum of the Hybrid-II at the midsagittal plane, to compress the seat back cushion.
(c) Keeping the upper legs nearly horizontal by supporting them just behind the knees.
(2) Once all lifting devices have been removed from the ATD:
Rock it slightly to settle it in the seat.
(a) Separate the knees by about 4 inches (100 mm).
(b) Set the ES-2re's head at approximately the midpoint of the available range of z-axis rotation (to align the head and torso midsagittal planes).
(c) Position the ES-2re's arms at the joint's mechanical detent that puts them at approximately a 40 degree angle with respect to the torso. Position the Hybrid-II ATD hands on top of its upper legs.
(d) Position the feet such that the centerlines of the lower legs are approximately parallel to a lateral vertical plane (in the aircraft coordinate system).
ii.
iii.
f. The combined horizontal/vertical test, required by § 25.562(b)(1) and these special conditions, must be conducted with a Hybrid II ATD (49 CFR part 572, subpart B, as specified in § 25.562), or equivalent, occupying each seat position.
g. Restraint systems:
i. If inflatable restraint systems are used, they must be active during all dynamic tests conducted to show compliance with § 25.562.
ii. The design and installation of seat-belt buckles must prevent unbuckling due to applied inertial forces or impact of the hands/arms of the occupant during an emergency landing.
2. Additional performance measures applicable to tests and rational analysis conducted to show compliance with §§ 25.562 and 25.785 for side-facing seats:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
As measured by the ES-2re ATD and filtered at CFC 600 as defined in SAE J211:
i. The upper-neck tension force at the occipital condyle (O.C.) location must be less than 405 lbs. (1,800 N).
ii. The upper-neck compression force at the O.C. location must be less than 405 lbs. (1,800 N).
iii. The upper-neck bending torque about the ATD x-axis at the O.C. location must be less than 1,018 in lbs. (115 Nm).
iv. The upper-neck resultant shear force at the O.C. location must be less than 186 lbs. (825 N).
g.
h.
i.
ii.
3. For seats with an airbag system, show that the airbag system will deploy and provide protection under crash conditions where it is necessary to prevent serious injury. The means of protection must take into consideration a range of stature from a 2-year-old child to 95th percentile male. The airbag system must provide a consistent approach to energy absorption throughout that range of occupants. When the seat systems include airbag systems, the systems must be included in each of the certification tests as they would be installed in the airplane. In addition, the following situations must be considered:
a. The seat occupant is holding an infant.
b. The seat occupant is a pregnant woman.
4. The airbag systems must provide adequate protection for each occupant regardless of the number of occupants of the seat assembly, considering that unoccupied seats may have an active airbag system.
5. The design must prevent the airbag systems from being incorrectly installed, such that the airbag systems would not properly deploy. Alternatively, it must be shown that such deployment is not hazardous to the occupant and will provide the required injury protection.
6. It must be shown that the airbag system is not susceptible to inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear, or inertial loads resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including gusts and hard landings), and other operating and environment conditions (vibrations, moisture, etc.) likely to occur in service.
7. Deployment of the airbag system must not introduce injury mechanisms to the seated occupant or result in injuries that could impede rapid egress. This assessment should include an occupant whose belt is loosely fastened.
8. It must be shown that inadvertent deployment of the airbag system during the most critical part of the flight, will either meet the requirement of § 25.1309(b) or not cause a hazard to the airplane or its occupants.
9. It must be shown that the airbag system will not impede rapid egress of occupants 10 seconds after airbag deployment.
10. The airbag systems must be protected from lightning and high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF). The threats to the airplane specified in existing regulations regarding lightning, § 25.1316, and HIRF, § 25.1317, are incorporated by reference for the purpose of measuring lightning and HIRF protection.
11. The airbag system must function properly after loss of normal aircraft electrical power, and after a transverse separation of the fuselage at the most critical location. A separation at the location of the airbag systems does not have to be considered.
12. It must be shown that the airbag system will not release hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin.
13. The airbag system installations must be protected from the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result.
14. A means must be available for a crew member to verify the integrity of the airbag activation system prior to each flight or it must be demonstrated to reliably operate between inspection intervals. The FAA considers that the loss of the airbag system deployment function alone (
15. The inflatable material may not have an average burn rate of greater than 2.5 inches/minute when tested using the horizontal flammability test defined in part 25, appendix F, part I, paragraph (b)(5).
16. The airbag system, once deployed, must not adversely affect the emergency lighting system (
Issued in Des Moines, Washington.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Textron Aviation Inc. Models 510, 680, and 680A airplanes equipped with certain part number brake assemblies. This AD was prompted by a report that brake pad wear indicator pins were set incorrectly, which could lead to brake pad wear beyond the acceptable limits without indication. This AD requires inspection of the brake pad wear indicator pins and replacement of the brake assembly if any pin is set incorrectly. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 15, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 15, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Textron Aviation Inc., One Cessna Boulevard, P.O. Box 7704, Wichita, Kansas 67277; phone: 316-517-6215; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
CONTACT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
•
•
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Models 510, 680, and 680A airplanes equipped with brake assemblies, part numbers (P/Ns) 2-1706-1 and 2-1675-1, with certain serial numbers. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Mark Mitcheson of NetJets Aviation requested specifics on “FAA-approved replacement instructions approved specifically for this AD.” We infer he wants clarification of the intent of this statement.
We agree that the language quoted by the commenter and used in the NPRM was confusing. We intended to direct those responsible for complying with the requirements of the AD to the type certificate holder, in this case Textron Aviation Inc., to obtain the replacement instructions (
We modified in this AD the language quoted by the commenter to more accurately reflect our intent.
Mark Mitcheson requested whether the AD should prohibit the installation of the affected parts.
We partially agree. We agree operators should avoid installing the affected part because parts that do not meet type design could introduce the unsafe condition onto the airplane. However, we disagree with adding a specific requirement to the AD prohibiting the installation of the affected part. This AD requires inspection of the installed affected parts, and, if an affected part is installed, the airplane will immediately be subject to the requirements of this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:
• Αre 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 also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
We reviewed UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 2-1706-1-32-1, Revision 1, dated July 18, 2017; and UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 2-1675-32-2, Revision 1, dated July 18, 2017. For the applicable models, the service information identifies the affected serial number brake assemblies and describes procedures for inspecting the wear indicator pins. 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 also reviewed Textron Aviation Inc. Service Letters SL510-32-08, SL680-32-15, and SL680A-32-05, all dated July 21, 2017. For the applicable airplane models, these service letters direct the operators to use Goodrich Service Bulletins 2-1706-1-32-1 and 2-1675-32-2. However, the Goodrich Service Bulletins that the Textron Aviation Inc. Service Letters refer to and intend for operators to use are titled UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 2-1706-1-32-1, Revision 1, dated July 18, 2017; and UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 2-1675-32-2, Revision 1, dated July 18, 2017. The UTC Aerospace Systems service bulletins are included as attachments to the Textron service letters.
We estimate that this AD affects 668 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these replacements:
According to the manufacturer, the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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 15, 2018.
None.
(1) This AD applies to Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) (type certificates previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Models 510, 680, and 680A airplanes, certificated in any category, with serial numbers listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD and equipped with a brake assembly specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD:
(i) For Model 510 airplanes, serial numbers (S/N) -0001 through -0479: Brake assembly part number (P/N) 2-1706-1 that has a serial number listed in table 1 of UTC Aerospace Systems (UTC) Service Bulletin 2-1706-1-32-1, Revision 1, July 18, 2017;
(ii) Model 680 airplanes, S/Ns -0001 through -0349 and -0501 through -0570: Brake assembly P/N 2-1675-1 that has a serial number listed in table 1 of UTC Service Bulletin 2-1675-32-2, Revision 1, July 18, 2017; and
(iii) Model 680A airplanes, -0003 thru -0069 and -0071 thru -0089: Brake assembly P/N 2-1675-1 that has a serial number listed in table 1 of UTC Service Bulletin 2-1675-32-2, Revision 1, July 18, 2017.
(2) The UTC service bulletins are included as attachments to Textron Service Letters SL510-32-08, SL680-32-15, and SL680A-32-05, all dated July 21, 2017. However, you may also obtain the UTC service bulletins directly from UTC using the contact information found in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by information received from UTC that brake pad wear indicator pins were set incorrectly. We are issuing this AD to detect and address wear indicator pins that were set at an incorrect length. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in brake pad wear beyond the acceptable limits without indication and consequent loss of braking ability, which could lead to a runway excursion.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For Model 510 airplanes: Within 75 landings after May 15, 2018 (the effective date of this AD) or within 90 days after May 15, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, inspect the brake pad wear indicator pins, P/N 2-1706-1, for correct length following the Accomplishment Instructions in UTC Service Bulletin 2-1706-1-32-1, Revision 1, July 18, 2017.
(2) For Models 680 and 680A airplanes: Within 200 landings after May 15, 2018 (the effective date of this AD) or within 90 days after May 15, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, inspect the brake pad wear indicator pins, P/N 2-1675-1, for correct length following the Accomplishment Instructions in UTC Service Bulletin 2-1675-32-2, Revision 1, July 18, 2017.
(3) The compliance times in this AD are presented in landings. If you do not keep a record of the total number of landings, then multiply the total number of hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date by 0.85 for Model 510 airplanes and multiply the total number of hours TIS after the effective date by 0.73 for Models 680 and 680A airplanes to estimate the number of landings.
(4) UTC Service Bulletin 2-1706-1-32-1, Revision 1, July 18, 2017, and UTC Service Bulletin 2-1675-32-2, Revision 1, July 18, 2017, both contain a requirement to complete an attached form and return the form to UTC Aerospace Systems. This AD does not require completing the attached form and returning it to UTC Aerospace Systems.
If any brake pad wear indicator pin is found to have an incorrect length during the inspection required in paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, contact Textron Aviation, Inc. for replacement instructions that the FAA accepted for compliance with this AD. You may use the contact information listed in paragraph (l)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
We allow a special flight permit per 14 CFR 39.23 for the replacement of the brake assembly required in paragraph (h) of this AD provided the wear indicator pin length extends a minimum of 0.200 inches beyond the brake assembly housing with the brakes engaged.
(1) The Manager, Wichita 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 applicable person identified in paragraph (k)(1)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact one of the following:
(i) For the Model 510: David Enns, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: 316-946-4147; fax: 913-946-4107; email:
(ii) For the Models 680 and 680A: Adam Hein, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: 316-946-4116; fax: 316-946-4107; email:
(2) You may review Textron Aviation Inc. Service Letters SL510-32-08, SL680-32-15, and SL680A-32-05, all dated July 21, 2017, for additional service information related to 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) UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 2-1675-32-2, Revision 1, July 18, 2017.
(ii) UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 2-1706-1-32-1, Revision 1, July 18, 2017.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Textron Aviation Inc., One Cessna Boulevard, P.O. Box 7704, Wichita, Kansas 67277; phone: 316-517-6215; email:
(4) You may view this service information at 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.
(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 Embraer S.A. Models EMB-500 and EMB-505 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as improperly tied castle nuts on the aileron, rudder, and elevator trim tab (or autotab) attachment bolts. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 15, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of May 15, 2018.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Embraer S.A., Phenom Maintenance Support, Avenida Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170, São José dos Campos—SP-12227-901, P.O. Box 36/2, Brasil; phone: +55 12 3927 1000; fax: +55 12 3927-2619; email:
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Embraer S.A. Models EMB-500 and EMB-505 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the
This [ANAC] AD results of a report of one airplane having improperly tied castle nut on the aileron, rudder and elevator trim tab (or autotab) attachment bolts. A disconnected surface may cause an increase in dynamic loads and probable flutter, which may cause structural failure and possible loss of control of the airplane.
Since this condition may occur in other airplanes of the same type and affects flight safety, a corrective action is required. Thus, sufficient reason exists to request compliance with this [ANAC] AD in the indicated time limit without prior notice.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and the FAA's response to each comment.
Eduardo Cerdeira and Ricardo Hollerbach, both from Embraer S.A., commented that all of the affected airplanes have been inspected with no faults found; therefore, there is no need for the proposed AD. They state that, since the issuance of the original versions of the service information for the two affected fleets, Embraer S.A. has been in direct contact with all the applicable operators in the world to encourage them to accomplish the required inspections as soon as possible. Since the start of the inspections, the commenters state that the completion status has been provided to the FAA, as well as the aviation authorities of Europe (EASA), and Brazil (ANAC). As of December 6, 2017, they stated that all affected airplanes, as defined in the current service information, have been inspected with no faults found. Finally, the commenters provided tables showing each of the affected airplane serial numbers and the date on which the applicable service information was accomplished.
We don't agree with this comment. The FAA contacted Embraer. S.A. to obtain records to show that all airplanes were in compliance with the actions in this AD. Embraer S.A. informed the FAA that they were unable to provide such information. While the FAA appreciates the effort that the commenters went to in order to assure that the unsafe condition was addressed on the affected airplanes, our policy of not accepting assurance from a design approval holder that all products are in compliance as a reason to not issue an AD action requires us to move forward with the issuance of the final rule AD. Please note that the Action and Compliance paragraph within the FAA AD begins with the phrase “unless already done”, which may apply in this case.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the 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.
Embraer S.A. has issued PHENOM by Embraer Alert Service Bulletin 500-27-A026, Revision 1, dated October 6, 2017; and PHENOM by Embraer Alert Service Bulletin 505-27-A028, Revision 2, dated October 6, 2017. For the applicable models, the service information describes procedures for inspection of the aileron trim tab, rudder trim tab, and elevator trim tab, and, if required, application of torque and installation of a cotter pin. 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 will affect 114 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 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 this AD on U.S. operators to be $9,690, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 3 work-hours and require parts costing $50, for a cost of $305 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 Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
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 May 15, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Embraer S.A. Models EMB-500 and EMB-505 airplanes, serial numbers 50000246, 50000267, 50000286, 50000289, 50000291, 50000299, 50000304, 50000305, 50000306, 50000310, 50000348, 50000359, 50000368, 50000370, 50000372, 50000376, 50000377, 50000378, 50000379, 50000380, 50500118, 50500122, 50500148, 50500151, 50500167, 50500176, 50500179, 50500185, 50500188, 50500191, 50500197, 50500203, 50500207, 50500209, 50500212, 50500214, 50500215, 50500219, 50500225, 50500226, 50500231, 50500242, 50500244, 50500246, 50500248, 50500250, 50500256, 50500260, 50500266, 50500273, 50500275, 50500277, 50500280, 50500282, 50500285, 50500287, 50500288, 50500289, 50500292, 50500293, 50500294, 50500296, 50500297, 50500298, 50500300, 50500302, 50500304, 50500306, 50500309, 50500311, 50500317, 50500318, 50500323, 50500328, 50500331, 50500333, 50500335, 50500338, 50500340, 50500344, 50500345, 50500348, 50500351, 50500357, 50500361, 50500362, 50500363, 50500364, 50500365, 50500367, 50500368, 50500371, 50500372, 50500379, 50500381, 50500382, 50500385, 50500386, 50500390, 50500391, 50500394, 50500395, 50500397, 50500398, 50500399, 50500400, 50500402, 50500403, 50500404, 50500407, 50500410, 50500415, 50500418, and 50500424, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as improperly tied castle nuts on the aileron, rudder and elevator trim tab (or autotab) attachment bolts. We are issuing this AD to inspect the aileron trim tab, rudder trim tab and elevator trim tab (or autotab), and correct any discrepancy, which if not corrected, may cause an increase in dynamic loads and possible flutter, leading to structural failure and loss of control.
Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD following the Accomplishment Instructions in PHENOM by Embraer Alert Service Bulletin (SB) No.: 500-27-A026, Revision 1, dated October 6, 2017; or PHENOM by Embraer Alert SB No.: 505-27-A028, Revision 2, dated October 6, 2017, as applicable:
(1) Within the next 25 hours time in service (TIS) after May 15, 2018 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 12 months after May 15, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, inspect the aileron trim tab, rudder trim tab, and elevator trim tab attachment points to make sure the cotter pin is installed on the castle nut of the attaching bolts.
(2) If any discrepancy is found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, correct the discrepancy.
This AD allows credit for the actions required in paragraph (f) of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD following PHENOM by Embraer Alert SB No. 500-27-A026, original issue, dated September 29, 2017; PHENOM by Embraer Alert SB No. 505-27-A028, original issue, dated September 28, 2017; or PHENOM by Embraer Alert SB 505-27-A028, Revision 01, dated September 29, 2017; as applicable.
Although PHENOM by Embraer Alert SB No.: 500-27-A026, Revision 1, dated October 6, 2017; and PHENOM by Embraer Alert SB No.: 505-27-A028, Revision 2, dated October 6, 2017; specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, AD No.: 2017-11-01, dated November 10, 2017. 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) PHENOM by Embraer Alert Service Bulletin No.: 500-27-A026, Revision 1, dated October 6, 2017.
(ii) PHENOM by Embraer Alert Service Bulletin No.: 505-27-A028, Revision 2, dated October 6, 2017.
(3) For Embraer S.A. service information identified in this AD, contact Embraer S.A., Phenom Maintenance Support, Avenida Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170, São José dos Campos—SP-12227-901, P.O. Box 36/2, Brasil; phone: +55 12 3927 1000; fax: +55 12 3927-2619; 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. In addition, you can access this service information 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:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation; modification.
The Coast Guard has modified a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the CSX Swing Bridge, which carries CSX railroad across the New Curtis Creek, mile 1.4, at Baltimore, MD. This modified deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge maintenance. This modified deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
This modified deviation is effective without actual notice from April 10, 2018 through 2:30 p.m. on April 13, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 2:31 p.m. on March 30, 2018, until April 10, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0033] is available at
If you have questions on this modified temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael R. Thorogood, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6557, email
On March 2, 2018, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MD” in the
The Curtis Creek is used by a variety of vessels including U.S. government and public vessels, tug and barge traffic, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will open on signal, if at least one hour notification is given. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies, if at least 15 minutes notification is given. The bridge may be contacted at (410) 354-5593 24 hours per day. There is no immediate alternative route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transit to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Grassy Sound Channel (Ocean Drive) Bridge across Grassy Sound Channel, mile 1.0, at Middle Township, NJ. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the free movement of pedestrians and vehicles during the 2018 “MudHen Half Marathon”. This deviation allows the drawbridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
This deviation is effective from 7:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. on April 29, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0272], is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Mickey Sanders, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-6587, email
The event director, DelMoSports LLC, with approval from the Cape May County Bridge Commission, who owns and operates the Grassy Sound Channel (Ocean Drive) Bridge, across Grassy Sound Channel, mile 1.0, at Middle Township, NJ, requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to accommodate the free movement of pedestrians and vehicles during the 2018 “MudHen Half Marathon”.
The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.721. Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 7:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. on April 29, 2018. The Grassy Sound Channel is used by a variety of vessels including small commercial vessels and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by this temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is revising the portion of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD or rating schedule) that addresses the organs of special sense and schedule of ratings—eye. The final rule incorporates medical advances that have occurred since the last review, updates current medical terminology, and provides clearer evaluation criteria.
This rule is effective on May 13, 2018.
Gary Reynolds, M.D., Medical Officer, Part 4 VASRD 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.)
On June 9, 2015, VA published a proposed rule in the
VA proposed several revisions to the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye, including a new definition of incapacitating episodes that used the number of clinic visits required to treat active eye disease as a means of quantifying the level of disability. VA also proposed to apply the formula to more diagnostic codes (DCs).
Two comments regarding the proposed updates to the General Rating Formula, specifically regarding missing definitions, were received. One commenter asked for clarification of “per year” in regard to measuring the number of visits for medical treatment. VA appreciates the comment concerning how “per year” is defined, and will further clarify the relevant time period by substituting the phrase “within the past twelve months” for the phrase “per year.” The change of phrasing to “within the past twelve months” is consistent with VA's practice of assigning “staged ratings” where the evidence shows that different ratings are appropriate for distinct periods of time.
The majority of the comments regarding the proposed updates, however, concerned the revision to “incapacitating episodes.” Two commenters did not agree with using the number of clinic visits to quantify the severity of incapacitating episodes, noting that many conditions are
After reviewing all of the comments pertaining to “incapacitating episodes,” and “clinic visits,” VA will further clarify how it will incorporate specified clinical visits to this body system. These visits are typically associated with time away from work (an earnings loss proxy) applicable to the definition of “incapacitating episodes.” See 38 U.S.C. 1155, 38 CFR 4.1 (stating that the purpose of the rating schedule is to represent the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries in civil occupations).
The current definition for incapacitating episodes calls for acute symptoms that require prescribed bedrest and treatment by a provider. Evaluation is based on the total duration of incapacitating episodes. While prescribed bedrest may be an excellent proxy for earnings loss, modern medicine rarely, if ever, uses it for treatment.
The definition for incapacitating episodes in the proposed rule sought to use more quantifiable measures than the current regulation. It called for active eye disease that required a visit to a provider for treatment, monitoring, or management of complications related to the active eye disease. VA would base the evaluation on the number of clinic visits within a one-year period. While clinic visits provide an easily quantifiable and consistent metric, the correlation between clinic visits and impairment in earning capacity may be strong or weak depending on the purpose of the visits.
Based on the comments received, as well as the underlying intent for the changes in the proposed rule, VA believes that targeted modifications to the definition for “incapacitating episodes” and to the criteria in the General Rating Formula effectively address the concerns raised in the comments, as well as remain consistent with the intent of the proposed rule. First, VA will use Note (1) under the General Rating Formula to clarify that an incapacitating episode is “an eye condition severe enough to require a clinic visit to a provider specifically for treatment purposes.” This definition distinguishes between treatment visits and visits for other purposes. Treatment visits can typically require two to three days away from work to allow for recovery from the treatment, in addition to the time needed for the treatment visit itself. In contrast, a clinic visit for diagnostic, monitoring, or screening purposes would only require time away from work for the visit itself. The criteria are specifically designed to account for situations when a Veteran can have relatively normal function, but has to take extensive time off work due to the treatment program. Therefore, counting only treatment visits as opposed to all clinic visits provides a better proxy for average impairment in earning capacity because it has a stronger correlation to the impact on the ability to work. We will move the list of treatment examples found in the second sentence to Note (1) of proposed § 4.79 to Note (2) and renumber proposed § 4.79 Note (2) as Note (3).
The current criteria for the General Rating Formula base evaluations on the total number of days spent incapacitated within a 12-month period. The criteria in the proposed rule, on the other hand, bases evaluations on the number of clinic visits for treatment or monitoring of an active eye disease within a year. As VA is changing the criteria in the final rule to count only those clinic visits made for the purpose of treatment, VA will modify the number of visits required for all evaluations. The criteria will now read: For the 60 percent evaluation, “With documented incapacitating episodes requiring 7 or more treatment visits for an eye condition during the past 12 months.” The 40 percent evaluation will read, “With documented incapacitating episodes requiring at least 5 but less than 7 treatment visits for an eye condition during the past 12 months.” The 20 percent evaluation will read, “With documented incapacitating episodes requiring at least 3 but less than 5 treatment visits for an eye condition during the past 12 months.” Finally, the 10 percent evaluation will read, “With documented incapacitating episodes requiring at least 1 but less than 3 treatment visits for an eye condition during the past 12 months.”
VA proposed organizing most of the DCs within § 4.79 under headings that reflected the part of the eye affected by ratable conditions. Two commenters supported these organizational changes. Other commenters recommended moving various diagnostic codes from one proposed category to another proposed category. VA thanks the commenters for their support and suggestions; however, VA has reconsidered this organizational change, noting that it would create more administrative complexity in rating by making it more difficult to locate the most appropriate DC for evaluation purposes. Therefore, VA is withdrawing the proposed organizational changes found in the proposed rule.
One commenter suggested that the definition of visual impairment should be revised to include multiple images, ghosting, halos, starbursts, sensitivity to light, ability to drive at night or participate in low-light activities, and read a computer screen without eyestrain and headaches. VA disagrees with this proposal, as the symptoms noted are almost always accompanied by measurable changes in visual acuity, visual field defects or muscle function, all of which form the basis of the current definition of visual impairment under 38 CFR 4.75. If VA followed the commenter's suggestion, a Veteran could have a complete resolution of disability associated with visual acuity, visual fields, and/or muscle testing, but
The same commenter also suggested that VA provide a minimum evaluation of 50 percent when the symptoms in the proposed definition affected a normal lifestyle. Section 1155 of title 38, United States Code, requires VA to base disability ratings, as far as practicable, on the average impairments of earnings capacity in civil occupations resulting from such injuries, and not on disruptions to lifestyle. See also 38 CFR 4.1. For this reason, VA is unable to make any changes based upon this comment.
Another commenter suggested that VA should not consider Goldmann charts and electronic medical records generated during treatment at a VA Blind Rehabilitation Center, VA eye clinic, or private provider when rating visual conditions, because such examinations are not created for VA rating purposes. The commenter stated that Goldmann charts at VA Blind Rehabilitation Centers are often marked as “NOT FOR VA RATNG PURPOSES.” However, electronic treatment records from a VA Blind Rehabilitation Center do not always include the notation. The commenter stated that Veterans may “not want to risk a potential reduction in their VA disability rating” if VA would use evidence generated by treatment for disability rating purposes. VA disagrees. Such marks on VA Blind Rehabilitation Center records indicate only that they were generated as part of a treatment program, not as a part of the VA disability claims process. The evidentiary standard has already been established in 38 CFR 4.77. If the VA Blind Rehabilitation examination or other eye examination meets the standard outlined in 38 CFR 4.77, then VA reserves the option to use the examination as evidence for rating purposes, consistent with the general legal requirement that VA consider all evidence of record.
One commenter stated that VA should evaluate visual disability based on uncorrected visual acuity, rather than corrected visual acuity. This commenter noted that this approach would be more equitable, as it is similar to the criteria used for auditory conditions (with evaluations based on the unaided hearing). VA disagrees with this recommendation as aural and visual disabilities are distinctly different. Medical interventions for auditory conditions typically preserve or improve residual function to an extent, but do not completely restore function. On the other hand, medical interventions for visual conditions may often completely restore function. For example, hearing aids typically amplify volume at a frequency identified with hearing loss, but the amplification fails to completely restore hearing and may amplify ambient noise, adding an aural confusion not previously present. In contrast, lenses and/or surgery for visual acuity may, in most cases, actually restore normal acuity. Also, hearing aids often cost significantly more than spectacles or contact lenses, so VA would not expect or require disabled individuals to routinely own and wear them to ameliorate that disability. The visually impaired are more readily tested and fitted with corrective devices (
Another commenter suggested developing rating requirements (providing a minimum rating) for visual conditions that cause a greater overall disability than a visual acuity test can properly record, and provided an example of a situation that focused mainly on quality of life issues. VA cannot make any changes based on this comment. As stated previously, Section 1155 of title 38, United States Code, requires VA to base disability ratings, as far as practicable, on the average impairment in earning capacity in civil occupations resulting from such diseases and injuries, and not on disruptions to lifestyle. See also 38 CFR 4.1. The example given by the commenter does not provide sufficient evidence of occupational impairment to support entitlement to the minimum rating proposed. VA will not make any changes to the final rule based on this comment.
One commenter noted that VA should consider the ability to wear corrective lenses for an entire workday, noting that some lenses cause pain. VA acknowledges that some individuals may tolerate corrective lenses better than others, but finds it impractical and unnecessary to incorporate this level of individual specificity into the evaluation criteria under DC 6035. VA notes that under 38 CFR 3.321, ratings are based upon average impairments of earning capacity as far as practicable. Under § 3.321, when an exceptional case renders the rating schedule inadequate, VA may consider an extra-schedular evaluation commensurate with the earnings loss due exclusively to the disability or disabilities. When evidence of marked interference with employment renders the regular rating schedule impractical, VA may assign an extraschedular evaluation. VA will not make any changes based on this comment.
One commenter rejected VA's proposal to no longer require the use of a Goldmann chart for visual field and/or muscle function testing. The commenter stated that a Goldmann chart is critical to detecting errors in the administration of visual examinations and in application of the rating criteria. Contrary to the statements from the commenter, VA does not use a Goldmann chart to detect errors in the examination or rating process. VA can test visual field and muscle function using manual methods (a Goldmann bowl or a tangent screen) or through automated perimetry. The automated perimetry employs software to automatically produce measurements and populate them in both chart and table format. The manual method, on the other hand, requires the examiner to manually record the values (either in table or chart format). Regardless of the method of testing, the recording of data on a chart or table has no bearing on whether the actual test values are accurate. If the test values are inaccurate, VA must reexamine the condition. As such, VA proposed to remove the Goldmann chart requirement because the actual test values, not how they are plotted on the chart, determines the evaluation assigned. This allows a rating veterans service representative to evaluate disabilities based on the test results, regardless of the format in which those results are presented, as long as the information conforms to all other regulatory requirements. It is important to note that VA will continue to accept Goldmann charts as part of a claim for visual disability. Therefore, VA will not change the proposal to eliminate the Goldmann chart requirement in visual field and/or muscle function testing.
One commenter stated that VA should automatically consider headaches and/or migraines as secondary to keratoconus and automatically grant service connection for them. Section 3.310 states when VA may grant service connection for a disability that is proximately due, or secondary, to a service-connected disease or injury. When the evidence of record establishes such a secondary relationship between keratoconus and headaches and/or migraines, VA may service connect them. However, the numerous potential causes of headaches and migraines, including co-morbid conditions that are often unrelated to military service, preclude VA from automatically granting service connection on a secondary basis without sufficient evidence showing a proximate cause. Therefore, VA will not make any changes based upon this comment.
The same commenter recommended that VA assign a minimum 30 percent evaluation for veterans with keratoconus who receive a corneal transplant. The commenter noted that a corneal transplant limits participation in recreational activities unrelated to occupational performance. VA currently provides under DC 6036 a minimum 10 percent evaluation for veterans with corneal transplants, with pain, photophobia, and glare sensitivity, regardless of the underlying disability (including keratoconus). A 10 percent minimum evaluation recognizes that, in some cases, residual symptoms may present occupational impairment. Additionally, where further visual impairment is present, a higher evaluation may be warranted, to include a 30 percent evaluation. As noted above, VA disability evaluations must be based on average impairment in earnings capacity and cannot consider the effects of a disability upon lifestyle. 38 U.S.C. 1155, 38 CFR 4.1. Furthermore, VA believes that the current evaluation criteria for corneal transplant, including those performed to treat keratoconus, accurately compensate for residual disability which may interfere with occupational performance. Therefore, VA will not make any changes based on this comment.
One commenter proposed additional evaluation criteria for DC 6042, Retinal dystrophy, to include night blindness, glare sensitivity, loss of contrast sensitivity, loss of depth perception, and loss of color vision. VA disagrees with this proposal, as the symptoms noted are almost always accompanied by measurable changes in visual acuity, visual field defects, or muscle function, all of which form the current definition of visual impairment under 38 CFR 4.75. Additionally, as previously noted, VA may assign an extraschedular evaluation under 38 CFR 3.321 when evidence of marked interference with employment renders application of the regular rating schedule impractical. Therefore, VA will not make any changes based on this comment.
One commenter stated that VA should broaden the requirements for rating visual acuity. This comment did not propose any specific requirements or alternative rating criteria to explain the suggested expansion. Without proposing an alternative rating criteria or clarifying how the requirements should be broadened, VA cannot consider revisions to the rating criteria based on this comment.
The same commenter stated that VA should provide a minimum evaluation to ensure that issues that are not being taken into account by the rating system are otherwise addressed. As previously noted, VA is required by 38 U.S.C. 1155 to base disability ratings, as far as practicable, on the average impairments of earnings capacity in civil occupations from such injuries. Current law does not allow VA to provide evaluations based on factors outside of earnings impairment. Therefore, VA is unable to make any changes based upon this comment.
One commenter suggested listing more disabilities to this portion of the rating schedule. The commenter specifically requested inclusion of wet macular degeneration, dry macular degeneration, early-onset macular degeneration, optic atrophy, and various classifications of dystrophy. VA notes that the criteria in DC 6042, Retinal dystrophy, sufficiently address the types of retinal dystrophy and other conditions noted by the commenter. However, in light of the comment, VA will amend the title of the DC to indicate additional types of dystrophy to which DC 6042 may apply.
The same commenter also suggested adding diagnostic codes for histoplasmosis, Stargardt's disease, and optic neuritis. Histoplasmosis is an infectious disease caused by inhalation of spores often found in bird and bat droppings. The symptoms include fever, chills, headache, muscle aches, dry cough, and chest discomfort. Histoplasmosis is caused by an infectious agent and produces no visual impairment and is therefore not appropriate for inclusion in the portion of the rating schedule pertaining to the eyes and visual impairment. Stargardt's disease, or Stargardt macular degeneration, is a genetic form of juvenile macular degeneration. By definition, the signs and symptoms of Stargardt's disease begin in childhood. When appropriate, VA can consider this condition as related to active military service when it is first diagnosed during active service or, if it existed prior to military service, the evidence establishes that military service aggravated the condition beyond its natural progression. 38 CFR 3.303(a), 3.306(a). VA notes that DC 6042, Retinal dystrophy, will include the additional clarifying changes noted above, and so adequately covers this category of disability. VA, therefore, makes no additional changes based on this suggestion. Meanwhile, optic neuritis is the inflammation of the optic nerve and is a sub-type of optic neuropathy, the general term for any damage of the optic nerve. VA notes that DC 6026, Optic neuropathy, adequately covers this category and sub-type of visual disability. Therefore, VA makes no additional changes based on this suggestion.
The same commenter suggested adding a minimum 10 percent evaluation under the General Rating Formula for any visual disability resulting in photophobia and glare sensitivity. VA appreciates this suggestion and notes that the rating schedule currently considers pain, photophobia, and glare sensitivity as productive of a minimum 10 percent evaluation when it is directly related to corneal transplant. 38 CFR 4.79, DC 6036. VA disagrees, however, with adding this criterion as the suggested minimum evaluation to the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye. The minimum evaluation would then apply in cases where there is no clear association between the claimed photophobia and glare sensitivity and the specific visual disability subject to evaluation. As noted previously, VA can and will consider these signs/symptoms on a case-by-case basis when conducting an extraschedular review in accordance with § 3.321.
Non-substantive changes to the rulemaking have been made to correct inaccuracies and/or unnecessary language in the final rule. In the proposed rule, several DCs included the instruction to evaluate under the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye, without any alternative rating
Additionally, the proposed rulemaking used the terms “evaluate” and “rate” interchangeably when indicating a disability should be evaluated in a certain manner. To maintain consistency and avoid any confusion, VA has amended the language to state “evaluate” wherever “rate” was previously used.
The text of the proposed rulemaking inadvertently omitted the portion of § 4.79 which covers evaluations based on impaired central visual acuity (DCs 6061 through 6066). VA has corrected this omission in the final rule and notes that it has not made any changes to this portion of § 4.79.
Finally, VA has made updates to Appendices A, B, and C of part 4 to reflect the above-noted changes.
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). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
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 final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of section 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 no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
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. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on December 1, 2017, for publication.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 4 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 1155, unless otherwise noted.
(a)
(a)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Unless otherwise directed, evaluate diseases of the eye under the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye.
The additions and revisions read as follows:.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of availability; request for public comment.
NMFS prepared an analysis of a final rule (Analysis) to prohibit the use of hired masters for sablefish catcher vessel quota shares received by transfer after February 12, 2010, in response to a November 16, 2016, order from the United States District Court, Western District of Washington (
Submit comments on or before May 10, 2018.
•
•
Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228.
The IFQ Program for the sablefish fishery is implemented by the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP), the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP), and Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 679 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
The IFQ Program for the halibut fishery is implemented by Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart E, and 50 CFR part 679 under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). Fishing for Pacific halibut is managed by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and the Council under the Halibut Act. Section 773(c) of the Halibut Act authorizes the Council to develop regulations that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations. Such Council-recommended regulations may be implemented by NMFS only after approval by the Secretary of Commerce.
NMFS implemented the IFQ Program for the management of the fixed gear (hook-and-line and pot gear) sablefish and halibut fisheries off Alaska in 1995 (58 FR 59343; November 9, 1993). The Council and NMFS designed the IFQ Program to allocate harvest privileges among participants in the commercial sablefish and halibut fisheries to reduce fishing capacity that had led to an unsafe “race for fish” as vessels raced to harvest their annual catch limits as quickly as possible before the annual limit was reached. A central objective of the IFQ Program was to support the social and economic character of the fisheries and the coastal fishing communities where much of the fisheries activities are based.
Under the IFQ Program, access to the fixed gear sablefish and halibut fisheries is limited to those persons holding quota share. NMFS issued separate quota share for sablefish and halibut to qualified applicants based on their historical participation during a set of qualifying years in the sablefish and halibut fisheries. Quota share is an exclusive, revocable privilege that allows the holder to harvest a specific percentage of either the total allowable catch in the sablefish fishery or the annual commercial catch limit in the halibut fishery.
NMFS annually issues IFQ permits to each quota share holder based on their quota share holdings and the amount of sablefish and halibut available for harvest. An annual IFQ permit authorizes the permit holder to harvest a specified amount of the IFQ species in a regulatory area from a specific operation type and vessel category. IFQ is expressed in pounds and is based on the amount of quota share held in relation to the total quota share pool for each regulatory area with an assigned catch limit.
The Council intended for the IFQ catcher vessel fleet to be composed primarily of quota share holders that actively participate in the fisheries by being on the vessel used to fish their IFQ. To achieve this objective, NMFS implemented requirements that individual holders of catcher vessel quota share be on board the vessel during all IFQ fishing to ensure that quota share to remain largely in the hands of active fishermen. This owner-onboard requirement was intended to promote stewardship by providing active fishermen with a vested interest in the long-term productivity of the sablefish and halibut resources. The Council and NMFS also intended for the owner-onboard requirement to provide entry level opportunities for new fishermen as initial quota share recipients transferred their quota share to new entrants and left the fishery.
The Council intended for catcher vessel quota share to be held by owner-onboard operations. However, the Council and NMFS allowed initial quota share recipients to use a hired master—a person designated by the quota share holder to land their IFQ—in order to provide initial recipients of quota share with the flexibility to continue in the
The Council and NMFS have amended the hired master use provision several times since implementation of the IFQ Program to further restrict the use of hired masters and ensure that quota share holders remain vested participants in the IFQ fisheries. The most recent amendment further restricted the use of hired masters by prohibiting initial quota share recipients from using a hired master to harvest IFQ derived from catcher vessel quota share received by transfer after February 12, 2010 (79 FR 43679; July 28, 2014). The final rule to implement this restriction is a limited amendment to the IFQ Program that specifies which quota share yields IFQ that can be fished by a hired master instead of the quota share holder.
The preamble to the final rule describes the need for further restrictions on the use of hired masters in the IFQ Program, and a brief summary is provided here. In February 2010, the Council received testimony that some quota share initial recipients were increasingly using hired masters rather than continuing to be personally on board their vessels when fishing with quota share. Increased use of hired masters was attributed to initial recipients purchasing increasing amounts of quota share, and the IFQ derived from that quota share was being fished by hired masters. The Council was concerned that initial recipients were consolidating quota share to be fished by hired masters and were reducing opportunities for new entrants to the fishery. The Council determined that the transition to a predominately owner-onboard fishery has been unreasonably delayed because the ability to hire a master applies to the quota share holder and not the quota share itself. This allowed initial recipients to hire masters to harvest IFQ derived not only from their initially issued quota share, but also IFQ derived from any quota share received by transfer after initial issuance. As a result, quota share had become consolidated among fewer initial recipients of quota share that use hired masters. Quota share are remaining in the hands of initial recipients who hire masters to fish the resulting IFQ instead of being transferred, which delays the progress toward the Program objective of an owner-onboard fishery and decreases opportunities for new entrants to the IFQ fishery.
To address this problem, the Council recommended and NMFS implemented the final rule to prohibit the use of a hired master to fish IFQ sablefish and halibut derived from catcher vessel quota share received by transfer after February 12, 2010, with some exceptions described in the final rule (79 FR 43679; July 28, 2014). The Analysis provides additional detail on the need for the final rule and the anticipated impacts of the final rule on affected fishery participants.
On November 16, 2016, the United States District Court, Western District of Washington found that NMFS did not properly assess the final rule in light of the National Standards in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The United States District Court remanded the final rule to NMFS for further consideration of the National Standards in section 301(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS completed this consideration after evaluating the information used to prepare the final rule, information presented to the United States District Court, and the best available information relevant to the impacts of the final rule. NMFS has determined that the final rule is consistent with the National Standards as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, subject to further consideration after public comment. The Analysis describes the factors NMFS considered in making this determination. NMFS requests public comment on the Analysis for consideration in its final determination of the consistency of the final rule with the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standards.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting retention of non-Community Development Quota (CDQ) sablefish by vessels using trawl gear in the Bering Sea subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary because the 2018 non-CDQ sablefish initial total allowable catch (ITAC) in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI will be reached.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), April 5, 2018, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2018.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2018 non-CDQ sablefish trawl ITAC in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI is 622 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2018 non-CDQ sablefish trawl ITAC in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI will soon be reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that non-CDQ sablefish caught with vessels using trawl gear in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b).
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the prohibited retention of non-CDQ sablefish by vessels using trawl gear in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as April 4, 2018.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposes to rescind and remove from the Code of Federal Regulations the part entitled
Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3064-AE23, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Michael W. Orange, Trust Examination Specialist, Division of Risk Management and Supervision, ph. (678) 916-2289 or
The Dodd-Frank Act provided for a substantial reorganization of the regulation of State and Federal savings associations and their holding companies.
Section 316(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act
Although section 312(b)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Dodd-Frank Act
As noted, on June 14, 2011, pursuant to this authority, the FDIC's Board of Directors reissued and redesignated certain transferring regulations of the former OTS. These transferred OTS regulations were published as new FDIC regulations in the
One of the regulations transferred to the FDIC governed the fiduciary powers (also known as trust powers) of State
12 CFR part 390 subpart J provides that a State savings association must conduct its fiduciary (trust) operations in accordance with applicable State law and must exercise its fiduciary powers in a safe and sound manner. Subpart J was derived from former OTS rule 12 CFR 550.10(b)(1) regarding fiduciary operations of Federal savings associations,
Unlike the explicit requirement applicable to State savings associations in subpart J, there is no express rule that requires State nonmember banks to conduct fiduciary operations in accordance with applicable State law and to exercise their fiduciary powers in a safe and sound manner. However, the FDIC has long recognized that State nonmember banks, like State savings associations, must comply with State law when exercising trust or fiduciary powers.
State nonmember banks approved for Federal deposit insurance after December 1, 1950, are generally required to file an application for consent to exercise trust powers.
Section 303.242 of the FDIC rules contains application procedures that a State nonmember bank must follow to obtain the FDIC's prior written consent before engaging in trust activities. Prior to granting such consent, the FDIC considers whether the bank will conduct trust operations in a safe and sound manner, consistent with State law.
After careful review, the FDIC has concluded that the retention of part 390 subpart J is unnecessary and that rescission of subpart J in its entirety would streamline the FDIC rules and regulations.
Consistent with its legal authority to issue and modify regulations as the appropriate Federal banking agency under section 3(q) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the FDIC also proposes to amend and revise certain provisions of parts 333 and 303 to clarify and state explicitly that both State savings associations and State nonmember banks are required to obtain the FDIC's prior written consent to exercise trust powers. The FDIC, as the appropriate Federal banking agency for State savings associations and State nonmember banks, is responsible for ensuring that they engage in the safe and sound exercise of their trust powers and in accordance with applicable state law.
The proposed revisions would add a new section 333.3 to clarify that State savings associations and State nonmember banks must seek prior written consent from the FDIC to exercise trust powers. For State nonmember banks, § 333.3 would make explicit the FDIC's existing requirement that State nonmember banks must receive FDIC's consent before exercising trust powers as a change in the general character of business under 12 CFR 333.2. However, § 333.3 would represent a change for State savings associations, which are not currently required to receive FDIC's consent before exercising trust powers granted by their chartering authorities. Section 333.3 would explicitly state that both State nonmember banks and State savings associations would be required to follow the application procedures set forth in section 303.242. Section 333.101(b) also would be revised to permit State savings associations to act as custodians of certain qualifying accounts without obtaining prior written consent from the FDIC, in the same manner as is permitted for State nonmember banks.
As noted above, the proposed rule would make section 303.242 applicable to State savings associations in addition to State nonmember banks. Similar to State nonmember banks, under the proposed rule, State savings associations would not be required to receive the FDIC's prior written consent to exercise trust powers in the following circumstances:
(1) Where the institution received authority to exercise trust powers from its chartering authority prior to December 1, 1950; or
(2) Where the institution continues to conduct trust activities pursuant to
In order to provide more information to State nonmember banks and State savings associations, section 303.242 would also be amended to provide a more complete description of the application's required documentation.
The FDIC considered alternatives to the proposed rule but believes that the proposed amendments represent the most appropriate option. As discussed previously, the Dodd-Frank Act transferred certain powers, duties, and functions formerly performed by the OTS to the FDIC. The FDIC's Board of Directors reissued and redesignated certain transferred regulations from the OTS, but noted that it would evaluate them and might later incorporate them into other FDIC rules, amend them, or rescind them, as appropriate. The FDIC has evaluated the existing regulations regarding fiduciary trust operations of covered entities, including sections 303, 333, and 390, subpart J. The FDIC considered the status quo alternative of retaining the current, bifurcated regulations but determined that it would be unnecessarily complex and potentially confusing to maintain substantively similar regulations regarding fiduciary trust powers of State non-member banks and State savings associations in different locations within the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, the FDIC proposes to amend the regulations and make them consistent for both State savings associations and State nonmember banks.
The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of this proposed rulemaking. In particular, the FDIC requests comments on the following questions:
1. Should part 390 subpart J pertaining to the fiduciary powers of State savings associations be retained in whole or in part? Please substantiate your response.
2. What positive or negative impacts, if any, can you foresee in the FDIC's proposal to revise parts 333 and 303 of the Code of Federal Regulations, including the impact on State savings associations not currently exercising trust powers, who would need to obtain FDIC consent if they choose to do so in the future?
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
This rule proposes to amend part 333 and 303 to clarify the existing consent and application requirements for State nonmember banks and to incorporate references to State savings associations into those parts. The revision of parts 333 and 303 to include State savings associations would add additional burden to the FDIC's current information collection under OMB control number 3064-0025,
In the chart above, eligible depository institutions are those that satisfy the criteria for expedited processing in 12 CFR 303.2(r) and not-eligible depository institutions are those that do not meet the expedited processing criteria. The numbers of respondents are estimated based on the number of filers annually, and the numbers of hours per response are estimated based on the supporting information typically requested of filers (which may include additional supporting financial projections for applicants ineligible for expedited processing). Because the proposed rule will affect State savings associations as described above, and most filers are eligible for expedited processing, the FDIC is proposing to increase the estimated number of respondents in the eligible category from eight to nine.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the brden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used and the proposed change to require state savings associations to obtain consent before exercising trust powers granted by their state chartering authorities; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The FDIC supervises 3,674 institutions, of which 2,950 are “small entities” according to the terms of RFA. There are 2,907 small state non-member banks and 44 small state savings associations.
The proposed rule amends section 333 to state that both State savings associations and State nonmember banks that seek to exercise trust powers need to obtain FDIC consent. The proposed rule is not expected to have any effect on State nonmember banks. With respect to State nonmember banks, the proposed rule includes no substantive changes and only includes clarifying changes to explicitly state the longstanding requirement that State nonmember banks receive FDIC's consent before newly exercising trust powers granted by their chartering authorities as a change in the character of business under 12 CFR 333.2. As discussed above, the proposed amendments to section 333 would represent a new requirement for State savings associations to receive FDIC's consent before exercising trust powers granted by their chartering authorities. The application to seek consent to exercise trust powers would be a one-time process that is not anticipated to create a significant economic impact for State savings associations. The information requested in the application would require an applicant State savings association to identify the type of trust power it wishes to exercise and to provide documentation that includes proof of the adoption of the FDIC's Statement of Principles of Trust Department Management, identification of the applicable trust officer, trust committee, and trust counsel, servicing arrangements, proof of the requisite approvals by the appropriate State authority, a projection of the proposed trust activity's three-year performance, and a statement of its impact on the applicant.
For these reasons, the FDIC certifies that the Proposed Rule, if adopted in final form, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, within the meaning of those terms as used in the RFA. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
The FDIC invites any comments that will further inform the FDIC's consideration of RFA.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
• Has the FDIC organized the material to inform your needs? If not, how could the FDIC present the rule more clearly?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? If not, how could the rule be more clearly stated?
• Do the regulations contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation easier to understand? If so, what changes would achieve that?
• Is this section format adequate? If not, which of the sections should be changed and how?
• What other changes can the FDIC incorporate to make the regulation easier to understand?
The Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (RCDRIA) requires that each Federal banking agency, in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository institutions, 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. In addition, new regulations and amendments to regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions generally must take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form.
The FDIC notes that comment on these matters have been solicited in other sections of this Supplementary Information section, and that the requirements of RCDRIA will be considered as part of the overall rulemaking process. In addition, the FDIC also invites any other comments
Under section 2222 of the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (“EGRPRA”), the FDIC is required to review all of its regulations, at least once every 10 years, in order to identify any outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulations imposed on insured institutions.
Administrative practice and procedure; Bank deposit insurance; Banks, banking; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Savings associations.
Banks, banking.
Administrative practice and procedure; Advertising; Aged; Civil rights; Conflict of interests; Credit; Crime; Equal employment opportunity; Fair housing; Government employees; Individuals with disabilities; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Savings associations.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation proposes to amend 12 CFR parts 308, 333, and 390 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 378, 1464, 1601-1607, 1813, 1815, 1817, 1818, 1819(a) (Seventh and Tenth), 1820, 1823, 1828, 1831a, 1831e, 1831o, 1831p-1, 1831w, 1835a, 1843(l), 3104, 3105, 3108, 3207, 5414, 5415, and 15 U.S.C. 1601-1607.
(a)
(1) Where a state nonmember bank or state savings association received authority to exercise trust powers from its chartering authority prior to December 1, 1950; or
(2) Where the institution continues to conduct trust activities pursuant to authority granted by its chartering authority subsequent to a charter conversion or withdrawal from membership in the Federal Reserve System.
(b)
(c)
(1) A certified copy of the resolution of the applicant's board of directors certifying the extent of the institution's compliance with applicable FDIC guidance;
(2) Information regarding the trust powers granted by the state authority;
(3) Information on the individual designated as the primary Trust Officer;
(4) Servicing arrangements, if any;
(5) A list of proposed members of the Trust Committee;
(6) Information on the individual or law firm designated to serve as trust counsel;
(7) Projection of trust accounts, assets, and profitability for the first three calendar years after the trust department begins operations and analysis of any adverse impact of potential net operating losses of the applicant institution arising from the offering of trust services.
(d)
(e)
(f)
12 U.S.C. 1816, 1817(i), 1818, 1819(a) (Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth), 1828, 1828(m), 1831p-1(c), 5414, and 5415.
Except as provided in § 303.242(a), a State nonmember bank or State savings association seeking to exercise trust powers must obtain prior written consent from the FDIC. Procedures for obtaining the FDIC's prior written consent are set forth in § 303.242 of this part.
(b) An insured State nonmember bank or State savings association, not exercising trust powers, may act as trustee or custodian of Individual Retirement Accounts established pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 408), Self-Employed Retirement Plans established pursuant to the Self-Employed Individuals Retirement Act of 1962 (26 U.S.C. 401), Roth Individual Retirement Accounts and Coverdell Education Savings Accounts established pursuant to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (26 U.S.C. 408A and 530 respectively), Health Savings Accounts established pursuant to the Medicare
(1) The bank's or savings association's duties as trustee or custodian are essentially custodial or ministerial in nature,
(2) The bank or savings association is required to invest the funds from such plans only
(i) In its own time or savings deposits, or
(ii) In any other assets at the direction of the customer, provided the bank or savings association does not exercise any investment discretion or provide any investment advice with respect to such account assets, and
(3) The bank's or savings association's acceptance of such accounts without trust powers is not contrary to applicable State law.
12 U.S.C. 1819.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The proposed rule would allow helicopter air ambulance (HAA) operators to conduct instrument flight rules (IFR) departure and approach procedures at airports and heliports that do not have an approved weather reporting source in HAA aircraft without functioning severe weather detection equipment (airborne radar or lightning strike detection equipment), when there is no reasonable expectation of severe weather at the destination, the alternate, or along the route of flight. This rule would also update requirements to address the discontinuance of area forecasts, currently used as flight planning and pilot weather briefing aids. Additionally, this rulemaking proposes to update requirements regarding HAA departure procedures to include additional types of departure procedures that are currently acceptable for use.
Send comments on or before May 10, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0279 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Tom Luipersbeck, Air Transportation Division, 135 Air Carrier Operations Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-267-8166; email:
This rulemaking would amend 14 CFR 135.611(b) to allow helicopter air ambulance (HAA) operators using aircraft without functioning severe weather detection equipment (airborne radar or lightning strike detection equipment), to conduct IFR departure and approach procedures at airports and heliports that do not have an approved weather reporting source. In conducting these operations, the pilot in command must not reasonably expect to encounter severe weather at the destination, the alternate, or along the route of flight. This action would encourage utilization of the IFR infrastructure to the fullest extent possible, thus increasing the overall safety of HAA Operations.
This rulemaking also proposes to update certain provisions in § 135.611(a)(1) to address the discontinuance of area forecasts, currently used as flight planning and pilot weather briefing aids, and the transition to digital and graphical alternatives already being produced by the U.S. National Weather Service (NWS). Additionally, this rulemaking proposes to update requirements in § 135.611(a)(3) regarding HAA departure procedures to include additional types of departure procedures that are currently acceptable for use.
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated under the general authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44730.
Section 135.611 contains provisions to allow certificate holders to conduct HAA IFR operations at airports with an instrument approach procedure and at which a weather report is not available from the NWS, a source approved by the NWS, or a source approved by the FAA. Each aircraft operated under § 135.611 must be equipped with functioning equipment to detect severe weather, even when weather reports and forecasts indicate no foreseeable severe weather conditions will exist along the route to be flown.
Section 135.611(b) unnecessarily limits the ability of certain HAA operators to conduct IFR departure and
The FAA intends for the proposed amendment to § 135.611 to encourage IFR operations and result in more aircraft operating in positively controlled environments, thereby increasing the safety of HAA operations. Altering the requirements of § 135.611(b) will increase the frequency of IFR operations, thereby minimizing pilots' operations under visual flight rules (VFR) in marginal visual meteorological conditions. The proposed amendment would provide greater opportunity for HAA operations to enter the National Airspace System (NAS) under IFR than previously permitted.
Since the requirement in § 135.611(b) was established (79 FR 43622, July 28, 2014), nine HAA certificate holders have petitioned for exemptions to § 135.611(b) to allow them to operate without functioning severe weather detection equipment when severe weather conditions are not reasonably expected along the route to be flown.
The FAA found that the first petition, which granted the same relief as that provided in this proposed rulemaking, would set a precedent. Therefore, to allow for the public to comment on the petition, a summary of the petition was published in the
Existing § 135.611 permits HAA certificate holders to conduct helicopter IFR operations at airports with an instrument approach procedure and at which a weather report is not available from the NWS, a source approved by the NWS, or a source approved by the FAA. Each HAA aircraft operated under existing § 135.611 must be equipped with functioning equipment to detect severe weather, even when weather reports and forecasts indicate no foreseeable severe weather conditions will exist along the route to be flown.
The FAA's initial intent of requiring severe weather detection equipment was to help the pilot ascertain the weather in the aircraft's vicinity (75 FR 62640, 62650 (October 12, 2010)) and thus mitigate the risk of inadvertently encountering instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The agency has reconsidered this requirement and determined it is overly broad, because it applies even in circumstances in which the pilot does not reasonably expect to encounter severe weather along the route or at the destination airport. Further, existing training on meteorology to ensure a practical knowledge of weather phenomena, including the principles of frontal systems, icing, fog, thunderstorms, meteorology hazards applicable to the certificate holder's areas of operation, adverse weather avoidance practices, and weather planning are all currently part of required training program curriculum segments for HAA operations. This training, together with the pre-flight risk analysis required in § 135.617, provide the pilot in command with the tools by which to ascertain whether severe weather may reasonably exist along the route of a flight or at the destination airport. Pre-flight risk analysis and training designed specifically for HAA operations function to verify the pilot in command can adequately analyze departure, en route, destination and forecasted weather. The continued existence of these requirements verifies a pilot in command does not need severe weather detection equipment when he or she does not reasonably expect to encounter severe weather.
Pilots' determinations concerning the potential for encountering severe weather conditions will result from the routine flight planning they complete prior to operating any aircraft.
By eliminating the § 135.611(b) requirement for each HAA aircraft to be equipped with severe weather detection equipment when there is no forecast of severe weather, the proposed amendment would allow more HAA operators to conduct IFR departure and approach procedures at airports and heliports that do not have an approved weather reporting source. This proposed amendment would encourage utilization of the IFR infrastructure to the fullest extent possible by allowing more operators to use the IFR infrastructure, thereby avoiding the potential for controlled flight into terrain accidents during flights conducted under marginal visual flight rules conditions. This action would also increase the opportunity for access to critical care patient flights when weather conditions are below those required for VFR operation, but do not involve the potential for severe weather.
The FAA emphasizes, however, that if a reasonable expectation of severe weather exists during the flight and in the vicinity of the planned route, the helicopter must be equipped with operable severe weather detection equipment or the flight must be declined or aborted.
As noted previously, this rulemaking also proposes to update certain other provisions of § 135.611, specifically § 135.611(a)(1) regarding area forecasts and § 135.611(a)(3) regarding departure procedures.
The FAA, in coordination with the NWS, expects to discontinue Area Forecasts, currently used as flight planning and pilot weather briefing aids and transition to digital and graphical alternatives already being produced by NWS.
This rulemaking proposes to update requirements in § 135.611 regarding HAA departure procedures (DP) to include additional types of DP that are currently acceptable for use. A DP is required in order to depart an airport in weather conditions less than VFR. Several types of DPs, however, exist in addition to an obstacle departure procedure cited in the current regulation, such as a diverse departure or standard instrument departure. Based on an evaluation of these departure procedures, FAA has determined that any of these DPs may be appropriate and safe because of ensured obstacle clearance and flyability (when used appropriate to the location). In this rulemaking, the FAA proposes to update the wording in § 135.611(a)(3) from “the published Obstacle Departure Procedure” to “a published Departure Procedure.”
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this rule.
The FAA determined that this action will likely result in regulatory cost savings. Without this rule there will remain in place unnecessary limits on certain helicopter air ambulance (HAA) operations. These limits effectively reduce the number of HAA operations without improving aviation safety. The FAA has been granting exemptions to HAA operators who asked for relief from these limitations and the FAA expects these requests to continue. This change will relieve HAA operators and the FAA of those procedural costs estimated to be $1,500/exemption. This rule would have eliminated the expense of nine petitions for exemption that the FAA granted.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. As this rule removes an unnecessary limitation on the operation of HAA without reducing aviation safety, it will relieve HAA operators of the costs associated with installing unnecessary equipment. Given the demographics on HAA operators, this rule will likely impact a substantial number of small entities. However, it will have a minimal economic impact. Therefore, the head of the agency certifies the rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million. This rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this proposed rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations.
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the Regulatory Evaluation section, above.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the internet by—
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at
3. Accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.
Air Transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 44730, 45101-45105; Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C. 44730).
(a) * * *
(1) The certificate holder must obtain a weather report from a weather reporting facility operated by the NWS, a source approved by the NWS, or a source approved by the FAA, that is located within 15 nautical miles of the airport. If a weather report is not available, the certificate holder may obtain weather reports, forecasts, or any combination of them from the NWS, a source approved by the NWS, or a source approved by the FAA, for information regarding the weather observed in the vicinity of the airport;
(3) In Class G airspace, IFR departures with visual transitions are authorized only after the pilot in command determines that the weather conditions at the departure point are at or above takeoff minimums depicted in a published Departure Procedure or VFR minimum ceilings and visibilities in accordance with § 135.609.
(b) Each helicopter air ambulance operated under this section must be equipped with functioning severe weather detection equipment, unless the pilot in command reasonably determines severe weather will not be encountered at the destination, the alternate, or along the route of flight.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the remaining portion of a November 2, 2015 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Vermont. This revision addresses the interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), referred to as the good neighbor provision, with respect to the primary 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO
Written comments must be received on or before May 10, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0604 at
Donald Dahl, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109—3912, tel. (617) 918-1657; or by email at
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised primary NAAQS for SO
On November 2, 2015, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) submitted proposed revisions to its SIP, certifying that its SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
However, at that time, EPA did not take action on VT DEC's certification that its SIP met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 primary SO
Vermont presented several facts in its SIP submission on the effect of SO
This proposed approval of Vermont's November 2, 2015 SIP submission addressing interstate transport of SO
Despite being emitted from a similar universe of point and nonpoint sources, interstate transport of SO
Put simply, a different approach is needed for interstate transport of SO
First, EPA evaluated the universe of sources in Vermont likely to be responsible for SO
Second, EPA selected a spatial scale—essentially, the geographic area and distance around the point sources in which we could reasonably expect SO
Third, EPA assessed all available data at the time of this rulemaking regarding SO
Fourth, using the universe of information identified in steps 1-3 (
Based on the analysis provided by the State in its November 2, 2015 SIP submission and EPA's assessment of the information discussed at length below, EPA proposes to find that sources or other emissions activity within Vermont will not contribute significantly to nonattainment, nor will they interfere with maintenance of the 2010 primary SO
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the NAAQS).
EPA's most recent infrastructure SIP guidance, the September 13, 2013 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” did not explicitly include criteria for how the Agency would evaluate infrastructure SIP submissions intended to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
For other pollutants such as Pb, EPA has suggested the applicable interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) can be met through a state's assessment as to whether or not emissions from Pb sources located in close proximity to its borders have emissions that impact a neighboring state such that they contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in that state. For example, EPA noted in an October 14, 2011 memorandum titled, “Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS,”
This document describes EPA's evaluation of Vermont's conclusion contained in the State's November 2, 2015 infrastructure SIP submission that the State satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO
As previously noted, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an evaluation of any source or other type of emissions activity in one state and how emissions from these sources or activities may impact air quality in other states. As the analysis contained in Vermont's submittal demonstrates, a state's obligation to demonstrate that it is meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) cannot
The EPA observes that according to the 2014 NEI, the vast majority of SO
The definitions contained in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 are helpful indicators of the travel and formation phenomenon for SO
The largest category of SO
Our current implementation strategy for the 2010 primary SO
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of a NAAQS in another state. In order to evaluate Vermont's satisfaction of prong 1, EPA evaluated the State's SIP submission in relation to the following five factors: (1) The impact on the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area; (2) SO
The nearest nonattainment area to Vermont for the 2010 SO
As noted above, EPA's approach for addressing the interstate transport of SO
According to the 2014 NEI data, the highest SO
As demonstrated by the data in Table 2, statewide SO
Data collected at an ambient air quality monitor located in Rutland, Vermont indicates that the monitored values of SO
As shown in Table 3 above, the DVs at the Rutland monitor for all periods between 2012 and 2016 have decreased. The most recent DV for the Rutland monitor, covering the years 2014-2016, is 6 ppb, which is 92% below the NAAQS.
However, the absence of a violating ambient air quality monitor within the State is insufficient to demonstrate that Vermont has met its interstate transport obligation. While the decreasing DVs may help to assist in characterizing air quality within Vermont, prong 1 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically addresses what effects sources within Vermont may have on air quality in neighboring states. Therefore, an evaluation and analysis of SO
As previously discussed, EPA's definitions of spatial scales for SO
There are four ambient SO
The State has various regulations to ensure that SO
In addition, for the purposes of ensuring that SO
Finally, in addition to the State's SIP-approved regulations, EPA observes that facilities in Vermont are also subject to the federal requirements contained in regulations such as the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. This regulation reduces acid gases, which have a co-benefit of reducing SO
As discussed, EPA has considered the following information in evaluating the State's satisfaction of the requirements of prong 1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I):
(1) Past and projected SO
(2) Current SIP provisions and other federal programs will further reduce SO
Based on the analysis provided by the State in its November 2, 2015 SIP submission and based on each of the factors listed above, EPA proposes to find that any sources or other emissions activity within the State will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 primary SO
Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in another state. Given the continuing trend of decreased SO
As shown in Table 2, above, state-wide SO
Utilizing home heating oil usage data from the U. S. Energy Information Administration and SIP-approved limits on the sulfur content of home heating oil, future SO
While EPA does not currently have a way to quantify the impacts of multiple small, diffuse sources of SO
As shown in Table 2, statewide SO
As discussed above, EPA expects SO
Lastly, any future large sources of SO
It is also worth noting the air quality trends for ambient SO
Based on each of factors contained in the prong 2 maintenance analysis above, EPA proposes to find that sources or other emissions activity within the State will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 primary SO
Considering the above analysis, EPA is proposing to approve Vermont's November 2, 2015 infrastructure submittal for the 2010 primary SO
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of two State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from New Hampshire which address the infrastructure and interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2012 fine particle (PM
Written comments must be received on or before May 10, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0344 at
Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617) 918-1684;
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
This rulemaking addresses two submissions from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). The state submitted its infrastructure SIP for the 2012 fine particle PM
EPA is acting on two related SIP submissions from New Hampshire that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2012 PM
The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). Pursuant to these sections, each state must submit a SIP that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each primary or secondary NAAQS. States must make such SIP submission “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.” This requirement is triggered by the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS and is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any other action. Section
EPA commonly refers to such SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA.
This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources (“SSM” emissions) that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that purport to permit revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits with limited public process or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (“director's discretion”); and, (iii) existing provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final New Source Review (NSR) Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Instead, EPA has the authority to address each one of these substantive areas separately. A detailed history, interpretation, and rationale for EPA's approach to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, “Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS” in the section, “What is the scope of this rulemaking?”
EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit infrastructure SIPs within 3 years of promulgation of a new NAAQS in an October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM
With respect to the Good Neighbor provision, the most recent relevant document was a memorandum published on March 17, 2016, entitled “Information on the Interstate Transport “Good Neighbor” Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)” (2016 memorandum). The 2016 memorandum describes EPA's past approach to addressing interstate transport, and provides EPA's general review of relevant modeling data and air quality projections as they relate to the 2012 annual PM
In this notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing action on two related SIP submissions from the state of New Hampshire. In New Hampshire's submissions, a detailed list of New Hampshire Laws and previously SIP-approved Air Quality Regulations show precisely how the various components of its EPA-approved SIP meet each of the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2012 PM
For New Hampshire's December 22, 2015 submission addressing the 2012 PM
This section (also referred to in this action as an element) of the Act requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance, and other related matters. However, EPA has long interpreted emission limits and control measures for attaining the standards as being due when nonattainment planning requirements are due.
New Hampshire's Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) at Chapter 21-O established the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) and RSA Chapter 125-C provides the Commissioner of NHDES with the authority to develop rules and regulations necessary to meet state and Federal ambient air quality standards. New Hampshire also has SIP-approved emission limits and other measures for specific pollutants. For example, Chapter Env-A 400 “Sulfur content limits in fuels” (57 FR 36603, August 14, 1992); Chapter Env-A 1200 “Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)” (77 FR 66921, November 8, 2012; 81 FR 53926, August 15, 2016); Chapter Env-A 1300 “Nitrogen Oxides (NO
EPA proposes that New Hampshire meets the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 2012 PM
This section requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for establishing and operating ambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making
NHDES continues to operate a monitoring network, and EPA approved the state's 2017/2018 Annual Network Review and Plan on August 23, 2017.
States are required to include a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources to meet NSR requirements under PSD and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while part D of the CAA (sections 171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.
The evaluation of each state's submission addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the following: (i) Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD program for major sources and major modifications; and (iii) a permit program for minor sources and minor modifications.
NHDES staffs and implements an enforcement program pursuant to RSA Chapter 125-C, Air Pollution Control, of the New Hampshire Statutes. Specifically, RSA Chapter 125-C:15, Enforcement, authorizes the Commissioner of the NHDES or the authorized representative of the Commissioner, upon finding a violation of Chapter 125-C has occurred, to issue a notice of violation or an order of abatement, and to include within it a schedule for compliance. Additionally, RSA 125-C:15 I-b, II, III, and IV provide for penalties for violations of Chapter 125-C. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the enforcement of SIP measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2012 PM
PSD applies to new major sources or modifications made to major sources for pollutants where the area in which the source is located is in attainment of, or unclassifiable with regard to, the relevant NAAQS. The EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS demonstrating that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program in place satisfying the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. NHDES's EPA-approved PSD rules, contained at Part Env-A 619, contain provisions that address applicable requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).
With respect to current requirements for PM
The second is a final rule issued October 20, 2010, entitled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM
New Hampshire implements the PSD program by, for the most part, incorporating by reference the federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21, as it existed on a specific date. The State periodically updates the PSD program by revising the date of incorporation by reference and submitting the change as a SIP revision. As a result, the SIP revisions generally reflect changes to PSD requirements that the EPA has
Similarly, New Hampshire's revisions submitted on November 15, 2012, also satisfy the requirements of EPA's “Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline” (Phase 2 Rule) published on November 29, 2005.
On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions.
In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the EPA's PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of that rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule covers sources that are required to obtain a PSD permit based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs. Step 2 applied to sources that emitted only GHGs above the thresholds triggering the requirement to obtain a PSD permit. The amended judgment preserves, without the need for additional rulemaking by EPA, the application of the BACT requirement to GHG emissions from Step 1 or “anyway” sources. With respect to Step 2 sources, the D.C. Circuit's amended judgment vacated the regulations at issue in the litigation, including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), “to the extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emission increase from a modification.”
In the
Some states have begun to revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of these court decisions, and some states may prefer not to initiate this process until they have more information about the additional planned revisions to EPA's PSD regulations. EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs in anticipation of EPA's additional actions to revise its PSD program rules in response to the court decisions for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions. At present, EPA has determined that New Hampshire's SIP is sufficient to satisfy element C with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved New Hampshire PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy element C. The SIP contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not affect EPA's proposed approval of New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of element C.
For the purposes of the 2012 PM
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP for the 2012 2012 PM
To address the pre-construction regulation of the modification and construction of minor stationary sources and minor modifications of major stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP submission should identify the existing EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or include new provisions that govern the minor source pre-construction program that regulate emissions of the relevant NAAQS pollutants. EPA approved New Hampshire's minor NSR program on September 22, 1980 (45 FR 62814), and approved updates to the program on August 14, 1992 (57 FR 36606). Since this date, New Hampshire and EPA have relied on the existing minor NSR program to ensure that new and modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the 2012 PM
We are proposing to find that New Hampshire has met the requirement to have a SIP approved minor new source review permit program as required under Section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2012 PM
This section contains a comprehensive set of air quality management elements pertaining to the transport of air pollution with which states must comply. It covers the following five topics, categorized as sub-elements: Sub-element 1, Significant contribution to nonattainment, and interference with maintenance of a NAAQS;
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a SIP to prohibit any emissions activity in the state that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any downwind state. EPA commonly refers to these requirements as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance), or jointly as the “Good Neighbor” or “transport” provisions of the CAA. This rulemaking proposes action on the portions of New Hampshire's December 22, 2015 and June 8, 2016, SIP submissions that address the prong 1 and 2 requirements with respect to the 2012 PM
EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the prong 1 and 2 interstate-transport requirements with respect to the PM
EPA's analysis for CSAPR, conducted consistent with the four-step framework, included air-quality modeling that evaluated the impacts of 38 eastern states on identified receptors in the eastern United States. EPA indicated that, for step 2 of the framework, states with impacts on downwind receptors that are below the contribution threshold of 1% of the relevant NAAQS would not be considered to significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS, and would, therefore, not be included in CSAPR.
In addition, as noted above, on March 17, 2016, EPA released the 2016 memorandum to provide information to states as they develop SIPs addressing the Good Neighbor provision as it pertains to the 2012 PM
For all but one monitor site in the eastern United States, the modeling data provided in the 2016 memorandum showed that monitors were expected to both attain and maintain the 2012 PM
To develop the projected values presented in the memorandum, EPA used the results of nationwide photochemical air-quality modeling that it recently performed to support several rulemakings related to the ozone NAAQS. Base-year modeling was performed for 2011. Future-year modeling was performed for 2017 to support the proposed CSAPR Update for
On December 22, 2015, NH DES submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2012 PM
EPA analyzed the state's December 2015 and June 2016 submittals to determine whether they fully address the prong 1 and 2 transport provisions with respect to the 2012 PM
As noted above, the modeling discussed in EPA's 2016 memorandum identified one potential maintenance receptor for the 2012 PM
While developing the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking, EPA modeled the impacts of all 38 eastern states in its modeling domain on fine particulate matter concentrations at downwind receptors in other states in the 2012 analysis year in order to evaluate the contribution of upwind states on downwind states with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM
This CSAPR modeling showed that New Hampshire had a very small impact (0.002 μg/m
In addition, the Liberty monitor is already close to attaining the 2012 PM
Specifically, previous CSAPR modeling showed that regional emissions from upwind states, particularly SO
In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures, additional local reductions to both direct PM
EPA modeling projections, the recent downward trend in local and upwind emissions reductions, the expected continued downward trend in emissions between 2017 and 2021, and the downward trend in monitored PM
As noted in the 2016 memorandum, several states have had recent data-quality issues identified as part of the PM
Additional information in New Hampshire's 2016 supplemental SIP submission corroborates EPA's proposed conclusion that New Hampshire's SIPs meets its Good Neighbor obligations. The state's technical analysis in that submission includes 2012-2014 24-hr and annual average PM
Second, New Hampshire's sources are well-controlled. New Hampshire's 2016 submission indicates that the state has many SIP-approved rules and programs that limit emissions of PM
It should also be noted that New Hampshire is not in the CSAPR program because EPA analyses show that the state does not emit ozone-season NO
For the reasons explained herein, EPA agrees with New Hampshire's conclusions and proposes to determine that New Hampshire will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM
To prevent significant deterioration of air quality, this sub-element requires SIPs to include provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures that are required in any other state's SIP under Part C of the CAA. As explained in the 2013 Guidance, a state may meet this requirement with respect to in-state sources and pollutants that are subject to PSD permitting through a comprehensive PSD permitting program that applies to all regulated NSR pollutants and that satisfies the requirements of EPA's PSD implementation rules. As discussed above under element C, New Hampshire has such a PSD permitting program.
For in-state sources not subject to PSD for any one or more of the pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA, prong 3 may be satisfied through an approved NNSR program with respect to any previous NAAQS. EPA approved New Hampshire's NNSR regulations on July 27, 2001 (66 FR 39104). These regulations contain provisions for how the state must treat and control sources in nonattainment areas, consistent with 40 CFR 51.165, or appendix S to 40 CFR part 51. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the requirements with respect to the prohibition of interference with a neighboring state's PSD program for the 2012 PM
With regard to applicable requirements for visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to visibility and regional-haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2009 Guidance, 2011 Guidance, and 2013 Guidance recommend that these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, or an approved SIP addressing regional haze. A fully approved regional haze SIP meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility. New Hampshire's Regional Haze SIP was approved by EPA on August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50602). Accordingly, EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the visibility protection requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2012 PM
This sub-element requires each SIP to contain provisions requiring compliance with requirements of section 126 relating to interstate pollution abatement. Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. The statute does not specify the method by which the source should provide the notification. States with SIP-approved PSD programs must have a provision requiring such notification by new or modified sources.
On May 25, 2017, EPA approved into the New Hampshire SIP revisions to the state's PSD program that require the NHDES to provide notice of a draft PSD permit to, among other entities, any state whose lands may be affected by emissions from the source.
This sub-element requires each SIP to contain provisions requiring compliance with the applicable requirements of section 115 relating to international pollution abatement. There are no final findings under section 115 of the CAA against New Hampshire with respect to the 2012 PM
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires each SIP to provide necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP. In addition, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state to comply with the requirements with respect to state boards under CAA section 128. Finally, section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires that, where a state relies upon local or regional governments or agencies for the implementation of its SIP provisions, the state retain responsibility for ensuring implementation of SIP obligations with respect to relevant NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), however, does not apply to this action because New Hampshire does not rely upon local or regional governments or agencies for the implementation of its SIP provisions.
New Hampshire, through its infrastructure SIP submittal, has documented that its air agency has authority and resources to carry out its SIP obligations. New Hampshire RSA 125-C:6, “Powers and Duties of the Commissioner,” authorizes the Commissioner of the NHDES to enforce the state's air laws, establish a permit program, accept and administer grants, and exercise incidental powers necessary to carry out the law. Additionally, RSA-125-C:12, “Administrative Requirements,” authorizes the Commissioner to collect fees to recover the costs of reviewing and acting upon permit applications and enforcing the terms of permits issued. The New Hampshire SIP, as originally submitted on January 27, 1972, and subsequently amended, provides additional descriptions of the organizations, staffing, funding and physical resources necessary to carry out the plan. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2012 PM
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each SIP to contain provisions that comply with the state board requirements of section 128 of the CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (1) That any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under this chapter, and (2) that any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.
New Hampshire RSA 21-O:11, “Air Resources Council,” established the New Hampshire Air Resources Council, a state board that hears all administrative appeals from department enforcement and permitting decisions. The Council consists of 11 members, 6 of whom “shall represent the public interest.” RSA 21-O:11, I. Those representing the public interest “may not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders, and may not serve as attorney for, act as consultant for, serve as officer or director of, or hold any other official or contractual relationship with any person subject to permits or enforcement orders.”
States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources. The state plan shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation of such reports by each state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
New Hampshire RSA 125-C:6, “Powers and Duties of the Commissioner,” authorizes the Commissioner of NHDES to require the installation, maintenance, and use of emissions monitoring devices and to require periodic reporting to the Commissioner of the nature and extent of the emissions. This authority also enables the Commissioner to correlate this information to any applicable emissions standard and to make such
Therefore, EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 2012 PM
This section requires that a plan provide for state authority analogous to that provided to the EPA Administrator in section 303 of the CAA, and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. Section 303 of the CAA provides authority to the EPA Administrator to seek a court order to restrain any source from causing or contributing to emissions that present an “imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.” Section 303 further authorizes the Administrator to issue “such orders as may be necessary to protect public health or welfare or the environment” in the event that “it is not practicable to assure prompt protection . . . by commencement of such civil action.”
We propose to find that New Hampshire's submittals and certain state statutes provide for authority comparable to that in section 303. New Hampshire's submittals specify that RSA 125-C:9, “Authority of the Commissioner in Cases of Emergency,” authorizes the Commissioner of NHDES, with the consent of the Governor and Air Resources Council, to issue an order requiring actions to be taken as the Commissioner deems necessary to address an air pollution emergency. Such orders are effective immediately upon issuance.
Section 110(a)(2)(G) also requires a state to submit for EPA approval a contingency plan (also known as an emergency episode plan) to implement the air agency's emergency episode authority for any Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) within the state that is classified as Priority I, IA, or II for certain pollutants.
Therefore, EPA proposes that New Hampshire, through the combination of statutes and regulations discussed above and participation in EPA's AirNow program, has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2012 PM
This section requires that a state's SIP provide for revision from time to time as may be necessary to take account of changes in the NAAQS or availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS and whenever the EPA finds that the SIP is substantially inadequate. New Hampshire RSA 125-C:6, “Powers and Duties of the Commissioner,” provides that the Commissioner of NHDES may develop a comprehensive program and provide services for the study, prevention, and abatement of air pollution. Additionally, Chapter Env-A 200, “Procedural Rules,” which was approved into the New Hampshire SIP on October 28, 2002 (67 FR 65710) provides for public hearings for SIP revision requests prior to their submittal to EPA. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 2012 PM
The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas. EPA has determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA takes action on part D attainment plans through separate processes.
Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires that each SIP “meet the applicable requirements of section 121 of this title (relating to consultation), section 127 of this title (relating to public notification), and part C of this subchapter (relating to PSD of air quality and visibility protection).” The evaluation of the submission from New
Pursuant to CAA section 121, a state must provide a satisfactory process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) in carrying out its NAAQS implementation requirements.
New Hampshire RSA 125-C:6, “Powers and Duties of the Commissioner,” authorizes the Commissioner of NHDES to advise, consult, and cooperate with the cities, towns, and other agencies of the state and federal government, interstate agencies, and other groups or agencies in matters relating to air quality. Additionally, RSA 125-C:6 enables the Commissioner to coordinate and regulate the air pollution control programs of political subdivisions to plan and implement programs for the control and abatement of air pollution. Furthermore, New Hampshire regulations at Part Env-A 621 direct NHDES to notify town officials, regional planning agencies, and FLMs, among others, of the receipt of certain permit applications and the NH DES' preliminary determination to issue, amend, or deny such permits. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 121 with respect to the 2012 PM
Pursuant to CAA section 127, states must notify the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area, advise the public of health hazards associated with exceedances, and enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances and of ways in which the public can participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality.
As part of the fulfillment of RSA 125-C:6, New Hampshire issues press releases and posts warnings on its website advising people what they can do to help prevent NAAQS exceedances and avoid adverse health effects on poor air quality days. New Hampshire is also an active partner in EPA's AIRNOW and ENVIROFLASH air quality alert programs. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 127 with respect to the 2012 PM
EPA has already discussed New Hampshire's PSD program in the context of infrastructure SIPs in the paragraphs addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and determined that it satisfies the requirements of EPA's PSD implementation rules. Therefore, the SIP also satisfies the PSD sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2012 PM
With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, as noted in EPA's 2013 guidance, we find that there is no new visibility obligation “triggered” under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. In other words, the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to infrastructure SIPs for the 2012 PM
Based on the above analysis, EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2012 PM
To satisfy Element K, the state air agency must demonstrate that it has the authority to perform air quality modeling to predict effects on air quality of emissions of any NAAQS pollutant and submission of such data to EPA upon request.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the Commissioner of NHDES in RSA 125-C:6, New Hampshire reviews the potential impact of major sources consistent with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, “Guidelines on Air Quality Models.” The modeling data are sent to EPA along with the draft major permit. For non-major sources, Part Env-A 606, Air Pollution Dispersion Modeling Impact Analysis Requirements, specifies the air pollution dispersion modeling impact analysis requirements that apply to owners and operators of certain sources and devices in order to demonstrate compliance with the New Hampshire SIP, RSA 125-C, RSA 125-I, and any rules adopted thereunder. The state also collaborates with the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, and EPA in order to perform large scale urban airshed modeling. Based on the above, EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2012 PM
This section requires SIPs to mandate that each major stationary source pay permitting fees to cover the costs of reviewing, approving, implementing, and enforcing a permit.
New Hampshire implements and operates the Title V permit program, which EPA approved on September 24, 2001.
To satisfy Element M, states must provide for consultation with, and participation by, local political subdivisions affected by the SIP. As previously mentioned, Chapter Env-A 200, Part Env-A 204 provides a public participation process for all stakeholders that includes a minimum of a 30-day comment period and an opportunity for public hearing for revisions to the SIP. Additionally, RSA 125-C:6, “Powers and Duties of the Commissioner,” authorizes the Commissioner to consult and cooperate with the cities, towns, other agencies of the state and federal government, interstate agencies, and other affected agencies or groups in matters relating to air quality.
EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2012 PM
EPA is proposing to approve the elements of the infrastructure SIPs submitted by New Hampshire on December 22, 2015 and June 8, 2016, for the 2012 PM
In the above table, the key is as follows:
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this proposal or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a revision of a currently approved collection for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Request for Administrative Review.
Written comments must be received on or before June 11, 2018.
Comments are invited on (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office and Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Shanta Swezy, (703) 305-2238.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to ensure that all persons and entities interested in Forest Service activities are aware of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) January 16, 2018 Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) (83 FR 2181). The BLM is preparing Monument Management Plans (MMPs) for the Indian Creek Unit and the Shash Jáa Unit of the Bears Ears National Monument. The Shash Jáa Unit includes National Forest System lands, under management and decision-making authority of the Forest Service and managed under the land management plan for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (Forest Plan). The Forest Service and BLM will jointly prepare the MMP for the Shash Jáa Unit. The BLM will prepare a single EIS to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for the planning process for both units. The BLM is the lead agency for the preparation of the EIS, and the Forest Service is participating as a cooperating agency. The Forest Service intends to use the BLM's EIS to make its decision for the part of the Shash Jáa Unit MMP it administers. That decision may include approving a Forest Plan amendment, if analysis leads the Forest Service to conclude that an amendment is necessary or appropriate. In the event that the Forest Service determines that it intends to amend the Forest Plan, this notice also identifies the Forest Service planning rule provisions likely to be directly related and, therefore, applicable to the Forest Plan amendment. The notice also identifies the applicable administrative review process for the Forest Plan amendment.
Consistent with the January 16, 2018, BLM Notice of Intent, comments on issues as part of the public scoping process for the EIS may be submitted in writing prior to March 19, 2018, or 15 days after the last BLM public scoping meeting, whichever is later. The date(s)
You may submit comments on issues, MMP criteria, and identified Forest Service planning rule provisions likely to be directly related to a possible Forest Plan amendment related to this planning effort by any of the following methods:
•
•
Documents pertinent to this planning effort may be examined at the BLM Canyon Country District or Monticello Field Office.
For further information and/or to add your name to the mailing list, contact:
• Lance Porter, District Manager, BLM—telephone (435) 259-2100; address 365 North Main, P.O. Box 7, Monticello, UT 84535; email
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
As described in the BLM's NOI, the purpose of the proposed action is to establish management plans for the Indian Creek Unit and the Shash Jáa Unit of the Bears Ears National Monument. The need for the proposed action is to comply with the Presidential Proclamation 9558, which designated the Bears Ears National Monument and required developing MMPs (82 FR 1139). The area to which the MMPs will apply is as modified by Presidential Proclamation 9681 (82 FR 58081).
As further described in the BLM's NOI, the BLM and Forest Service will jointly prepare the proposed MMP for the Shash Jáa Unit. The Forest Service is responsible for management of National Forest System lands within the Shash Jáa Unit. For the Forest Service, the proposed action may include amendment of the Manti-La Sal Forest Plan if analysis leads the Forest Service to conclude that the Forest Plan should be amended.
The BLM is the lead agency for the preparation of the EIS, and the Forest Service is participating as a cooperating agency for the EIS.
The Forest Service responsible official is the Manti-La Sal Forest Supervisor.
The Forest Service decision to be made is approval of that portion of the Shash Jáa Unit MMP applicable to National Forest System lands and approval of a Forest Plan amendment, if analysis leads the Forest Service to conclude that an amendment is necessary and appropriate.
This notice does not commit the Forest Service to amending the Forest Plan. This notice does not preclude the Forest Service from changing the Forest Plan through administrative change nor from including changes to the Forest Plan made necessary or appropriate by the MMP through the current effort of revising the Forest Plan. Furthermore, this notice does not preclude the Forest Service from including in the MMP project and site-specific activities applicable to National Forest System lands. Any Forest Service decision on project and site-specific activities must be supported by appropriate Forest Service NEPA analysis.
In the event that the Forest Service determines that it intends to amend the Forest Plan, we hereby give notice that substantive requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) likely to be directly related and, therefore, applicable to the Forest Plan amendment are 36 CFR 219.8 (b) (1), (5), and (6), regarding social and economic sustainability; 36 CFR 219.10 (a)(1), (4), (5), (7), (8), and (10), regarding integrated resource management for multiple use; and 36 CFR 219.10 (b)(1)(ii), (iii), and (vi), regarding cultural and historic resources, areas of tribal importance, and management of designated areas.
If the Forest Service determines that it intends to amend the Forest Plan with the MMP, we will use the BLM's administrative review procedures, as provided by the 2012 Planning Rule, at 36 CFR 219.59 (b). The review procedures would include a joint response from BLM and the Forest Service to those who file for administrative review.
If changes to the Forest Plan associated with the MMP would be made as part of the current process for the revision of the Forest Plan, those changes would be part of the proposed revised Forest Plan and subject to the normal administrative review process of the Forest Service planning rule for the approval of the revised Forest Plan, 36 CFR 219, subpart B. The NOI for the revision of the Forest Plan is expected in fall of 2018.
If any project or site-specific decision is to be made in the MMP, such decision would be subject to the Forest Service project-level administrative review process at 36 CFR 218.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of briefing meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a briefing meeting of the Rhode Island Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 9:00 a.m. (EDT) on Friday, April 27, 2018 in Room 222 at the Rhode Island State House, 82 Smith Street, Providence, RI 02903. The purpose of the briefing is to hear from government officials, advocates, and others on Predatory Lending in Rhode Island.
Friday, April 27, 2018 (EDT).
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Rhode Island State House, Room 222, 82 Smith Street, Providence, RI 02903.
Evelyn Bohor at
If other persons who plan to attend the meeting require other accommodations, please contact Evelyn Bohor at
Time will be set aside at the end of the briefing so that members of the public may address the Committee after the formal presentations have been completed. Persons interested in the issue are also invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, May 28, 2018. Written
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Arkansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, April 20, 2018 at 12pm Central time. The Committee will discuss next steps in their study of civil rights and criminal justice in the state.
The meeting will take place on Friday, April 20, 2018 at 12 p.m. Central.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to these discussions. These meetings are available to the public through the above call in numbers. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before June 11, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Michael A. DeFrank, Chief, Management Services Branch. Mr. DeFrank can be reached by telephone on 301-763-2864 or by email at
The Census Bureau proposes consolidating the contents of the four forms used to collect information on job applicants into two new forms: The BC-170, U.S. Census Employment Application and the BC-171, Additional Applicant Information forms.
Currently, the Census Bureau uses the BC-170A, BC-170B, and BC-170D forms to collect applicant information such as personal data and work experience. Selecting officials review the applicant information indicated on these forms to evaluate the eligibility and quality of an applicant for employment at the Census Bureau. In addition, the Census Bureau uses the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) common use form 3046-0046,
The Census Bureau currently uses the:
• BC-170A to collect applicant information for temporary office and field positions for current surveys such as the Current Population Survey (CPS).
• BC-170B to collect applicant information for temporary office and field positions for special censuses.
• BC-170D to collect applicant information for temporary office and field positions for Decennial censuses.
• EEOC common use form 3046-0046,
Because the Census Bureau uses three different BC-170 forms based on the specific applicant information required for each operation, applicants interested in multiple positions across operations often need to submit duplicative information on different forms, which causes unnecessary burden on the applicants. Consequently, selecting officials often need to assess multiple forms that comprise duplicate information from the same applicant, which causes unnecessary burden on the selecting officials. Additionally, voluntary applicant information is currently captured across the three BC-170 forms and the EEOC common use form,
To address this issue, the Census Bureau intends to consolidate the contents of the four forms into two new forms, the BC-170,
The Census Bureau conducted a thorough review of the three BC-170 forms and the EEOC common form to identify, assess, and eliminate redundant and/or nonessential collection of data that contributed to unnecessary burden on the applicant. Table A below includes additional information on how the four forms were consolidated into the BC-170 and BC-171.
The specific changes made to consolidate the BC-170A, B, and D are as follows:
1. Rearranged the contents so that the general applicant information questions, regardless of position and operations, appear in the BC-170 (
2. Removed the
3. Removed the
4. Removed the
5. Removed the
6. Added a
7. Added additional lines to the
8. Updated the
9. Updated the
10. Moved the
11. Moved the
The Census Bureau intends for applicants to access, complete, and submit both the BC-170 and BC-171 to human resources staff via the Census Schedule A Recruitment, Assessment, and Payroll System (C-SHARPS) online applicant system. The Census Bureau also intends for a paper form of the BC-170 and BC-171 to be accessible to applicants under some circumstances (
The main method of collection will be online using Census Schedule A Recruitment, Assessment, and Payroll System (C-SHARPS) accessible in English and Spanish for both stateside and Puerto Rico. The BC-170 and BC-171 will also be available in English and Spanish for both stateside and Puerto Rico:
• On paper as a secondary option under some circumstances (
• Online in PDF format for applicants to complete and submit to the Regional Office.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Greater Metropolitan Area Foreign Trade Zone Commission, grantee of FTZ 119, requesting subzone status for the facilities of AGCO Corporation (AGCO), located in Jackson and Round Lake, Minnesota. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on April 5, 2018.
The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites:
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is May 21, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to June 4, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
On December 5, 2017, the Port of Milwaukee, grantee of FTZ 41, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Quad/Graphics, Inc.—Chemical Research\Technology, within Subzone 41O, in Hartford and Sussex, Wisconsin.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On November 17, 2017, the City of Fort Lauderdale, grantee of FTZ 241, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of the Marine Industries Association of South Florida (MIASF), within Subzone 241A, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On February 8, 2018, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Bridgeport Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 76, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 76, on behalf of SDI USA, LLC, in Meriden, Connecticut.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
On December 5, 2017, the City of Mobile, grantee of FTZ 82, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Aker Solutions, Inc., within Site 7, in Mobile, Alabama.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Greater Mississippi Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 158, requesting production authority on behalf of MTD Consumer Group Inc. (MTD) located in Verona, Mississippi. The application conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.23) was docketed on April 4, 2018.
The MTD facility (over 1,000 employees) is located within Site 17 of FTZ 158. The facility is used for the production of walk-behind lawn mowers using textile grass-catcher bags. In 2016, MTD requested FTZ production authority in a notification proceeding (15 CFR 400.22 and 400.37). After an initial review, the requested production authority was approved subject to a restriction requiring that textile grass-catcher bags be admitted in domestic/duty-paid status (Doc. B-65-2016, 82 FR 6489, January 19, 2017). This pending application seeks authority to use foreign-status textile grass-catcher bags in the production of walk-behind mowers. As requested, production under FTZ procedures could exempt MTD from customs duty payments on the textile grass-catcher bags used in export production. The company estimates that less than ten percent of MTD's walk-behind lawn mowers are exported. On its domestic sales, MTD would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to walk-behind lawn mowers (duty-free) for the textile grass-catcher bags (duty rate 3.8%). MTD would be able to avoid duty on textile grass-catcher bags which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment. The request indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the plant's international competitiveness.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is June 11, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to June 25, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
This notice announces membership opportunities for appointment, or reappointment, as U.S. representatives to the U.S.-India CEO Forum.
Applications should be received no later than May 25, 2018.
Please send requests for consideration to Noor Sclafani at the Office of South Asia, U.S. Department of Commerce, either by email at
Noor Sclafani, International Trade Specialist, Office of South Asia, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: (202) 482-1421.
Established in 2005, the U.S.-India CEO Forum, brings together leaders of the respective business communities of the United States and India to discuss issues of mutual interest, particularly ways to strengthen the economic and commercial ties between the two countries, and to communicate their joint recommendations to the U.S. and Indian governments.
The Forum will have U.S. and Indian private and public sector co-chairs. The Secretary of Commerce will serve as the U.S. Government chair. Other senior U.S. Government officials may also participate in the Forum. The Forum will also include U.S. and Indian private sector members, who will be divided into two sections. The U.S. Section will consist of up to 20 members representing the views and interests of the private sector business community in the United States. Each government will appoint the members to its respective Section. The Secretary of Commerce will appoint the U.S. Section and the U.S. Section's private sector co-chair. The Forum will allow private sector members to develop and provide recommendations to the two governments and their senior officials that reflect private sector views, needs, concerns, and suggestions about the creation of an environment in which their respective private sectors can partner, thrive, and enhance bilateral commercial ties to expand trade and economic links between the United States and India. The Forum will work in tandem with, and provide input to, the government-to-government U.S.-India Commercial Dialogue.
U.S. industry candidates are currently being sought for membership. Each candidate must be the Chief Executive Officer or President (or have a comparable level of responsibility) of a U.S.-owned or controlled company that is incorporated in and has its main headquarters located in the United States and is currently conducting business in both countries. Candidates must be U.S. citizens or otherwise legally authorized to work in the United States and be able to travel to India and locations in the United States to attend Forum meetings as well as U.S. Section meetings. The candidate may not be a registered foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.
Applications for membership in the U.S. Section by eligible individuals will be evaluated based on the following criteria:
• A demonstrated commitment by the individual's company to the Indian market either through exports or investment.
• A demonstrated strong interest in India and its economic development.
• The ability to offer a broad perspective and business experience to the discussions.
• The ability to address cross-cutting issues that affect the entire business community.
• The ability to initiate and be responsible for activities in which the Forum will be active.
• If applicable, prior work by the applicant on the U.S. Section of the Forum.
The evaluation of applications for membership in the U.S. Section will be undertaken by a committee of staff from multiple U.S. Government agencies. The U.S. Section of the Forum should include members who represent a diversity of business sectors and geographic locations. To the extent possible, the U.S. Section should include members from small, medium, and large firms. The Secretary will consider the same criteria when appointing the U.S. private sector co-chair.
U.S. Section members will receive no compensation for their participation in Forum-related activities. Individual members will be responsible for all travel and related expenses associated with their participation, including attendance at Forum and Section meetings. The next Forum meeting will be held in 2018. At that time, the U.S. and Indian Sections will be expected to offer recommendations to the U.S. and Indian governments. Only appointed members may participate in official Forum meetings; substitutes and alternates may not participate. U.S. Section members will serve for two-year terms but may be reappointed.
To be considered for membership in the U.S. Section, please submit the following information as instructed in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of certain tool chests and cabinets (tool chests) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The final dumping margin of sales at LTFV is listed in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.
Applicable April 10, 2018.
Dmitry Vladimirov, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0665.
Commerce published the
The period of investigation is October 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.
The products covered by this investigation are tool chests from Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Because the sole mandatory respondent in this investigation, Clearwater Metal Single Entity
Because Clearwater Metal Single Entity prevented us from conducting verification of its questionnaire responses, including its claim that it is a wholly foreign-owned company, we find that Clearwater Metal Single Entity is considered part of the Vietnam-wide entity. We continue to find that the use of facts available is warranted in determining the dumping margin of the Vietnam-wide entity, pursuant to section 776(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A)-(C) of the
In light of the discussion above, we have made certain changes in the final determination, which are fully described in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. As a result of these changes, we relied on the highest product matching control number-specific dumping margin we calculated for Clearwater Metal Single Entity in the
Commerce determines that a weighted-average dumping margin of 327.17 percent exists for the Vietnam-wide entity.
The dumping margin assigned to the Vietnam-wide entity for the final determination in this investigation was based on adverse facts available,
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of tool chests from Vietnam, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 16, 2017, the date of publication of the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(d), upon the publication of this notice, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of subject merchandise from Vietnam no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice will serve as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The scope of this investigation covers certain metal tool chests and tool cabinets, with drawers, (tool chests and cabinets), from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam). The scope covers all metal tool chests and cabinets, including top chests, intermediate chests, tool cabinets and side cabinets, storage units, mobile work benches, and work stations and that have the following physical characteristics:
(1) A body made of carbon, alloy, or stainless steel and/or other metals;
(2) two or more drawers for storage in each individual unit;
(3) a width (side to side) exceeding 15 inches for side cabinets and exceeding 21 inches for all other individual units but not exceeding 60 inches;
(4) a body depth (front to back) exceeding 10 inches but not exceeding 24 inches; and
(5) prepackaged for retail sale.
For purposes of this scope, the width parameter applies to each individual unit,
Prepackaged for retail sale means the units may, for example, be packaged in a cardboard box, other type of container or packaging, and may bear a Universal Product Code, along with photographs, pictures, images, features, artwork, and/or product specifications. Subject tool chests and cabinets are covered whether imported in assembled or unassembled form. Subject merchandise includes tool chests and cabinets produced in Vietnam but assembled, prepackaged for retail sale, or subject to other minor processing in a third country prior to importation into the United States. Similarly, it would include tool chests and cabinets produced in Vietnam that are assembled, prepackaged for retail sale, or subject to other minor processing after importation into the United States.
Subject tool chests and cabinets may also have doors and shelves in addition to drawers, may have handles (typically mounted on the sides), and may have a work surface on the top. Subject tool chests and cabinets may be uncoated (
Subject tool chests and cabinets may be packaged as individual units or in sets. When packaged in sets, they typically include a cabinet with one or more chests that stack on top of the cabinet. Tool cabinets act as a base tool storage unit and typically have rollers, casters, or wheels to permit them to be moved more easily when loaded with tools. Work stations and mobile work benches are tool cabinets with a work surface on the top that may be made of rubber, plastic, metal, wood, or other materials.
Top chests are designed to be used with a tool cabinet to form a tool storage unit. The top chests may be mounted on top of the base tool cabinet or onto an intermediate chest. They are often packaged as a set with tool cabinets or intermediate chests, but may also be packaged separately. They may be packaged with mounting hardware (
Side cabinets are designed to be bolted or otherwise attached to the side of the base storage cabinet to expand the storage capacity of the base tool cabinet.
Subject tool chests and cabinets also may be packaged with a tool set included. Packaging a subject tool chest and cabinet with a tool set does not remove an otherwise covered subject tool chest and cabinet from the scope. When this occurs, the tools are not part of the subject merchandise.
All tool chests and cabinets that meet the above definition are included in the scope unless otherwise specifically excluded.
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are tool boxes, chests, and cabinets with bodies made of plastic, carbon fiber, wood, or other non-metallic substances.
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are industrial grade steel tool chests and cabinets. The excluded industrial grade steel tool chests and cabinets are those:
(1) Having a body that is over 60 inches in width; or
(2) having each of the following physical characteristics:
(a) A body made of steel that is 0.047 inches or more in thickness;
(b) a body depth (front to back) exceeding 21 inches; and
(c) a unit weight that exceeds the maximum unit weight shown below for each width range:
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are service carts. The excluded service carts have all of the following characteristics:
(1) Casters, wheels, or other similar devices which allow the service cart to be rolled from place to place;
(2) an open top for storage, a flat top, or a flat lid on top of the unit that opens;
(3) a space or gap between the casters, wheels, or other similar devices, and the bottom of the enclosed storage space (
(4) a total unit height, including casters, of less than 48 inches.
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are non-mobile work benches. The excluded non-mobile work benches have all of the following characteristics:
(1) A solid top working surface;
(2) no drawers, one drawer, or two drawers in a side-by-side configuration; and
(3) the unit is supported by legs and has no solid front, side, or back panels enclosing the body of the unit.
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are metal filing cabinets that are configured to hold hanging file folders and are classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 9403.10.0020.
Merchandise subject to this investigation is classified under HTSUS categories 9403.20.0021, 9403.20.0026, 9403.20.0030, 9403.20.0080, 9403.20.0090, and 7326.90.8688, but may also be classified under HTSUS category 7326.90.3500.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the final results of redetermination pursuant to remand pertaining to the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the People's Republic of China (China) covering the period of review (POR) January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final results of the administrative review and that we are amending the final results with respect to the total
Applicable April 6, 2018.
Kaitlin Wojnar at (202) 482-3857, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On July 19, 2016, Commerce published the
On August 18, 2017, the CIT remanded the
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the
In the event
Since the
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of certain tool chests and cabinets (tool chests) from the People's Republic of China (China) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.
Applicable April 10, 2018.
Yang Jin Chun or Andre Gziryan, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5760 and (202) 482-2201, respectively.
Commerce published the
The period of investigation is October 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.
The products covered by this investigation are tool chests from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of issues raised is attached to this notice at Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we verified the U.S. sales and factors of production information submitted by the Tongrun Single Entity
Geelong has prevented Commerce from conducting verification of its questionnaire responses, including its claim that it is a wholly foreign-owned company. Therefore, we find that Geelong has failed to demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate and is considered part of the China-wide entity. We continue to find that the use of facts available is warranted in determining the rate of the China-wide entity pursuant to section 776(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act.
Further, we found that the China-wide entity, which includes Geelong and other uncooperative respondents, did not cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with our requests for information and, accordingly, we determined it appropriate to apply adverse inferences in selecting from the facts available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(a).
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to our dumping margin calculation for the Tongrun Single Entity.
Consistent with
Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the final determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with sections 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of tool chests from China, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 16, 2017, the date of publication of the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(d), upon the publication of this notice, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
Commerce published the countervailing duty order in the concurrent countervailing duty investigation of tool chests from China.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of subject merchandise from China no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice will serve as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The scope of this investigation covers certain metal tool chests and tool cabinets, with drawers, (tool chests and cabinets), from the People's Republic of China (China). The scope covers all metal tool chests and cabinets, including top chests, intermediate chests, tool cabinets and side cabinets, storage units, mobile work benches, and work stations and that have the following physical characteristics:
(1) A body made of carbon, alloy, or stainless steel and/or other metals;
(2) two or more drawers for storage in each individual unit;
(3) a width (side to side) exceeding 15 inches for side cabinets and exceeding 21 inches for all other individual units but not exceeding 60 inches;
(4) a body depth (front to back) exceeding 10 inches but not exceeding 24 inches; and
(5) prepackaged for retail sale.
For purposes of this scope, the width parameter applies to each individual unit,
Prepackaged for retail sale means the units may, for example, be packaged in a cardboard box, other type of container or packaging, and may bear a Universal Product Code, along with photographs, pictures, images, features, artwork, and/or product specifications. Subject tool chests and cabinets are covered whether imported in assembled or unassembled form. Subject merchandise includes tool chests and cabinets produced in China but assembled, prepackaged for retail sale, or subject to other minor processing in a third country prior to importation into the United States. Similarly, it would include tool chests and cabinets produced in China that are assembled, prepackaged for retail sale, or subject to other minor processing after importation into the United States.
Subject tool chests and cabinets may also have doors and shelves in addition to drawers, may have handles (typically mounted on the sides), and may have a work surface on the top. Subject tool chests and cabinets may be uncoated (
Subject tool chests and cabinets may be packaged as individual units or in sets. When packaged in sets, they typically include a cabinet with one or more chests that stack on top of the cabinet. Tool cabinets act as a base tool storage unit and typically have rollers, casters, or wheels to permit them to be moved more easily when loaded with tools. Work stations and mobile work benches are tool cabinets with a work surface on the top that may be made of rubber, plastic, metal, wood, or other materials.
Top chests are designed to be used with a tool cabinet to form a tool storage unit. The top chests may be mounted on top of the base tool cabinet or onto an intermediate chest. They are often packaged as a set with tool cabinets or intermediate chests, but may also be packaged separately. They may be packaged with mounting hardware (
Side cabinets are designed to be bolted or otherwise attached to the side of the base storage cabinet to expand the storage capacity of the base tool cabinet.
Subject tool chests and cabinets also may be packaged with a tool set included. Packaging a subject tool chest and cabinet with a tool set does not remove an otherwise covered subject tool chest and cabinet from the scope. When this occurs, the tools are not part of the subject merchandise.
All tool chests and cabinets that meet the above definition are included in the scope unless otherwise specifically excluded.
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are tool boxes, chests, and
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are industrial grade steel tool chests and cabinets. The excluded industrial grade steel tool chests and cabinets are those:
(1) Having a body that is over 60 inches in width; or
(2) having each of the following physical characteristics:
(a) a body made of steel that is 0.047 inches or more in thickness;
(b) a body depth (front to back) exceeding 21 inches; and
(c) a unit weight that exceeds the maximum unit weight shown below for each width range:
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are service carts. The excluded service carts have all of the following characteristics:
(1) Casters, wheels, or other similar devices which allow the service cart to be rolled from place to place;
(2) an open top for storage, a flat top, or a flat lid on top of the unit that opens;
(3) a space or gap between the casters, wheels, or other similar devices, and the bottom of the enclosed storage space (
(4) a total unit height, including casters, of less than 48 inches.
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are non-mobile work benches. The excluded non-mobile work benches have all of the following characteristics:
(1) A solid top working surface;
(2) no drawers, one drawer, or two drawers in a side-by-side configuration; and
(3) the unit is supported by legs and has no solid front, side, or back panels enclosing the body of the unit.
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are metal filing cabinets that are configured to hold hanging file folders and are classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 9403.10.0020.
Merchandise subject to this investigation is classified under HTSUS categories 9403.20.0021, 9403.20.0026, 9403.20.0030, 9403.20.0080, 9403.20.0090, and 7326.90.8688, but may also be classified under HTSUS category 7326.90.3500.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain uncoated paper (uncoated paper) from Brazil is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value.
Applicable April 10, 2018.
Jerry Huang, 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) 482-4047.
On May 9, 2017, Commerce initiated the antidumping duty administrative review on uncoated paper from Brazil.
The product covered by this review is uncoated paper from Brazil. For a full description of the scope see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period August 27, 2015 through February 28, 2017.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties 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.
If a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is above
For entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by Suzano Papel e Celulose S.A. for which they did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements for estimated antidumping duties will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this review for all shipments of uncoated paper from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for companies subject to this review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of the review; (2) for merchandise exported by companies not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
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 period of review. 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.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain uncoated paper from Indonesia. The period of review is June 29, 2015, through December 31, 2016. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable April 10, 2018.
David Goldberger or Darla Brown, Office II, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-1791, respectively.
Commerce published the notice of initiation of this administrative review on May 9, 2017.
According to section 351.213(e)(2)(ii) of Commerce's regulations, the first administrative review of a countervailing duty order should cover the period from the initial date of suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise to the end of the most recently completed calendar or fiscal year. In this case, suspension of liquidation began on June 29, 2015.
Because it is Commerce's practice to calculate subsidy rates on an annual basis, we calculated a 2015 rate and a 2016 rate. The rate calculated for 2015 will be applicable only to entries, or withdrawals from warehouse, for consumption made on and after June 29, 2015 through the end of 2015.
The products covered by the order are certain uncoated paper from Indonesia. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
Commerce is conducting this countervailing duty (CVD) review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates for 2015 and 2016 exist:
Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount calculated for 2016. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations and analysis performed in connection with this preliminary results within five days of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.
These preliminary results are issued and published pursuant to sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The Registry Program collects identification and contact information from those anglers and for-hire vessels who are involved in recreational fishing in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone or for anadromous fish in any waters, unless the anglers or vessels are exempted from the registration requirement. Data collected includes: For anglers: Name, address, date of birth, telephone contact information and region(s) of the country in which they fish; for for-hire vessels: Owner and operator name, address, date of birth, telephone contact information, vessel name and registration/documentation number and home port or primary operating area. This information is compiled into a national and/or series of regional registries that is being used to support surveys of recreational anglers and for-hire vessels to develop estimates of recreational angling effort.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold its Marine Planning and Climate Change Committee (MPCCC) meeting to review relevant sections of the draft 2017 annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report for the Pacific Pelagic Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP), American Samoa Archipelago FEP, Hawaii FEP, Mariana Archipelago FEP and Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA) FEP. The MPCCC will also receive updates on matters related to fishery management and may make recommendations on these topics.
The meetings will be held between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. on April 10 and 11, 2018. For the agenda, see
The MPCCC meeting will be held at the Council office, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, phone: (808) 522-8220. The meeting will also be available by teleconference (phone 1 888 482-3560 and use access code 5228220 followed by #) and by webinar (go to
Contact Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; phone: (808) 522-8220.
A public comment period will be provided during the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change and will be announced in advance at the meeting. The meeting will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least five days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before June 11, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Jerry Leonard, National Marine Fisheries Service, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112.
This is a request for a new information collection.
The Northwest Fisheries Science Center will conduct a cost and earnings survey of active marine charter fishing vessel companies in Washington and Oregon. The data collected will be used by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to address statutory and regulatory mandates to determine the quantity and distribution of net benefits derived from living marine resources as well as to predict the economic impacts from proposed management options on charter fishing businesses, shore side industries, and fishing communities. In particular, these economic data collection programs contribute to legally mandated analyses required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMS), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866).
An initial screening interview will be completed via telephone, and active marine charter vessels will receive a subsequent mixed-mode (telephone, mail, and in-person) survey.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of public subcommittee meetings.
This notice sets forth the announcement of two public subcommittee meetings of the Consumer Advisory Board (CAB or Board) of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB or Bureau). The notice also describes the functions of the Board its subcommittees.
The Consumer Advisory Board Consumer Lending subcommittee meeting will take place on Wednesday, April 18, 2018 from approximately 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. eastern standard time via conference call. The Consumer Advisory Board Card, Payment, and Deposits Markets Subcommittee meeting will take place on Tuesday, April 19, 2018 from approximately 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. eastern standard time via conference call.
Crystal Dully, Outreach and Engagement Associate, 202-435-9588,
Section 3 of the Charter of the Consumer Advisory Board states that:
The purpose of the Board is outlined in section 1014(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which states that the Board shall “advise and consult with the Bureau in the exercise of its functions under the Federal consumer financial laws” and “provide information on emerging practices in the consumer financial products or services industry, including regional trends, concerns, and other relevant information.”
To carry out the Board's purpose, the scope of its activities shall include providing information, analysis, and recommendations to the Bureau. The Board will generally serve as a vehicle for market intelligence and expertise for the Bureau. Its objectives will include identifying and assessing the impact on consumers and other market participants of new, emerging, and changing products, practices, or services.
Typically, the subcommittees meet during the in person advisory group meetings as well as in between via conference calls. Each subcommittee has an advisory group member who serves as the chair and staff from the CFPB's Advisory Board and Councils Office to assist the chair in conducting the meeting.
The CAB Consumer Lending Subcommittee will discuss two of the Bureau's Request for Information (RFI) related to the Call for Evidence initiative by Acting Director Mulvaney. The CAB Card, Payment, and Deposits Markets Subcommittee will discuss lessons learned about the needs of specific targeted vulnerable populations around Mobile Financial Services (MFS) and MFS features.
Written comments will be accepted from interested members of the public and should be sent to
Individuals who wish to join the Consumer Advisory Board Consumer Lending Subcommittee meeting must RSVP via this link
A summary of these meetings will be available after the meeting on the CFPB's website
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of open committee meeting.
The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery (ACANC). The meeting is open to the public. For more information about the Committee, please visit:
The Committee will meet on Tuesday, May 8, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The Advisory Committee will meet in the Welcome Center Conference Room, Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, VA 22211.
Mr. Timothy Keating; Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the Committee, in writing at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington VA 22211, or by email at
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR 102-3.150).
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of open subcommittee meetings.
The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery (ACANC) subcommittee meetings of the Remember and Explore subcommittee and the Honor subcommittee. These meetings are open to the public. For more information about the Committee and the Subcommittees, please visit:
The Remember and Explore subcommittee will meet on Monday May 7, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The Honor subcommittee will meet on Monday May 7, 2018 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The Remember and Explore Subcommittee and the Honor Subcommittee will meet in the Welcome Center Conference Room, Arlington National Cemetery, and Arlington, VA 22211.
Mr. Timothy Keating; Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the subcommittees, in writing at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington VA 22211, or by email at
These subcommittee meetings are being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR 102-3.150).
The primary purpose of the Remember & Explore Subcommittee is to recommend methods to maintain the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier Monument, including the cracks in the large marble sarcophagus, the adjacent marble slabs, and the potential replacement marble stone for the sarcophagus already gifted to the Army; accomplish an independent assessment of requests to place commemorative monuments; and identify means to capture and convey ANC's history, including Section 60 gravesite mementos, and improve the quality of visitors' experiences now and for generations to come.
The primary purpose of the Honor subcommittee is to accomplish an independent assessment of methods to address the long-term future of the Army national cemeteries, including how best to extend the active burials and what ANC should focus on once all available space is used.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by June 11, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0246, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Mr. Mark Gomersall, 571-372-6099. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available electronically on the internet at:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
DFARS part 245 prescribes policies and procedures for providing Government property to contractors; contractors' use and management of Government property; and reporting, redistributing, and disposing of inventory. The information collected is used by contractors, property administrators, and contracting officers.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
This notice advises the public that the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE-SPL), as lead agency, is gathering information necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) in connection with the update proposed for Alamo Dam's Water Control Plan. This notice opens the public scoping phase and invites interested parties to identify potential issues, concerns, and reasonable alternatives that should be considered in an EIS.
You may mail or hand deliver written comments to Alamo Dam WCP Update, Los Angeles District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CESPL-AMO Alamo, 915 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 930, Los Angeles, California 90017. Advance arrangements will need to be made to hand deliver comments. Please include your name, return address, and “NOI Comments, Alamo Dam Water Control Plan Update” on the first page of your written comments. Comments may also be submitted via email to
Questions about the proposed action and DEIS can be answered by email:
1. Project Description. The proposed update would provide greater flexibility in operations to support maintenance activities, minimization of anoxic sediment build up at the outlet works, and fish and wildlife benefits downstream of the dam in support of the sustainable rivers MOU. The action would also potentially result in a reallocation of water storage space to prevent the probable maximum flood overtopping the Dam. The action would also address Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance regarding newly listed species and critical habitat designated downstream of the Dam since the 2003 Water Control Plan was completed.
2. Alternatives. The EIS will address an array of alternatives based on the project's authorized purpose and need. USACE-SPL must identify the “overall” project purpose and evaluate practicable alternatives. USACE-SPL has identified the following potential alternatives:
A. No Action—Under this alternative, USACE-SPL would continue existing operations at Alamo Dam in accordance with the 2003 Water Control Plan.
B. Maintenance Facilitation—Under this alternative, USACE-SPL would lower the target water surface elevation (WSE) to allow access to original equipment used for regular maintenance inspections. 15.4 feet of the existing unclaimed water conservation pool storage would be reallocated to the flood control pool.
C. Unified Flow Release—Under this alternative, USACE-SPL would maintain the current target WSE but alter release schedules to create a more natural flow regime below the Dam. 15.4 feet of the existing unclaimed water conservation pool storage would be reallocated to the flood control pool.
D. Unified Flow Release and increased Recreation—Under this alternative, USACE-SPL would raise the target water surface elevation to increase
E. Original Operation Plan—Under this alternative, USACE-SPL would drop the target water surface elevation to the original elevation listed in the 1973 Water Control Manual. The release schedule would be returned to the release schedule from the 1973 Water Control Manual.
3. Scoping. Scoping is the NEPA process utilized for seeking public involvement in determining the range of alternatives and significant issues to be addressed in the EIS. USACE-SPL invites full public participation to promote open communication on the issues surrounding the proposed action. The public will be involved in the scoping and evaluation process through advertisements, notices, and other means. Project information will also be available on USACE-SPL's website at
4. Potentially Significant Issues. The EIS will analyze the potential impacts on the human and natural environment resulting from the project. The scoping, public involvement, and interagency coordination processes will help identify and define the range of potential significant issues that will be considered. Important resources and issues evaluated in the EIS could include, but are not limited to, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on fish and wildlife, recreation, land use, hydrology and hydraulics, property values, and induced flooding. USACE-SPL will also consider issues identified and comments made throughout scoping, public involvement, and interagency coordination. USACE-SPL expects to better define the issues of concern and the methods that will be used to evaluate those issues through the scoping process.
5. Environmental Consultation and Review. USACE-SPL is requesting that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Recreation, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Department of Game and Fish, and the Arizona State Park Department act as cooperating agencies on this EIS. In addition to the federal interests noted above for general development of the EIS, USFWS will assist in documenting existing conditions and assessing effects of project alternatives through the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act consultation procedures. Consultation will be completed with USFWS concerning threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat per the Endangered Species Act.
6. The USACE-SPL will consult with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the appropriate Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO), per the National Historic Preservation Act.
7. Availability. The DEIS is presently scheduled to be available for public review and comment by: May 2019. All comments received throughout the review process will become part of the administrative record for the proposed project and subject to public release.
• Text to be double-spaced. Use block format.
• Place local billing code number at the top of the first page on all three copies.
• Margins—one inch on top, bottom and right side; and one and one-half inches on the left side.
• Pages must be numbered consecutively.
• Text should be typed on one side only.
• Use 8
• Refer to 33 CFR 230, Appendix C for additional guidance.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 10, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Angela Hernandez-Marshall, 202-205-1909.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also
U.S. Department of Education, National Advisory Council on Indian Education (NACIE or Council).
Announcement of an open public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule of an upcoming public meeting conducted by the National Advisory Council on Indian Education (NACIE). Notice of the meeting is required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and intended to notify the public of its opportunity to attend. Due to unforeseen delays in ensuring the establishment of a quorum of the NACIE membership and in order to facilitate the coordination of schedules of OESE senior leadership and presenters, this notice is being published in less than 15 days prior to the date of the scheduled meeting.
The NACIE meeting will be held on April 16-17, 2018; April 16, 2018-9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Saving Time, April 17, 2018-9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Saving Time.
Holiday Inn Capitol, 440 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20202.
Tina Hunter, Designated Federal Official, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 202-205-8527. Fax: 202-205-0310.
NACIE's Statutory Authority and Function: The National Advisory Council on Indian Education is authorized by section 7141 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Council is established within the Department of Education to advise the Secretary of Education on the funding and administration (including the development of regulations, and administrative policies and practices) of any program over which the Secretary has jurisdiction and includes Indian children or adults as participants or programs that may benefit Indian children or adults, including any program established under Title VII, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Council submits to the Congress, not later than June 30 of each year, a report on the activities of the Council that includes recommendations the Council considers appropriate for the improvement of Federal education programs that include Indian children or adults as participants or that may benefit Indian children or adults, and recommendations concerning the funding of any such program.
One of the Council's responsibilities is to develop and provide recommendations to the Secretary of Education on the funding and administration (including the development of regulations, and administrative policies and practices) of any program over which the Secretary has jurisdiction that can benefit Indian children or adults participating in any program which could benefit Indian children.
Due to limited spacing, please RSVP for the meeting via email at
Section 6141 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), 20 U.S.C. 7471.
Department of Education (ED), Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct an emergency review of a new information collection.
Approval by the OMB has been requested by April 16, 2018. A regular clearance process is also hereby being initiated. Interested persons are invited to submit comments before April 16, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact David Esquith, 202-453-6722.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, signed into law by President Trump on February 9, 2018, included significant new funding to support disaster relief. The U.S. Department of Education (Department) will award up to $2.7 billion to assist K-12 schools and school districts in meeting the educational needs of students affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria and the 2017 California wildfires. This disaster assistance will help schools and school districts return to their full capabilities as quickly and effectively as possible. Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.13, the Department requests that OMB review this collection under its emergency procedures, based on harm to public due to an unanticipated/unforeseen natural disaster event that occurred beyond ED's control.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years, an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before June 11, 2018. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible.
Written comments may be sent to Brian Lally, GC-62, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585, by fax at (202) 586-2805, or by email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Brian Lally at the address listed above.
This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-0800; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Legal Collections; (3) Type of Review: Renewal and Revision; (4) Purpose: To continue to maintain DOE oversight of responsibilities relating to DOE and Contractor invention reporting and related matters; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 1700; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 2000; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 13,281; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $771,000.00.
42 U.S.C. 5908(a) (b) and (c); 37 CFR part 404; 10 CFR part 784.
Take notice that on April 4, 2018, Marcus M. Harris, submitted for filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b), part 45 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45, and Order Nos. 664.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on March 26, 2018, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company submitted a response to the Commission's Order to Show Cause,
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: Compliance filing: Reactive Service Rate Schedules Compliance Filing to be effective 3/27/2018.
Description: Expedited Petition of Westar Energy, Inc. for Waiver of Tariff Provision.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
Description: Application for authority to issue short term debt of Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company, Inc.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting comment on applications from Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA), and Toyota Motor North America (Toyota) for off-cycle carbon dioxide (CO
Comments must be received on or before May 10, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2018-0168, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Roberts French, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone: (734) 214-4380. Fax: (734) 214-4869. Email address:
EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) program provides three pathways by which a manufacturer may accrue off-cycle carbon dioxide (CO
Under the regulations, a manufacturer seeking to demonstrate off-cycle credits
• Use modeling, on-road testing, on-road data collection, or other approved analytical or engineering methods;
• Be robust, verifiable, and capable of demonstrating the real-world emissions benefit with strong statistical significance;
• Result in a demonstration of baseline and controlled emissions over a wide range of driving conditions and number of vehicles such that issues of data uncertainty are minimized;
• Result in data on a model type basis unless the manufacturer demonstrates that another basis is appropriate and adequate.
Further, the regulations specify the following requirements regarding an application for off-cycle CO
• A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must develop a methodology for demonstrating and determining the benefit of the off-cycle technology, and carry out any necessary testing and analysis required to support that methodology.
• A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must conduct testing and/or prepare engineering analyses that demonstrate the in-use durability of the technology for the full useful life of the vehicle.
• The application must contain a detailed description of the off-cycle technology and how it functions to reduce CO
• The application must contain a list of the vehicle model(s) which will be equipped with the technology.
• The application must contain a detailed description of the test vehicles selected and an engineering analysis that supports the selection of those vehicles for testing.
• The application must contain all testing and/or simulation data required under the regulations, plus any other data the manufacturer has considered in the analysis.
Finally, the alternative methodology must be approved by EPA prior to the manufacturer using it to generate credits. As part of the review process defined by regulation, the alternative methodology submitted to EPA for consideration must be made available for public comment.
FCA is requesting GHG credits for alternators with improved efficiency relative to a baseline alternator. This request is for the 2009 and later model years. Automotive alternators convert mechanical energy from a combustion engine into electrical energy that can be used to power a vehicle's electrical systems. Alternators inherently place a load on the engine, which results in increased fuel consumption and CO
Using the alternative methodology approach discussed above, FCA is applying for credits for model years prior to 2014, and thus prior to when the list of default credits became available. FCA has applied for off-cycle credits using the alternative demonstration methodology pathway for active transmission warmup and active engine warmup. EPA has already approved credits for these technologies for model years prior to 2014.
Using the alternative methodology approach discussed above, FCA is applying for credits for an air conditioning compressor manufactured by Denso that results in air conditioning efficiency credits beyond those provided in the regulations. This request is for the 2019 and subsequent model years. This compressor, known as the Denso SAS compressor, improves the internal valve system within the compressor to reduce the internal refrigerant flow necessary throughout the range of displacements that the compressor may use during its operating cycle. The addition of a variable crankcase suction valve allows a larger mass flow under maximum capacity and
The credits calculated for the Denso SAS compressor would be in addition to the credits of 1.7 grams/mile for variable-displacement A/C compressors already allowed under EPA regulations.
FCA is requesting an off-cycle GHG credit of 1.1 grams CO
Toyota Motor North America (Toyota) is requesting GHG credits for alternators with improved efficiency relative to a baseline alternator. This request is for the 2017 and later model years. Automotive alternators convert mechanical energy from a combustion engine into electrical energy that can be used to power a vehicle's electrical systems. Alternators inherently place a load on the engine, which results in increased fuel consumption and CO
EPA has reviewed the applications for completeness and is now making the applications available for public review and comment as required by the regulations. The off-cycle credit applications submitted by the manufacturers (with confidential business information redacted) have been placed in the public docket (see
EPA is providing a 30-day comment period on the applications for off-cycle credits described in this notice, as specified by the regulations. The manufacturers may submit a written rebuttal of comments for EPA's consideration, or may revise an application in response to comments. After reviewing any public comments and any rebuttal of comments submitted by manufacturers, EPA will make a final decision regarding the credit requests. EPA will make its decision available to the public by placing a decision document (or multiple decision documents) in the docket and on EPA's website at the same manufacturer-specific pages shown above. While the broad methodologies used by these manufacturers could potentially be used for other vehicles and by other manufacturers, the vehicle specific data needed to demonstrate the off-cycle emissions reductions would likely be different. In such cases, a new application would be required, including an opportunity for public comment.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for public comment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is hereby giving notice of a proposed bona fide prospective purchaser settlement agreement, embodied in an Order on Consent, with Sensient Colors LLC. This agreement pertains to the former Homer A. Doerr & Sons Plating Company property located in St. Louis, Missouri.
Comments must be received on or before May 10, 2018.
The proposed settlement agreement is available for public inspection at EPA Region 7's office at 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. A copy of the proposed
Alex Chen, Senior Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219, at (913) 551-7962, or by email at
Notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 7, of a proposed bona fide prospective purchaser settlement agreement, embodied in an Order on Consent, with Sensient Colors LLC. This agreement pertains to the former Homer A. Doerr & Sons Plating Company property located at 2408 North Leffingwell Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri. Sensient Colors LLC agrees to perform a removal action at this property, purchase the property and return the site to green space. This project will result in an abandoned contaminated building and site being restored to beneficial use.
The settlement includes a covenant by EPA not to sue or take administrative action against Sensient Colors, pursuant to Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA and Section 3008 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, for Existing Contamination, as that term is defined in the settlement agreement. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement. EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement agreement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability; request for public comment.
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA), notice is given by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 of a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA regarding the Central Transport, Inc. Superfund Site (Site) in Romulus, Wayne County, Michigan. Subject to review and comment by the public pursuant to this notice, this settlement resolves a claim by EPA, for recovery of response costs from three related parties who have executed a binding certification of their consent to the settlement, as listed in the
Comments must be submitted on or before May 10, 2018.
The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at EPA, Region 5, 7th Floor File Room, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604. You can also obtain a copy of the proposed settlement from Associate Regional Counsel, Cynthia N. Kawakami at (312)886-0564;
Associate Regional Counsel, Cynthia N. Kawakami, EPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (C-14J), Chicago, Illinois, 60604-3590, (312)886-0564, or via email at
Notice is given of a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA regarding the Central Transport, Inc. Superfund Site (Site) in Romulus, Wayne County, Michigan. Subject to review and comment by the public pursuant to this Notice, this settlement resolves a claim under Sections 106, 107(a) and 122 of CERCLA, by EPA, for recovery of response costs from three related parties who have executed a binding certification of their consent to the settlement, as follows. The settlement requires the settling parties to pay a total of $27,000 to the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund and includes EPA's covenant not to sue the settling parties pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement. EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Dennis Schreibeis, General Counsel, Crown Enterprises, Inc. has executed a binding certification of the settling parties' consent to participate in the settlement.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Hazardous Substance Handling and Storage Procedures and Associated Costs Survey” (EPA ICR No. 2566.01, OMB Control No. 2050-NEW) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a request for approval of a new collection. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments must be submitted on or before May 10, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0444, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Joe Beaman, OLEM/OEM/RID, (5104A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-0420; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
EPA is developing a regulatory proposal regarding the prevention of CWA hazardous substance discharges. EPA does not directly receive reports on specific types and amounts of hazardous substances stored and used at facilities across the country. Much of that information is collected under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (42 U.S. Code Chapter 116; EPCRA) which requires Tier II facilities to report the maximum and average daily amounts of hazardous chemicals onsite during the preceding year to their respective state, Tribal, or territorial authority. Therefore, the Agency has developed a short voluntary survey to be sent to states, tribes and territories of the United States requesting information on the number and type of EPCRA Tier II facilities reporting CWA hazardous substances onsite, as well as information about historical discharges of CWA hazardous substances, ecological and human health impacts of those discharges, and existing state and tribal regulatory programs that serve to prevent discharges of hazardous substances. This information will assist EPA in estimating the universe of facilities nationwide potentially subject to discharge prevention regulations for hazardous substances designated at 40 CFR part 116. EPA anticipates this information will inform the rulemaking process, assisting in the identification of potentially affected entities, evaluation of potential regulatory approaches, and estimating economic impacts.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Regarding the Sulfur Content of Motor Vehicle Gasoline, Gasoline Additives, Denatured Fuel Ethanol and Other Oxygenates, Certified Ethanol Denaturant, and Blender-Grade Pentane” (EPA ICR No.1907.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0437) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before June 11, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Thomas Boylan, Fuels Compliance Policy Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 6405A, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-1075; fax number: 202-565-2085; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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,
T
Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12th Floor).
This meeting, open to the public, has been cancelled.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
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 4, 2018.
1.
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by June 11, 2018.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
We find that the Society of Thoracic Surgery/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy (STS/ACC TVT) Registry, one registry overseen by the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, meets the requirements specified in the NCD on TMVR. The TVT Registry will support a national surveillance system to monitor the safety and efficacy of the TMVR technologies for the treatment of mitral regurgitation (MR).
The data collected and analyzed in the TVT Registry will be used by CMS to determine if the TMVR is reasonable and necessary (
The conduct of the STS/ACC TVT Registry and the KCCQ-10 is pursuant to Section 1142 of the Social Security Act (the ACT) that describes the authority of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Under section 1142, research may be conducted and supported on the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures to identify the manner in which disease, disorders, and other health conditions can be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically. Section 1862(a)(1)(E) of the Act allows Medicare to cover under coverage with evidence development (CED) certain items or services for which the evidence is not adequate to support coverage under section 1862(a)(1)(A) and where additional data gathered in the context of a clinical setting would further clarify the impact of these items and services on the health of beneficiaries.
2.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of several approvals of products redeeming a priority review voucher. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish notice of the issuance of vouchers as well as the approval of products redeeming a voucher.
Althea Cuff, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4061, Fax: 301-796-9856, email:
Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), which was added by FDASIA, FDA will report the issuance of rare pediatric disease priority review vouchers and the approval of products for which a voucher was redeemed.
FDA has determined that the following approved drugs meet the redemption criteria:
• PRALUENT (alirocumab) approved July 24, 2015,
• SOLIQUA (insulin glargine and lixisenatide) approved November 21, 2016, and
• JULUCA (dolutegravir and rilpivirine) approved November 21, 2017.
For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 of the FD&C Act, go to
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Time-Sensitive Obesity Research.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a following meeting.
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.
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 meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) National Advisory Council will meet on April 23, 2018, 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. (EDT) in a closed teleconference meeting.
The meeting will include discussions and evaluations of grant applications reviewed by SAMHSA's Initial Review Groups, and involve an examination of confidential financial and business information as well as personal information concerning the applicants. Therefore, the meeting will be closed to the public as determined by the SAMHSA Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C 552b(c)(4) and (6) and Title 5 U.S.C. App. 2, § 10(d).
Meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained by accessing the SAMHSA Committee website at
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until June 11, 2018.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0100 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0010. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 10, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 10, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax:202-395-5806, Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
A brief summary of the more significant changes per documentation category is provided below.
• Lender Narratives—The edits consist primarily of changes to remove program guidance from the narratives and to incorporate updated underwriting standards specific to, for example, special use facilities.
• Consolidated Certifications—The changes consist of streamlining the form and revising language to incorporate the changed policy in the new previous participation regulation with new definitions such as Controlling Participant.
• Construction documents—Several documents are proposed that will replace the current versions of the Multifamily forms still in use, such as a new Borrower Certification for Early Start/Early Commencement of Construction projects.
• Underwriting documents—A new form was added—New Fair Housing Marketing Plan document—which provides the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan Requirements. ORCF removed one obsolete document (Agreement for Payment of Real Property Taxes)that is more specific to multifamily housing, and not relevant to healthcare facilities, as well as the Certificate of Need for Health Facilities and Schedule of Facilities Owned, Operated or Managed, which both contained duplicative information provided in other documents. The new Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans (AFHMPs) was vetted with Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO); other HUD programs had unique AFHMPs for their programs, and this new form is meant to accomplish the same for healthcare facilities. Appraisal information will also, be collected via a new spreadsheet that is similar to a collection method used by the multifamily housing “wheelbarrow”.
• Accounts Receivable (AR) documents—Edits include changes made to the Inter-creditor Agreement form to address an ongoing issue of how operators should disclose any cross-defaults between the AR loan and the HUD loan.
• Master Lease documents—Changes include adding two new forms: Termination and Release of Cross-Default Guaranty of Subtenants—Proposed and Amendment to HUD Master Lease (Partial Termination and Release)—Proposed to reflect the 232 Handbook policy related to a release of a project from a master lease.
• Closing documents—Edits were made to the Surplus Cash Note and Subordination Agreement—(Financing) to restrict distributions when there is secondary financing. Security Instrument/Mortgage Deed Instrument/Mortgage Deed of Trust to reflect Multifamily' s form and reduces the need to amend the document when the Regulatory Agreement—Borrower paragraph 38 is changed. New residential care facilities versions of Certificate of Actual Cost as well as a Rider to Security Instrument—LIHTC—were incorporated into the collection to replace Multifamily versions still in use which did not reflect ORCF policy.
• Regulatory Agreement for Fire Safety—A new Regulatory Agreement for Fire Safety projects and a Management Agreement Addendum, as well as formalization of a Lender Certification for Insurance Coverage, to incorporate current samples already in place was added to the documentation collection.
• Escrow documents—New proposed escrow forms for long-term debt service reserves and Off-Site Facilities were also added.
• Asset Management documents—Change of participant application documents were revised to streamline the documents needed for a change in title of mortgaged property, change of operator or management agent, or complete change of all the parties. Documents still being used in the Multifamily format were incorporated into this collection, to specifically
• Supplemental Loan Documents. Section 241(a) Mortgage Insurance for Supplemental Loans for Multifamily Projects. All Section 241a loan documents that have been in use as samples are now made a part of the documentation collection for OMB approval.
HUD makes no changes to the Legal Opinion and Certification Documents.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond: including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice, Scheduling of a full five-year review.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a full review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days.
April 3, 2018.
Nathanael Comly (202-205-3174) or Christopher W. Robinson (202-205-2542), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
The Commission has determined that this review is extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C.1675(c)(5)(B).
This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on March 6, 2018, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Fraen Corporation of Reading, Massachusetts. The complaint was supplemented on March 20, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain LED lighting devices and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,411,083 (“the `083 patent”) and 9,772,499 (“the `499 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2017).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain LED lighting devices and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-16 and 19 of the '083 patent and claims 1 and 3-10 of the '499 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (Order No. 7) granting a joint motion to terminate the investigation based on settlement.
Lucy Grace D. Noyola, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3438. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
The Commission instituted the investigation on November 27, 2017, based on a complaint filed by PureCircle USA Inc. of Oak Brook, Illinois and PureCircle Sdn Bhd of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (collectively, “PureCircle”). 82 FR 56049 (Nov. 27, 2017). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain glucosylated steviol glycosides, and products containing same by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,420,815. The named respondents included Sweet Green Fields USA LLC and Sweet Green Fields Co., Ltd., both of Bellingham, Washington, and Ningbo Green-Health Pharma-ceutical Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang, China (collectively, “SGF”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was not named as a party.
On March 1, 2018, PureCircle and SGF filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.
On March 14, 2018, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 7), granting the motion. The ALJ found that the motion complies with the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure and that there was no evidence that termination is contrary to the public interest. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On April 4, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The United States' complaint names The Doe Run Resources Corporation as the Defendant. The complaint seeks recovery of costs that the United States incurred responding to releases of hazardous substances at the Big River Mine Tailings Superfund Site in St. Francois County, Missouri. The complaint also seeks injunctive relief in the form of the performance of the selected remedy for Operable Unit 01 of the Site.
The Consent Decree requires the defendant to perform the selected remedy on approximately 4,100 affected residential properties, to perform a removal action at the Hayden Creek Mine Waste Area, and to provide the Environmental Protection Agency and its contractors with free access to defendant's soil repository at the Leadwood site. The Environmental Protection Agency will reimburse the Defendant for up to forty percent of the costs it incurs performing the work required by the consent decree, up to a maximum of $31.56 million. In return for the Defendant's commitments, the United States agrees not to sue the Defendant under Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA.
The Consent Decree also requires the United States, on behalf of the Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Department of the Treasury, and Department of the Interior, to make a monetary payment to Doe Run, and resolves the United States' potential liability under CERCLA related to Operable Unit 01 at the Big River Mine Tailings Superfund Site, including any liability the United States may have to Doe Run under Section 113 of CERCLA.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $12.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221 (a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221 (a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, no later than April 20, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than April 20, 2018.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
In accordance with the Section 223 (19 U.S.C. 2273) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271,
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)) must be met, as follows:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(1)) is that a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm (or “such firm”) have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied by either (A) the Increased Imports Path, or (B) the Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path/Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path, as follows:
(i) The sales or production, or both, of such firm, have decreased absolutely;
(ii) (I) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased; OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using the services supplied by such firm, have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(iii) The increase in imports described in clause (ii) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; OR
(i) (I) There has been a shift by such workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of services like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; OR
(II) such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country articles or services that are like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm;
(ii) The shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of articles or services described in clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(b)) must be met, as follows:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The workers' firm is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)), and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification (as defined in subsection 222(c)(3) and (4) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(c)(3) and (4));
(3) either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; OR
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation determined under paragraph (1).
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(e) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(e))must be met, by following criteria (1), (2), and (3) as follows:
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(b)(1)); OR
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1)of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2436(b)(1)); OR
(C) an affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) The petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(f)(1)) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) is published in the
(3) The workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); OR
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2273(b)), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (Increased Imports Path) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path or Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(e) (firms identified by the International Trade Commission) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for TAA have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the requirements of Trade Act section 222 (a)(1) and (b)(1) (significant worker total/partial separation or threat of total/partial separation), or (e) (firms identified by the International Trade Commission), have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A) (increased imports), (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country or acquisition of articles or services from a foreign country), (b)(2) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA or downstream producer to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA), and (e) (International Trade Commission) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the worker group on whose behalf the petition was filed is covered under an existing certification.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the Department issued a negative determination applicable to the petitioning group of workers. No new information or change in circumstances is evident which would result in a reversal of the Department's previous determination.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
Office of the Secretary, Department of Labor.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Construction Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before May 10, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OFCCP, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) Construction Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements information collection that covers recordkeeping, reporting, and third-party disclosure requirements. The OFCCP administers several Executive Orders that prohibit employment discrimination and require covered Federal contractors to take affirmative action to ensure that equal employment opportunities are available regardless of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, or status as an individual with a disability or protected veteran. Recordkeeping and reporting by Federal and Federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors is necessary to substantiate their compliance with nondiscrimination and affirmative action contractual obligations. This information collection has been classified as a revision for two reasons. First, the agency proposes to add a new form for the reporting requirement found at 41 CFR 60-4.2, which requires contracting officers, applicants, and contractors to submit written notifications to the OFCCP informing the agency of new contract awards that
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the “Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey.” A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Send comments to Erin Good, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20212, telephone number 202-691-7628. (This is not a toll free number.)
Erin Good, BLS Clearance Officer, telephone number 202-691-7628. (See
The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) collects data on job vacancies, labor hires, and labor separations. As the monthly JOLTS time series grow longer, their value in assessing the business cycle, the difficulty that employers have in hiring workers, and the extent of the mismatch between the unused supply of available workers and the unmet demand for labor by employers will increase. The study of the complex relationship between job openings and unemployment is of particular interest to researchers. While these two measures are expected to move in opposite directions over the course of the business cycle, their relative levels and movements depend on the efficiency of the labor market in matching workers and jobs.
Along with the job openings rate, trends in hires and separations may broadly identify which aggregate industries face the tightest labor markets. Quits rates, the number of persons who quit during an entire month as a percentage of total employment, may provide clues about workers' views of the labor market or their success in finding better jobs. In addition, businesses will be able to compare their own turnover rates to the national, regional, and major industry division rates.
The BLS uses the JOLTS form to gather employment, job openings, hires, and total separations from business establishments. The information is collected once a month at the BLS Data Collection Center (DCC) in Atlanta, Georgia. The information is collected using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI), Web, email, and
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the JOLTS. The BLS is requesting an extension to the existing clearance for the JOLTS. There are no major changes being made to the forms, procedures, data collection methodology, or other aspects of the survey.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Human Exploration and Operations Research Advisory Committee.
May 11, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., Eastern Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 1Q39, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20546.
Dr. Bradley Carpenter, Designated Federal Officer, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, phone (202) 358-0826, or email
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. This meeting is also available telephonically and by WebEx. Any interested person may dial the USA toll free conference call number 844-467-6272 or toll number 720-259-6462, passcode 535959, followed by the # sign, to participate in this meeting by telephone. The WebEx link is
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee; and home address to Dr. Bradley Carpenter via email at
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of proposed information collection and request for comments.
NARA is giving public notice that the agency proposes to request an extension to use the two information collections described in this notice, which the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) uses in its grant program. NARA invites the public to comment on the proposed information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be received on or before June 11, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Comments should be sent by mail to Paperwork Reduction Act Comments (MP), Room 4100, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Rd., College Park, MD 20740-6001, by fax to 301-837-0319, or by email to
Please direct requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collections and supporting statements to Tamee Fechhelm, by telephone at 301-837-1694, or by fax at 301-837-0319.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. The comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA; (b) the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collections; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of information technology; and (e) whether small businesses are affected by these collections. NARA will summarize and include submitted comments in our request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
1.
2.
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
The National Endowment for the Humanities will hold one meeting of the Humanities Panel, a federal advisory committee, during May 2018. The purpose of the meeting is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation of applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965.
See
The meeting will be held at Constitution Center at 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20506.
Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8322;
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
1.
This meeting will discuss applications for the Institutes for Advanced Topics in the Digital Humanities, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
Because this meeting will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, the meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5, U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated April 15, 2016.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.”
Submit comments by June 11, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0034 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0034 in the subject line of your comment submission in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from March 13, 2018, to March 26, 2018. The last biweekly notice was published on March 27, 2018.
Comments must be filed by May 10, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by June 11, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Kay Goldstein, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0064, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0064, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change revises TS 3.4.3 to reflect that Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 (P/T limit curves) are applicable up to 46.3 EFPY instead of 50 EFPY with the removal of PLSAs and migration to 24-month fuel cycles. The proposed change does not involve physical changes to the plant or alter the reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure boundary (
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change revises TS 3.4.3 to reflect that Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 (P/T limit curves) are applicable up to 46.3 EFPY instead of 50 EFPY with the removal of PLSAs and migration to 24-month fuel cycles. The proposed change does not affect the design or assumed accident performance of any structure, system or component, or introduce any new modes of system operation or failure modes. Compliance with the proposed P/T curves (same as the existing P/T curves with the applicability term reduced to 46.3 EFPY) will provide sufficient protection against brittle fracture of reactor vessel materials to assure that the RCS pressure boundary performs as previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change revises TS 3.4.3 to reflect that Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 (P/T limit curves) are applicable up to 46.3 EFPY instead of 50 EFPY with the removal of PLSAs and migration to 24-month fuel cycles. HBRSEP adheres to applicable NRC regulations (
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The reduced testing associated with the proposed change will result in an increase in the availability of the associated instrumentation during outages and will result in dose savings.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed?
The EFCVs at LSCS, Unit 1 and Unit 2, are designed so that they will not close accidently during normal operations, will close if a rupture of the instrument line is indicated downstream of the valve, can be reopened when appropriate, and have their status indicated in the control room. This proposed change relaxes the number of EFCVs tested for TS SR 3.6.1.3.8 from “each” to a “representative sample” in accordance with the SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control Program]. There are no physical plant modifications associated with this change. Industry and LSCS operating experience demonstrate a high reliability of these valves. Neither EFCVs nor their failures are capable of initiating previously evaluated accidents; therefore, there can be no increase in the probability of occurrence of an accident regarding this proposed change.
The LSCS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) demonstrates, consistent with BWROG [Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group] topical report NEDO-32977-A, that the failure of an EFCV has very low
Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed change to the EFCV surveillance requirement does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
This proposed change allows a reduced number of EFCVs to be tested in accordance with the SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control Program]. The proposed change would revise SR 3.6.1.3.8 to verify that a “representative sample” (
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The LSCS UFSAR evaluates a circumferential rupture of an instrument line that is connected to the primary coolant system. The evaluation credits the 0.25-inch diameter flow-restricting orifice installed in the line with limiting flow following the instrumentation line break and does not credit the EFCV with actuating to limit leakage. The dose consequences of the instrument line break are determined using the calculated mass of coolant released over approximately a five-hour period. The reactor was assumed to be operating at design power conditions prior to the break. The SGTS [Standby Gas Treatment System] and secondary containment are not impaired by the event. The evaluation concludes that the consequences of the event are well within 10 CFR 100 limits. Thus, the failure of an EFCV, though not expected as a result of the proposed change, does not affect the dose consequences of an instrument line break.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Specifically, EGC proposes a new safety function lift setpoint lower tolerance for the S/RVs as delineated in Surveillance Requirement 3.4.4.1. The proposed change will revise the lower setpoint tolerances from −3 percent (%) to −5%.
This change is limited to the lower tolerances and does not affect the upper tolerances; therefore, the upper tolerance will remain at +3% of the safety function lift setpoint. In addition, this change only applies to the as-found tolerance and not to the as-left tolerance, which will remain unchanged at ±1% of the safety lift setpoint. The as-found tolerances are used for determining operability and to increase sample sizes for S/RV testing should the tolerance be exceeded. There will be no revision to the actual setpoints of the valves installed in the plant due to this change.
This proposed change will preclude the submittal of previously-reportable licensee event reports (LERs) to the NRC due to setpoint drift in the low (conservative) direction.
1. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
This change has no influence on the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated. The lower setpoint tolerance change does not affect the operation of the valves and it does not change the as-left setpoint tolerance. The change only affects the lower tolerance for valve opening and does not change the upper tolerance, which is the limit that protects from overpressurization.
The proposed amendments do not involve physical changes to the valves, nor do they change the safety function of the valves. The proposed TS revision involves no significant changes to the operation of any systems or components in normal or accident operating conditions and no changes to existing structures, systems, or components.
The proposed amendments do not change any other behavior or operation of any safety/relief valves (S/RVs), and, therefore, has no significant impact on reactor operation. They also have no significant impact on response to any perturbation of reactor operation including transients and accidents previously analyzed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed change to the S/RV surveillance requirement does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change to the S/RV safety lower setpoint tolerance from −3% to −5% only affects the criteria to determine when an as-found S/RV test is considered to be acceptable. This change does not affect the criteria for the upper setpoint tolerance.
The proposed lower setpoint tolerance change does not adversely affect the operation of any safety-related components or equipment. The proposed amendments do not involve physical changes to the S/RVs, nor do they change the safety function of the S/RVs. The proposed amendments do not require any physical change or alteration of any existing plant equipment. No new or different equipment is being installed, and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There is no alteration to the parameters within which the plant is normally operated. This change does not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the functional demands on credited equipment be changed. No alterations in the procedures that ensure
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed lower setpoint tolerance change only affects the criteria to determine when an as-found S/RV test is considered to be acceptable. This change does not affect the criteria for the S/RV setpoint upper setpoint tolerance. The TS setpoints for the S/RVs are not changed. The as-left setpoint tolerances are not changed by this proposed change and remain at ±1% of the safety lift setpoint.
The margin of safety is established through the design of the plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within which the plant is operated, and the establishment of the setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event. The proposed change does not significantly impact the condition or performance of structures, systems, and components relied upon for accident mitigation.
Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do not increase the probability or consequences of an accident. The proposed changes do not impact the function of plant Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect accident initiators or accident precursors, nor do the changes alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of the onsite ERO to perform their intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event. The proposed changes remove ERO positions no longer credited or considered necessary in support of Emergency Plan implementation.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes have no impact on the design, function, or operation of any plant SSCs. The proposed changes do not affect plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (
The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analyses. There are no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed changes. Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed changes to the ERO staffing.
The proposed changes are associated with the [site] Emergency Plan staffing and do not impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The proposed changes do not affect the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by these proposed changes. The proposed changes to the Emergency Plan will continue to provide the necessary onsite ERO response staff.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis for each site and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
The license amendment request was originally noticed in the
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes provide assurance that inservice testing will be performed in the manner and within the timeframes established by 10 CFR 50.55(a). The deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the deletion of IST acceptance criteria from SR 4.5.2.c and SR 4.6.2.1.b neither affect the conduct nor the periodicity of the inservice testing. The addition of references to the IST Program in SR(s) where applicable and the deletion of references to the SFCP in SR testing credited by the IST Program are administrative in nature and can neither initiate nor affect the outcome of any accident previously evaluated. The deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the relocation of the RCP flywheel inspection requirements within the TS are administrative changes and cannot affect the likelihood or the outcome of accident previously evaluated. Deletion of the SR 4.4.6.2.2.c requirement regarding returning PIV(s) to service following maintenance, repair or replacement, deletion of a SR 4.5.1.1.d footnote previously applicable during Unit 3 Cycle 26, and related editorial changes are administrative changes and cannot affect the likelihood or the outcome of any accident previously evaluated. In addition, deletion of a redundant Accumulator check valve SR 4.5.1.1.d, and the addition of a footnote to TS SR 4.4.6.2.2.d to avoid PIV repetitive loop testing do not affect the likelihood or the outcome of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, facility operation in accordance with the proposed changes would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The deletion of IST acceptance criteria from the TS does not affect the manner in which any SSC [structure, system, or component] is maintained or operated and does not introduce new SSCs or new methods for maintaining existing plant SSCs. Inservice testing will continue in the manner and periodicity specified in the IST program such that no new or different kind of accident can result. The addition of references to the IST Program in SR(s) where applicable and the deletion of references to the SFCP in SR testing credited by the IST Program are administrative changes and cannot introduce new or different kinds of accidents. The deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the relocation of the RCP flywheel inspection requirements within the TS are administrative changes and cannot be an initiator of a new or different kind of accident. Deletion of the SR 4.4.6.2.2.c requirement regarding returning PIV(s) to service following maintenance, repair or replacement, deletion of a SR 4.5.1.1.d footnote previously applicable during Unit 3 Cycle 26, and the other editorial changes are administrative changes and cannot introduce new or different kinds of accidents. In addition, deletion of a redundant Accumulator check valve SR 4.5.1.1.d, and the addition of a footnote to TS SR 4.4.6.2.2.d to avoid PIV repetitive loop testing do not introduce new or different kinds of accidents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes do not involve changes to any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings and do not adversely impact plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in safety analyses. The proposed changes provides assurance that inservice inspection and inservice testing will be performed in the manner and within the timeframes established by 10 CFR 50.55(a). The deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the relocation of the RCP flywheel inspection requirements within the TS are administrative changes with no impact on the margin of safety currently described the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Deletion of the SR 4.4.6.2.2.c requirement regarding returning PIV(s) to service following maintenance, repair or replacement, deletion of a SR 4.5.1.1.d footnote previously applicable during Unit 3 Cycle 26, and the other editorial changes are administrative changes with no impact on nuclear safety. In addition, deletion of a redundant Accumulator check valve SR 4.5.1.1.d, and the addition of a footnote to TS SR 4.4.6.2.2.d to avoid PIV repetitive loop testing do not affect any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed changes will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed license amendment reduces the length of time, from 90 days to 15 days, prior to the outage by which a revised analysis of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Unit 1 replacement steam dryer (RSD), performed using an NRC-approved methodology benchmarked on the BFN Unit 3 RSD, must be submitted to the NRC for
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed license amendment reduces the length of time, from 90 days to 15 days, prior to the outage by which a revised analysis of the BFN Unit 1 RSD must be submitted to the NRC for information. The proposed amendment is purely administrative and has no technical or safety aspects. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed license amendment reduces the length of time, from 90 days to 15 days, prior to the outage by which a revised analysis of the BFN Unit 1 RSD must be submitted to the NRC for information. The proposed amendment is purely administrative and has no technical or safety aspects. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation, and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 26, 2018.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2018.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 16, 2018.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 26, 2018.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in an SE dated March 19, 2018.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated March 12, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reconciled an error in the Northern States Power Company—Minnesota (NSPM) Renewed License No. SNM-2506. Under this license, NSPM is authorized to receive,
April 10, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0057 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:
•
•
•
John-Chau Nguyen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0262; email:
After receiving Renewed License No. SNM-2506, the NSPM staff began to review it and prepare procedures to implement new requirements. NSPM submitted an email on February 9, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17324B332), requesting the NRC to, among other things, address an apparent error in License Condition 22(a) of Renewed License No. SNM-2506 so that NSPM could establish procedures containing the correct inspection intervals acceptance criteria for Renewed License No. SNM-2506. License Condition 22(a) set inspection intervals to be “not less than” those in the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Code; however, NRC-issued documents demonstrated the NRC had intended the intervals “not to exceed” those in the ACI Code.
As a result of its review, the NRC staff determined that License Condition 22(a) should read “not to exceed” instead of “not less than” and has amended the license to correct this error. When the NRC staff evaluated visual inspection intervals in its Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated December 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15336A230) for Renewed License No. SNM-2506, Section 3.5.1.3 of the SER clearly articulated the staff's expectation that accessible areas of the concrete pads would be visually inspected at intervals “not to exceed” 5 years. Further, the SER states the staff determined that the specific inspection intervals and areas of inspection coverage in the Aging Management Program (AMP) for concrete pads are appropriate based upon the technical references pertinent to age-related degradation of concrete in similar environments, including American Concrete Institute guides (ACI) 349.3R-02 (ACI, 2002), ACI 201.1R-08 (ACI, 2008), American National Standards Institute/American Society of Civil Engineers guidelines (ANSI/ASCE) 11-99 (ASCE, 2000), and reactor renewal guidance provided in NRC NUREG-1801 (NRC, 2010b). The “not less than” language included in error is inconsistent with the NRC staff's SER and has the unintended consequence of preventing NSPM from conducting more frequent inspections.
Accordingly, based on the staff's findings, the NRC made the necessary change and issued Amendment No. 10 to License No. SNM-2506 to correct License Condition 22(a). Amendment No. 10 was effective as of its date of issuance. The NRC staff's findings are documented in a SER dated March 6, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18057A284), which determined that the amendment complies with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC regulations. The issuance of Amendment No. 10 satisfies the criteria specified in § 51.22(c)(11) of title 10 of the
In accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(b)(2), the NRC has determined that Amendment No. 10 does not present a genuine issue as to whether the public health and safety will be significantly affected. Therefore, the publication of a notice of proposed action and an opportunity for hearing or a notice of hearing is not warranted. Notice is hereby given of the right of interested persons to request a hearing on whether the action should be rescinded or modified.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “General Domestic Licenses for Byproduct Material.”
Submit comments by June 11, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0209 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0209 in the subject line of your comment submission in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comments submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information.
Submit comments by June 11, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David C. Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0050 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0050 in the subject line of your comment submission in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted in
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day Notice and request for comments.
The Merit System Accountability and Compliance, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a new information collection request (ICR) 3206-0234, Standard Form 1153, Claim for Unpaid Compensation for Deceased Civilian Employee. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 10, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a proceeding to consider whether proposals of the 26th Congress of the Universal Postal Union are consistent with the modern rate regulation standards. 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.
In 2016, at the Universal Postal Union (UPU) Congress in Istanbul, Turkey, UPU members decided to hold an Extraordinary UPU Congress midway between the 2016 Congress and the 2020 UPU Congress.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. IM2018-1 for purposes related to the development of section 407(c)(1) views and invites public comments related to this effort, as described in the body of this Order.
2. Comments are due no later than July 3, 2018.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth E. Richardson is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
4. The Secretary is directed to post the correspondence referred to in this Order on the Commission's website, along with other documents that the Commission determines are applicable and are able to be made publicly available.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
On January 5, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under BZX Rule 14.11(f)(4), which governs the listing and trading of Trust Issued Receipts on the Exchange.
According to the Exchange, the Long Fund's investment objective will be to seek results (before fees and expenses) that, both for a single day and over time, correspond to the performance of lead month bitcoin futures contracts listed and traded on the Cboe Futures Exchange, Inc. (“Benchmark Futures Contract”). Conversely, the Short Fund's investment objective will be to seek results (before fees and expenses) that, on a daily basis, correspond to the inverse (−1x) of the daily performance of the Benchmark Futures Contracts for a single day. Each Fund generally intends to invest substantially all of its assets in the Benchmark Futures Contracts and cash and cash equivalents (which would be used to collateralize the Benchmark Futures Contracts), but may invest in other U.S. exchange listed bitcoin futures contracts, as available (together with Benchmark Futures
Further, the Exchange states that, in the event that position, price, or accountability limits are reached with respect to Bitcoin Futures Contracts, each Fund may invest in U.S. listed swaps on bitcoin or the Benchmark Futures Contracts (“Listed Bitcoin Swaps”). In the event that position, price, or accountability limits are reached with respect to Listed Bitcoin Swaps, each Fund may invest in over-the-counter swaps on bitcoin or the Benchmark Futures Contracts (“OTC Bitcoin Swaps,” and together with Listed Bitcoin Swaps, collectively, “Bitcoin Swaps”).
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by May 1, 2018. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by May 15, 2018. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in the Notice,
1. In its proposal, the Exchange states that each Fund, in the event that position, price, or accountability limits are reached with respect to Bitcoin Futures Contracts, may also invest in Listed Bitcoin Swaps. What are commenters' views on the current availability of Listed Bitcoin Swaps for trading? What are commenters' views on the ability of the Funds to invest in Listed Bitcoin Swaps in the event that position, price, or accountability limits are reached with respect to Bitcoin Futures Contracts?
2. In its proposal, the Exchange states that each Fund, in the event that position, price, or accountability limits are reached with respect to Listed Bitcoin Swaps, may also invest in OTC Bitcoin Swaps. What are commenters' views on the current availability of OTC Bitcoin Swaps for trading? What are commenters' views on the ability of the Funds to invest in OTC Bitcoin Swaps in the event that position, price, or accountability limits are reached with respect to Listed Bitcoin Swaps?
3. What are commenters' views on whether the Funds would have the information necessary to adequately value, including fair value, the Bitcoin Futures Contracts and the Bitcoin Swaps when determining an appropriate end-of-day NAV for the Funds, taking into account any volatility, fragmentation, or general lack of regulation of the underlying bitcoin markets?
4. What are commenters' views on the potential impact of manipulation in the underlying bitcoin markets on the Funds' NAV? What are commenters' views on the potential effect of such manipulation on the valuation of a Fund's Bitcoin Futures Contracts? What are commenters' views on the potential effect of such manipulation on the pricing of a Fund's Bitcoin Swaps?
5. What are commenters' views on how the Funds' valuation policies would address the potential for the bitcoin blockchain to diverge into different paths (
6. What are commenters' views on the price differentials and trading volumes across bitcoin trading platforms (including during periods of market stress) and on the extent to which these differing prices may affect the trading of the Bitcoin Futures Contracts and, accordingly, trading in the Shares of the Funds?
7. What are commenters' views on how the substantial margin requirements for Bitcoin Futures Contracts, and the nature of liquidity and volatility in the market for Bitcoin Futures Contracts, might affect the Trust's ability to meet redemption orders? What are commenters' views on whether and how the margin requirements for Bitcoin Futures Contracts, and the nature of liquidity and volatility in the market for Bitcoin Futures Contracts, might affect a Fund's use of available cash to achieve its investment strategy?
8. What are commenters' views on the possibility that the Funds—along with other exchange-traded products with similar investment objectives—could acquire a substantial portion of the market for Bitcoin Futures Contracts or the Bitcoin Swaps? What are commenters' views on whether such a concentration of holdings could affect the Funds' portfolio management, the liquidity of the Funds' respective portfolios, or the pricing of the Bitcoin Futures Contracts or the Bitcoin Swaps? What are commenters' views on the Exchange's representation that it expects significant liquidity to exist in
9. What are commenters' views on possible factors that might impair the ability of the arbitrage mechanism to keep the trading price of the Shares tied to the NAV of each Fund? With respect to the market for Bitcoin Futures Contracts, what are commenters' views on the potential impact on the arbitrage mechanism of the price volatility and the potential for trading halts? What are commenters' views on whether or how these potential impairments of the arbitrage mechanism may affect the Funds' ability to ensure adequate participation by Authorized Participants? What are commenters' views on the potential effects on investors if the arbitrage mechanism is impaired?
10. What are commenters' views on the risks of price manipulation and fraud in the underlying bitcoin trading platforms and how these risks might affect the Bitcoin Futures Contracts market or the Bitcoin Swaps? What are commenters' views on how these risks might affect trading in the Shares of the Funds?
11. What are commenters' views on how an investor may evaluate the price of the Shares in light of the risk of potential price manipulation and fraud in the underlying bitcoin trading platforms and in light of the potentially significant spread between the price of the Bitcoin Futures Contracts or the Bitcoin Swaps and the spot price of bitcoin?
12. What are commenters' views on whether the two bitcoin futures exchanges represent a significant market,
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Cboe Data Services (“CDS”) fee schedule to establish an optional Enhanced Controlled Data Distribution Fee to further the distribution of the BBO,
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Cboe proposed to amend the CDS fee schedule to establish an optional ECDD Fee to further the distribution of the Cboe Options Data Feeds. The new data distribution model (an “Enhanced Controlled Data Distribution” or “ECDD”) offers a delivery method available to firms seeking simplified market data administration and may be offered by Customers to external subscribers that are using the Cboe Options Data Feeds internally.
The proposed optional ECDD Fee is intended to provide a new pricing option for Customers
This new pricing and administrative option is in response to industry demand, as well as due to changes in the technology to distribute market data. By providing this new fee option, Customers will have more administrative flexibility in their receipt and distribution of the Cboe Options Data Feeds. Customers opting for the ECDD Fee would still be fee liable for the applicable user fees for Cboe BBO, Book Depth, and COB data feeds, as described in the CDS fee schedule.
This delivery option assesses a new fee schedule to Customers of the Cboe Options Data Feeds that provide an API or similar solution. Customers may either control the display of the data or offer APIs that power third party software display applications where the Customer controls the entitlement but not the display of data. The Customer must first agree to reformat, redisplay and/or alter the Cboe Options Data Feeds prior to retransmission, but not to affect the integrity of the Cboe Options Data Feeds and not to render it inaccurate, unfair, uninformative, fictitious, misleading or discriminatory. An ECDD is any controlled display product or entitlement containing the Cboe Data Feed where the Customer controls a display of the Cboe Data Feed or offer APIs that power third party software display applications where the Customer controls the entitlement but not the display of data. The user of an ECDD display may use the Cboe Data Feed for the user's own purposes and may not redistribute the information outside of their organization. The user may not redistribute the data internally to other users in the same organization.
In the past, Cboe has considered this type of retransmission to be an uncontrolled display since the Customer does not control the entitlements or the display of the information. Over the last 16 years, Customers have improved the technical delivery and monitoring of data and the ECDD offering responds to an industry need to administer these new types of technical deliveries.
Some Customers believe that an API or other distribution from a display is a better controlled product than a data feed and as such should not be subject to the same rates as a data feed. The offering of a new pricing option for an ECDD would not only result in Cboe offering lower fees for certain existing Customers, but will allow new Customers to deliver ECDD to new clients, thereby increasing transparency of the market.
Accordingly, Cboe is establishing the ECDD Fee for Customers who are seeking simplified market data administration and would like to offer the Cboe Options Data Feeds to users that are using the Cboe Options Data Feeds internally. The Cboe ECDD Fee is optional for firms providing a display product containing the Cboe Options Data Feeds where the Customer controls a display of the Cboe Data Feed or offer APIs that power third party software display applications where the Customer controls the entitlement but not the display of data since these firms can choose to pay the data feed fees. The new Cboe ECDD Fee is designed to allow Cboe Data Feed subscribers to redistribute data via a terminal without paying a higher fee for an attached API. As a result, it does not impact individual usage fees for the Cboe Options Data Feeds or in any way increase the costs of any user of the Cboe Options Data Feeds. For Customers wanting to use this same functionality for other products, they would be able to do so by paying the applicable Cboe Data Feed rates.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act
In addition, the proposed fees would not permit unfair discrimination because all of the Exchange's customers and market data vendors who subscribe to the above data feeds will be subject to the proposed fees. The above data feeds are distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation purchase this data or to make this data available. Accordingly, distributors and users can discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Firms have a wide variety of alternative market data products from which to choose, such as similar proprietary data products offered by other exchanges and consolidated data. Moreover, the Exchange is not required to make any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers.
In addition, the fees that are the subject of this rule filing are constrained by competition. As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on Competition, the existence of alternatives to the above data feeds further ensure that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect such alternatives. That is, the Exchange competes with other exchanges (and their affiliates) that provide similar market data products. For example, the above data feeds provide investors with alternative market data and competes with similar market data product currently offered by other exchanges. If another exchange (or its affiliate) were to charge less to distribute its similar product than the Exchange charges for the above data feeds, prospective users likely would not subscribe to, or would cease subscribing to either market data product.
The Exchange notes that the Commission is not required to undertake a cost-of-service or rate-making approach. The Exchange believes that, even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory, cost-based pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated that it could not be done practically.
Cboe believes that this proposal is in keeping with those principles by promoting increased transparency through the offering of a new pricing option for an ECDD, which would not only result in Cboe offering lower fees for certain existing Customers, but will allow new Customers to deliver ECDDs to new clients, thereby increasing transparency of the market. Additionally, the proposal provides for simplified market data administration and may be offered by Customers to external users that are using the Cboe Options Data Feeds internally. Cboe notes also that this filing proposes to distribute no additional data elements and that the ECDD Fee is optional. Accordingly, Customers and users can discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Lastly, Cboe notes that the ECDD fee is based on Nasdaq's Enhanced Display Solution fee.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The Exchange's ability to price ECDD is constrained by: (i) Competition among exchanges that compete with each other in a variety of dimensions; (ii) the existence of inexpensive real-time consolidated data and market-specific data and free delayed data; and (iii) the inherent contestability of the market for proprietary data.
An exchange's ability to price its proprietary data feed products is constrained by (1) the existence of actual competition for the sale of such data, (2) the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and (3) the existence of alternatives to proprietary data.
In addition, in the case of products that are distributed through market data vendors, the market data vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose price discipline by providing only data that they believe will enable them to attract “eyeballs” that contribute to their advertising revenue. Similarly, Customers will not offer ECDD unless these products will help them maintain current users or attract new ones. All of these operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
Analyzing the cost of market data product production and distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data and data products. Thus, because it is impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs affect the price of both obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
The level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including 15 options self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (“BDs”) and various forms of alternative trading systems (“ATSs”), including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”). Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market data products (or provide market data products free of charge), and charge relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market data products, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint offering.
The existence of numerous alternatives to the Exchange's products, including proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns any particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act, and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end management investment companies to issue multiple classes of shares and to impose asset-based service and distribution fees, and early withdrawal charges (“EWCs”).
Angel Oak Strategic Credit Fund (the “Initial Fund”) and Angel Oak Capital Advisors, LLC (the “Adviser”).
The application was filed on December 13, 2017 and amended February 9, 2018.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on April 30, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Angel Oak Strategic Credit Fund and Angel Oak Capital Advisors, LLC, One Buckhead Plaza, 3060 Peachtree Road NW, Suite 500, Atlanta, Georgia 30305.
Nick Cordell, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-5496, or Holly Hunter-Ceci, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Initial Fund is a Delaware statutory trust that is registered under the Act as a diversified, closed-end management investment company. The Initial Fund's investment objective is total return.
2. The Adviser is a Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Adviser serves as investment adviser to the Initial Fund.
3. The applicants seek an order to permit the Initial Fund to issue multiple classes of shares, each having its own fee and expense structure, and to impose asset-based distribution and service fees, and EWCs.
4. Applicants request that the order also apply to any continuously-offered registered closed-end management investment company that may be organized in the future for which the Adviser or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser, or any successor in interest to any such entity,
5. The Initial Fund currently makes a continuous public offering of its shares. Applicants state that additional offerings by any Fund relying on the order may be on a private placement or public offering basis. Shares of the Funds will not be listed on any securities exchange, nor quoted on any quotation medium. The Funds do not expect there to be a secondary trading market for their shares.
6. If the requested relief is granted, the Initial Fund may also offer additional classes of shares in the future, with each class having its own fee and expense structure. Because of the different distribution fees, services and any other class expenses that may be attributable to a class of a Fund's shares, the net income attributable to, and the dividends payable on, each class of shares may differ from each other.
7. Applicants state that, from time to time, Funds may create additional classes of shares, the terms of which may differ from the initial class pursuant to and in compliance with rule 18f-3 under the Act.
8. Applicants state that the Initial Fund has adopted a fundamental policy to repurchase a specified percentage of its shares (no less than 5% and not more than 25%) at net asset value on a periodic basis. Such repurchase offers will be conducted pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act.
9. Applicants represent that any asset-based service and distribution fees for each class of shares will comply with the provisions of FINRA Rule 2341 (“Sales Charge Rule”).
10. Each of the Funds will comply with any requirements that the Commission or FINRA may adopt regarding disclosure at the point of sale and in transaction confirmations about the costs and conflicts of interest arising out of the distribution of open-end investment company shares, and regarding prospectus disclosure of sales loads and revenue sharing arrangements, as if those requirements applied to the Fund. In addition, each Fund will contractually require that any distributor of the Fund's shares comply with such requirements in connection with the distribution of such Fund's shares.
11. Applicants state that each Fund may impose an EWC on shares submitted for repurchase that have been held less than a specified period and may waive the EWC for certain categories of shareholders or transactions to be established from time to time. Applicants state that each of the Funds will apply the EWC (and any waivers or scheduled variations of the EWC) uniformly to all shareholders in a given class and consistently with the requirements of rule 22d-1 under the Act as if the Funds were open-end investment companies.
12. Each Fund operating as an interval fund pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act may offer its shareholders an exchange feature under which the shareholders of the Fund may, in connection with the Fund's periodic repurchase offers, exchange their shares of the Fund for shares of the same class of (i) registered open-end investment companies or (ii) other registered closed-end investment companies that comply with rule 23c-3 under the Act and continuously offer their shares at net asset value, that are in the Fund's group of investment companies (collectively, “Other Funds”). Shares of a Fund operating pursuant to rule 23c-3 that are exchanged for shares of Other Funds will be included as part of the amount of the repurchase offer amount for such Fund as specified in rule 23c-3 under the Act. Any exchange option will comply with rule 11a-3 under the Act, as if the Fund were an open-end investment company subject to rule 11a-3. In complying with rule 11a-3, each Fund will treat an EWC as if it were a contingent deferred sales load (“CDSL”).
1. Section 18(a)(2) of the Act makes it unlawful for a closed-end investment company to issue a senior security that is a stock unless (a) immediately after such issuance it will have an asset coverage of at least 200% and (b) provision is made to prohibit the declaration of any distribution, upon its common stock, or the purchase of any such common stock, unless in every such case such senior security has at the time of the declaration of any such distribution, or at the time of any such purchase, an asset coverage of at least 200% after deducting the amount of such distribution or purchase price, as the case may be. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of shares of the Funds may violate section 18(a)(2) because the Funds may not meet such requirements with respect to a class of shares that may be a senior security.
2. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any senior security if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding more than one class of senior security. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of shares of the Funds may be prohibited by section 18(c), as a class may have priority over another class as to payment of dividends because shareholders of different classes would pay different fees and expenses.
3. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting stock. Applicants state that multiple classes of shares of the Funds may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each class would be entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely related to that class.
4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any
5. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses relating to distribution and voting rights among multiple classes is equitable and will not discriminate against any group or class of shareholders. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangements would permit a Fund to facilitate the distribution of its shares and provide investors with a broader choice of shareholder services. Applicants assert that the proposed closed-end investment company multiple class structure does not raise the concerns underlying section 18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end investment companies' multiple class structures that are permitted by rule 18f-3 under the Act. Applicants state that each Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment company.
1. Section 23(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that no registered closed-end investment company shall purchase securities of which it is the issuer, except: (a) On a securities exchange or other open market; (b) pursuant to tenders, after reasonable opportunity to submit tenders given to all holders of securities of the class to be purchased; or (c) under other circumstances as the Commission may permit by rules and regulations or orders for the protection of investors.
2. Rule 23c-3 under the Act permits a registered closed-end investment company (an “interval fund”) to make repurchase offers of between five and twenty-five percent of its outstanding shares at net asset value at periodic intervals pursuant to a fundamental policy of the interval fund. Rule 23c-3(b)(1) under the Act permits an interval fund to deduct from repurchase proceeds only a repurchase fee, not to exceed two percent of the proceeds, that is paid to the interval fund and is reasonably intended to compensate the fund for expenses directly related to the repurchase. A Fund will not impose a repurchase fee on investors who purchase and tender their shares.
3. Section 23(c)(3) provides that the Commission may issue an order that would permit a closed-end investment company to repurchase its shares in circumstances in which the repurchase is made in a manner or on a basis that does not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class or classes of securities to be purchased.
4. Applicants request relief under section 6(c), discussed above, and section 23(c)(3) from rule 23c-3 to the extent necessary for the Funds to impose EWCs on shares of the Funds submitted for repurchase that have been held for less than a specified period.
5. Applicants state that the EWCs they intend to impose are functionally similar to CDSLs imposed by open-end investment companies under rule 6c-10 under the Act. Rule 6c-10 permits open-end investment companies to impose CDSLs, subject to certain conditions. Applicants note that rule 6c-10 is grounded in policy considerations supporting the employment of CDSLs where there are adequate safeguards for the investor and state that the same policy considerations support imposition of EWCs in the interval fund context. In addition, applicants state that EWCs may be necessary for the distributor to recover distribution costs. Applicants represent that any EWC imposed by the Funds will comply with rule 6c-10 under the Act as if the rule were applicable to closed-end investment companies. The Funds will disclose EWCs in accordance with the requirements of Form N-1A concerning CDSLs.
1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with any joint enterprise or joint arrangement in which the investment company participates unless the Commission issues an order permitting the transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
2. Rule 17d-3 under the Act provides an exemption from section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit open-end investment companies to enter into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the Act. Applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to the extent necessary to permit the Funds to impose asset-based service and distribution fees. Applicants have agreed to comply with rules 12b-1 and 17d-3 as if those rules applied to closed-end investment companies, which they believe will resolve any concerns that might arise in connection with a Fund financing the distribution of its shares through asset-based service and distribution fees.
3. For the reasons stated above, applicants submit that the exemptions requested under section 6(c) are necessary and appropriate in the public interest and are consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants further submit that the relief requested pursuant to section 23(c)(3) will be consistent with the protection of investors and will insure that applicants do not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class of securities to be purchased. Finally, applicants state that the Funds' imposition of asset-based service and distribution fees is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and does not involve participation on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:
Each Fund relying on the order will comply with the provisions of rules 6c-10, 12b-1, 17d-3, 18f-3, 22d-1, and, where applicable, 11a-3 under the Act, as amended from time to time, as if those rules applied to closed-end management investment companies, and will comply with the Sales Charge Rule, as amended from time to time, as if that rule applied to all closed-end management investment companies.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter IV of its Schedule of Fees, as described below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter IV of its Schedule of Fees to harmonize it with the rules of Nasdaq BX, Inc. (“BX”).
The amendments eliminate or replace certain obsolete language in the Schedule of Fees. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Chapter IV.A.2, under the heading “Market Data Connectivity,” to re-categorize and to update references to the CBOE/Bats/Direct Edge data feeds to reflect their current names. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to delete a $1,000 installation fee that presently applies to the Direct Edge feeds because the Direct Edge feeds are now offerings of CBOE, along with the BZX and BYX feeds. Going forward, a single, one-time $1,000 installation fee will apply to subscribers to any or all of the CBOE data feeds. The Exchange also proposes to correct a typographical error in the name of the TSXV Level 2 Feed. The Exchange notes that this proposal will render this paragraph of Chapter IV.A.2 consistent with BX Rule 7034.
The proposal adds a footnote to the first line of Chapter IV.A, which was mistakenly omitted from the Schedule of Fees, which states that the co-location services described therein are provided by Nasdaq Technology Services LLC.
The Exchange also proposes to correct a typographical error in the numbering of the subsection of Chapter IV entitled “Exchange Testing Facilities.” The proposal changes the lettering of this subsection from “I.” to “E.” It furthermore corrects a typographical error in the asterisked footnote under the “Market Data Connectivity Heading” wherein the existing text erroneously states that “[m]arket data fees are charged independently by Nasdaq ISE and other exchanges” rather than by “Nasdaq MRX and other exchanges.”
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the $1,000 installation fee that presently applies to the Direct Edge feeds is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
In this instance, the proposed changes merely replace obsolete text, update references to data feeds, add inadvertently omitted text, and correct typographical errors. The Exchange does not intend for or expect that such changes will have any impact on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI of the Exchange's Schedule of Fees, as described below. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI.E of its Schedule of Fees to harmonize it with the rules of Nasdaq BX, Inc. (“BX”).
The amendments eliminate or replace certain obsolete language in the Schedule of Fees. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI.E.2, under the heading “Market Data Connectivity,” to re-categorize and to update references to the CBOE/Bats/Direct Edge data feeds to reflect their current names. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to delete a $1,000 installation fee that presently applies to the Direct Edge feeds because the Direct Edge feeds are now offerings of CBOE, along with the BZX and BYX feeds. Going forward, a single, one-time $1,000 installation fee will apply to subscribers to any or all of the CBOE data feeds. The Exchange notes that this proposal will render this paragraph of Chapter VI.E.2 consistent with BX Rule 7034.
The Exchange also proposes to correct a typographical error in the name of the TSXV Level 2 Feed.
Finally, the proposal adds a footnote to the first line of Chapter VI.E, which was mistakenly omitted from the Schedule of Fees, which states that the co-location services described therein are provided by Nasdaq Technology Services LLC.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the $1,000 installation fee that presently applies to the Direct Edge feeds is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
In this instance, the proposed changes merely replace obsolete text, update references to data feeds, and add inadvertently omitted text. The Exchange does not intend for or expect that such changes will have any impact on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing,
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) by modifying the description of the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to clarify the description of the ORF.
The Exchange charges an ORF in the amount of $0.0055 per contract side. The proposed rule change does not change the amount of the ORF, but instead modifies the rule text to clarify how the ORF is assessed and collected. Currently, the Exchange describes the ORF as follows:
The Options Regulatory Fee will be assessed on each OTP Holder or OTP Firm for all options transactions executed or cleared by the OTP Holder or OTP Firm that are cleared by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in the customer range regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. The fee is collected indirectly from OTP Holders or OTP Firms through their clearing firms by the OCC on behalf of NYSE Arca. Effective December 1, 2012, an OTP Holder or OTP Firm shall not be assessed the fee until it has satisfied applicable technological requirements necessary to commence operations on NYSE Arca. The Exchange may only increase or decrease the Options Regulatory Fee semi-annually, and any such fee change will be effective on the first business day of February or August. The Exchange will notify participants via a Trader Update of any change in the amount of the fee at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the change.
The Exchange proposes to modify this description to more accurately reflect how the ORF is imposed. Specifically, the ORF is assessed to each OTP Holder or OTP Firm (referred to herein collectively as “OTP Holders”) for all options transactions
Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is
No ORF Fee is assessed.
Executing Firm is an OTP Holder. The Executing Firm “give-ups” or “CMTAs” the transaction to another clearing firm that is
No ORF Fee is assessed.
The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is an OTP Holder. The Executing Firm does not “give-up” or “CMTA” the transaction to another clearing firm.
ORF Fee is assessed on the self-clearing Executing Firm.
The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is an OTP Holder. The Executing Firm “give-ups” or “CMTAs” the transaction to another clearing firm that is also an OTP Holder.
ORF Fee is assessed on the CMTA (clearing) firm.
The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is
ORF Fee is assessed on the CMTA (clearing) firm.
As illustrated above, the Exchange does not assess the ORF on non-OTP Holders that self-clear transactions, even if the executing firm is an OTP Holder; the Exchange likewise does not impose the ORF if both the executing firm and the firm that clears the transaction on its behalf are non-OTP Holders.
The Exchange proposes to modify the Fee Schedule to make clear that it does not assess the ORF on outbound linkage trades.
To further streamline the Fee Schedule, the Exchange also proposes to delete superfluous and obsolete references to long-past effective dates. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to delete references to the effective dates of December 1, 2012 and February 3, 2014, which would add clarity and transparency to the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange notes that the ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of OTP Holder Customer transactions, including performing routine surveillances and investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that this revenue, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The Exchange may only increase or decrease the ORF semi-annually, and any such fee change will be effective on the first business day of February or August. If the Exchange determines that regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee filing and notifying OTP Holders via Trader Update at least 30 days prior to the effective date. The Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, will cover a material portion of the Exchange's regulatory costs.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the description of ORF are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the changes add clarity and transparency to the Fee Schedule by more accurately describing how the ORF is assessed and collected. The proposed change does not alter the operation of the ORF, nor does it alter the per contract rate of the ORF. The Exchange believes that specifying that OCC files are used to determine the assessment and collection of the ORF would add clarity and transparency to the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to opt to not to assess and collect the ORF when neither the executing firm nor the CMTA (clearing) firm is an OTP Holder because such entities are not members of the Exchange. Although the Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities would support applying the ORF to transactions that are executed (even if not ultimately cleared) by an OTP Holder, because its regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether an OTP Holder executes a transaction or clears a transaction, at this time the Exchange imposes the ORF solely on transactions ultimately cleared by OTP Holders.
The Exchange believes the ORF is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is assessed to all OTP Holders on all their transactions that clear as customer at the OCC. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to assess the ORF only to transactions that clear as customer at the OCC because regulating OTP Holders' customer trading activity is more labor intensive
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and nondiscriminatory to not impose the ORF on outbound linkage trades. Linkage trades” are tagged in the Exchange's system, so the Exchange can distinguish them from other trades. A customer order routed to another exchange results in two customer trades, one from the originating exchange and one from the recipient exchange. Charging ORF on both trades could result in double-billing of ORF for a single customer order, thus the Exchange will not assess ORF on outbound linkage trades in a linkage scenario.
The Exchange believes that the proposal deleting outdated reference to long-past effective dates and removing the word “indirectly” is reasonable as it would streamline the Fee Schedule by removing superfluous language thereby making the Fee Schedule easier for market participants to navigate.
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of OTP Holder customer options business, including performing routine surveillances and investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that this revenue, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The Exchange has designed the ORF to generate revenues that, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, would be less than or equal to the Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent with the view of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to support the Exchange's business side. In this regard, the Exchange believes that the ORF is reasonable.
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 is not intended to address any competitive issues but rather to provide more clarity and transparency regarding how the Exchange assesses and collects the ORF. The Exchange believes any burden on competition imposed by the proposed rule change is outweighed by the need to help the Exchange adequately fund its regulatory activities to ensure compliance with the Exchange Act.
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter IV of the Exchange's Schedule of Fees, as described below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter IV of its Schedule of Fees to harmonize it with the rules of Nasdaq BX, Inc. (“BX”).
The amendments eliminate or replace certain obsolete language in the Schedule of Fees. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Chapter IV.F.2, under the heading “Market Data Connectivity,” to re-categorize and to update references to the CBOE/Bats/Direct Edge data feeds to reflect their current names. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to delete a $1,000 installation fee that presently applies to the Direct Edge feeds because the Direct Edge feeds are now offerings of CBOE, along with the BZX and BYX feeds. Going forward, a single, one-time $1,000 installation fee will apply to subscribers to any or all of the CBOE data feeds. The Exchange notes that this proposal will render this paragraph of Chapter IV.F.2 consistent with BX Rule 7034. The Exchange also proposes to correct a typographical error in the name of the TSXV Level 2 Feed.
The proposal adds a footnote to the first line of Chapter IV.F, which was mistakenly omitted from the Schedule of Fees, which states that the co-location services described therein are provided by Nasdaq Technology Services LLC.
The Exchange also proposes to correct a typographical error in the numbering of the subsection of Chapter IV entitled “Exchange Testing Facilities.” The proposal changes the lettering of this subsection from “I.” to “J.”
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the $1,000 installation fee that presently applies to the Direct Edge feeds is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
In this instance, the proposed changes merely replace obsolete text, update references to data feeds, and correct typographical errors. The Exchange does not intend for or expect that such changes will have any impact on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 30, 2018, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or the “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)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) by modifying the description of the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to clarify the description of the ORF. The Exchange charges an ORF in the amount of $0.0055 per contract side. The proposed rule change does not change the amount of the ORF, but instead modifies the rule text to clarify how the ORF is assessed and collected. Currently, the Exchange describes the ORF as follows:
The ORF will be assessed on each ATP Holder for all options transactions, including Mini Options, executed or cleared by the ATP Holder that are cleared by the OCC in the customer range regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. The fee is collected indirectly from ATP Holders through their clearing firms by the OCC on behalf of NYSE American. Effective December 1, 2012, an ATP Holder shall not be assessed the fee until it has satisfied applicable technological requirements necessary to commence operations on NYSE American. The Exchange may only increase or decrease the ORF semi-annually, and any such fee change will be effective on the first business day of February or August. The Exchange will notify participants via a Trader Update of any change in the amount of the fee at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the change.
The Exchange proposes to modify this description to more accurately reflect how the ORF is imposed. Specifically, the ORF is assessed to each ATP Holder for all options transactions
Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is
No ORF Fee is assessed.
Executing Firm is an ATP Holder. The Executing Firm “give-ups” or “CMTAs” the transaction to another clearing firm that is
No ORF Fee is assessed.
The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is an ATP Holder. The Executing Firm does not “give-up” or “CMTA” the transaction to another clearing firm.
ORF Fee is assessed on the self-clearing Executing Firm.
The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is an ATP Holder. The Executing Firm “give-ups” or “CMTAs” the transaction to
ORF Fee is assessed on the CMTA (clearing) firm.
The Executing (or Give-Up) Firm is
ORF Fee is assessed on the CMTA (clearing) firm.
As illustrated above, the Exchange does not assess the ORF on non-ATP Holders that self-clear transactions, even if the executing firm is an ATP Holder; the Exchange likewise does not impose the ORF if both the executing firm and the firm that clears the transaction on its behalf are non-ATP Holders.
The Exchange proposes to modify the Fee Schedule to make clear that it does not assess the ORF on outbound linkage trades.
To further streamline the Fee Schedule, the Exchange also proposes to delete superfluous and obsolete references to long-past effective dates. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to delete references to the effective dates of December 1, 2012 and February 3, 2014, which would add clarity and transparency to the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange notes that the ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of ATP Holder Customer transactions, including performing routine surveillances and investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that this revenue, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The Exchange may only increase or decrease the ORF semi-annually, and any such fee change will be effective on the first business day of February or August. If the Exchange determines that regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee filing and notifying ATP Holders via Trader Update at least 30 days prior to the effective date. The Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, will cover a material portion of the Exchange's regulatory costs.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the description of ORF are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the changes add clarity and transparency to the Fee Schedule by more accurately describing how the ORF is assessed and collected. The proposed change does not alter the operation of the ORF, nor does it alter the per contract rate of the ORF. The Exchange believes that specifying that OCC files are used to determine the assessment and collection of the ORF would add clarity and transparency to the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to opt to not to assess and collect the ORF when neither the executing firm nor the CMTA (clearing) firm is an ATP Holder because such entities are not members of the Exchange. Although the Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities would support applying the ORF to transactions that are executed (even if not ultimately cleared) by an ATP Holder, because its regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether an ATP Holder executes a transaction or clears a transaction, at this time the Exchange imposes the ORF solely on transactions ultimately cleared by ATP Holders.
The Exchange believes the ORF is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is assessed to all ATP Holders on all their transactions that clear as customer at the OCC. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to assess the ORF only to transactions that clear as customer at the OCC because regulating ATP Holder' customer trading activity is more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating ATP Holders' non-customer trading activity. The Exchange believes the ORF is designed to be fair by assessing fees to those ATP Holders that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business they conduct.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and nondiscriminatory to not impose the ORF on outbound linkage trades. Linkage trades” are tagged in the Exchange's system, so the Exchange can distinguish them from other trades. A customer order routed to another exchange results in two customer trades, one from the originating exchange and one from the recipient exchange. Charging ORF on both trades could result in double-billing of ORF for a single customer order, thus the Exchange will not assess ORF on outbound linkage trades in a linkage scenario.
The Exchange believes that the proposal deleting outdated reference to long-past effective dates and removing the word “indirectly” is reasonable as it would streamline the Fee Schedule by removing superfluous language thereby making the Fee Schedule easier for market participants to navigate.
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of ATP Holder customer options business, including performing routine surveillances and investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that this revenue, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The Exchange has designed the ORF to generate revenues that, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, would be less than or equal to the Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent with the view of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) that regulatory fees be
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 is not intended to address any competitive issues but rather to provide more clarity and transparency regarding how the Exchange assesses and collects the ORF. The Exchange believes any burden on competition imposed by the proposed rule change is outweighed by the need to help the Exchange adequately fund its regulatory activities to ensure compliance with the Exchange Act.
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.
1:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 12, 2018.
Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which requires agencies to submit
Submit comments on or before May 10, 2018.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7030
The requested information is submitted by homeowners or renters when applying for federal financial assistance (loans) to help in their recovery from a declared disaster. SBA uses the information to determine the creditworthiness of these loan applicants, as well as their eligibility for financial assistance.
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
(1)
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 04/04-0322 issued to Chatham SBIC Fund IV, L.P. said license is hereby declared null and void.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which requires agencies to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before May 10, 2018.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7030
The requested information is submitted by homeowners or renters when applying for federal financial assistance (loans) to help in their recovery from a declared disaster. SBA uses the information to determine the creditworthiness of these loan applicants, as well as their eligibility for financial assistance.
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
(1)
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which requires agencies to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before May 10, 2018.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7030
SBA Form 172 is only used by lenders for loans that have been purchased by SBA and are being serviced by approved SBA lending partners. The lenders use the SBA Form 172 to report loan payment data to SBA on a monthly basis. The purpose of this reporting is to (1) show the remittance due SBA on a loan serviced by participating lending institutions (2) update the loan receivable balances.
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 04/04-0323 issued to Chatham SBIC Fund QP IV, L.P. said license is hereby declared null and void.
The Department of State will conduct an open meeting at 9:00 a.m. on May 11, 2018, in the CDR Raymond J. Evans Conference Center, Room 6i10-01-a, of the Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters Building at St. Elizabeth's, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington DC 20593. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 99th session of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee to be held at the IMO Headquarters, United Kingdom, May 16-25, 2018.
The agenda items to be considered include:
Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Upon request to the meeting coordinator, members of the public may also participate via teleconference, up to the capacity of the teleconference phone line. To access the teleconference line, participants should call (202) 475-4000 and use Participant Code: 887 809 72. To facilitate the building security process, and to request reasonable accommodation, those who plan to attend should contact the meeting coordinator, LCDR Staci Weist, by email at
Additional information regarding this and other public meetings may be found at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before April 30, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-3491 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Julia Greenway, (202) 267-3896, 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.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before April 20, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0207 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nia Daniels, (202) 267-7626, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice.
The Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program allows a State to assume FHWA's environmental responsibilities for review, consultation, and compliance for Federal highway projects. When a State assumes these Federal responsibilities, the State becomes solely responsible and liable for carrying out the responsibilities it has assumed, in lieu of FHWA. Prior to the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015, the Program required semiannual audits during each of the first 2 years of State participation to ensure compliance by each State participating in the Program. This notice finalizes the findings of the fourth audit report for the Texas Department of Transportation's (TxDOT) participation in accordance with these pre-FAST Act requirements.
Dr. Owen Lindauer, Office of Project Development and Environmental Review, (202) 366-2655,
An electronic copy of this notice may be downloaded from the specific docket page at
The Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program allows a State to assume FHWA's environmental responsibilities for review, consultation, and compliance for Federal highway projects. This provision has been codified at 23 U.S.C. 327. Since December 16, 2014, TxDOT has assumed FHWA's responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the responsibilities for reviews under other Federal environmental requirements under this authority.
Prior to December 4, 2015, 23 U.S.C. 327(g) required the Secretary to conduct semiannual audits during each of the first 2 years of State participation, annual audits during years 3 and 4, and monitoring each subsequent year of State participation to ensure compliance by each State participating in the program. The results of each audit were required to be presented in the form of an audit report and be made available for public comment. On December 4, 2015, the President signed into law the FAST Act, Public Law 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015). Section 1308 of the FAST Act amended the audit provisions by limiting the number of audits to one audit each year during the first 4 years of a State's participation.
A draft version of this report was published in the
Section 1313 of Public Law 112-141; Section 6005 of Public Law 109-59; Public Law 114-94; 23 U.S.C. 327; 49 CFR 1.85.
This report summarizes the results of FHWA's fourth audit review (Audit #4) to assess the performance by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) regarding its assumption of responsibilities assigned by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that took effect on December 16, 2014. TxDOT assumed FHWA's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) responsibilities and other environmental review responsibilities related to Federal-aid highway projects in Texas. The status of FHWA's observations from the third audit review (Audit #3), including any TxDOT self-imposed corrective actions, is detailed at the end of this report. The FHWA Audit #4 team (team) appreciates the cooperation and professionalism of TxDOT staff in conducting this review.
The team was formed in October 2016 and met regularly to prepare for the audit. Prior to the on-site visit, the team: (1) performed reviews of project files in TxDOT's Environmental Compliance Oversight System (ECOS), (2) examined TxDOT's responses to FHWA's information requests, and (3) developed interview questions. Interviews of TxDOT and resource agency staff occurred during the on-site portion of this audit, conducted on May 22-26, 2017.
The TxDOT continues to develop, revise, and implement procedures and processes required to carry out the NEPA Assignment Program. Based on information provided by TxDOT and from interviews, TxDOT is committed to maintaining a successful program. This report describes two (2) categories of non-compliance observations and eight (8) observations that represent opportunities for TxDOT to improve its program. It also includes brief status updates of the Audit #3 conclusions.
The TxDOT has continued to make progress toward meeting the responsibilities it has assumed in accordance with the MOU. The non-compliance observations identified in this review will require TxDOT to take corrective action. By taking corrective action and considering changes based on the observations in this report, TxDOT should continue to move the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program (NEPA Assignment Program) forward successfully.
The NEPA Assignment Program allows a State to assume FHWA's environmental responsibilities for review, consultation, and compliance for highway projects. This program is codified at 23 U.S.C. 327. When a State assumes these Federal responsibilities for NEPA project decision-making, the State
The State of Texas was assigned the responsibility for making project NEPA approvals and the responsibility for making other related environmental decisions for highway projects on December 16, 2014. In enacting Texas Transportation Code, § 201.6035, the State has waived its sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and consents to defend against any actions brought by its citizens for NEPA decisions it has made in Federal court.
The FHWA project-specific environmental review responsibilities assigned to TxDOT are specified in the MOU. These responsibilities include: compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7 consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service, and Section 106 consultations with the Texas Historical Commission (THC) regarding impacts to historic properties. Other responsibilities may not be assigned and remain with FHWA. They include: (1) responsibility for project-level conformity determinations under the Clean Air Act, and (2) the responsibility for government-to-government consultation with federally-recognized Indian Tribes. Based on 23 U.S.C. 327(a)(2)(D), any responsibility not explicitly assigned in the MOU is retained by FHWA.
The MOU specifies that FHWA is required to conduct six audit reviews. These audits are part of FHWA's oversight responsibility for the NEPA Assignment Program. The reviews are to assess a State's compliance with the provisions of the MOU. They also are used to evaluate a State's progress toward achieving its performance measures as specified in the MOU; to evaluate the success of the NEPA Assignment Program; and to inform the administration of the findings regarding the NEPA Assignment Program. In December 2015, statutory changes in Section 1308 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) reduced the frequency of these audit reviews to one audit per year during the first 4 years of State participation in the program. This audit is the fourth completed in Texas. The fifth and final audit is planned for 2018.
The overall scope of this audit review is defined both in statute (23 U.S.C. 327) and the MOU (Part 11). An audit generally is defined as an official and careful examination and verification of accounts and records, especially of financial accounts, by an independent, unbiased body. Regarding accounts or financial records, audits may follow a prescribed process or methodology, and be conducted by “auditors” who have special training in those processes or methods. The FHWA considers this review to meet the definition of an audit because it is an unbiased, independent, official, and careful examination and verification of records and information about TxDOT's assumption of environmental responsibilities. Principal members of the team that conducted this audit have completed special training in audit processes and methods.
The diverse composition of the team and the process of developing the review report and publishing it in the
Audits, as stated in the MOU (Parts 11.1.1 and 11.1.5), are the primary mechanism used by FHWA to oversee TxDOT's compliance with the MOU, evaluate TxDOT's progress toward achieving the performance measures identified in the MOU (Part 10.2), and collect information needed for the Secretary's annual report to Congress. These audits also consider TxDOT's technical competency and organizational capacity, adequacy of the financial resources committed by TxDOT to administer the responsibilities assumed, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) process, attainment of performance measures, compliance with the MOU requirements, and compliance with applicable laws and policies in administering the responsibilities assumed.
This audit reviewed processes and procedures (i.e., toolkits and handbooks) TxDOT staff use to process and make NEPA approvals. The information the team gathered that served as the basis for this audit came from three primary sources: (1) TxDOT's response to a pre-audit #4 information request (PAIR #4), (2) a review of both a judgmental and random sample of project files in ECOS with approval dates after February 1, 2016, and (3) interviews with TxDOT and the USFWS staff. The TxDOT provided information in response to FHWA pre-audit questions and requests for documents and provided a written clarification to FHWA thereafter. That material covered the following six topics: program management, documentation and records management, quality assurance/quality control, legal sufficiency review, performance measurement, and training. In addition to considering these six topics, the team also considered the following topics: Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance, consideration of noise impacts and noise mitigation (Noise), and adherence to the TxDOT Public Involvement plan.
The intent of the review was to check that TxDOT has the proper procedures in place to implement the responsibilities assumed through the MOU, ensure that the staff is aware of those procedures, and make certain the staff implements the procedures appropriately to achieve compliance with NEPA and other assigned responsibilities. The review did not second guess project-specific decisions, as such decisions are the sole responsibility of TxDOT. The team focused on whether the procedures TxDOT followed complied with all Federal statutes, regulation, policy, procedure, process, guidance, and guidelines.
The team defined the timeframe for highway project environmental approvals subject to this fourth audit to be between February 1, 2016, and January 31, 2017. The project file review effort occurred in two phases: approvals made during Round 1 (Feb 1, 2016-July 31, 2016) and Round 2 (Aug 1, 2016-Jan 31, 2017). One important note is that this audit project file review time frame spans a full 12 months, where previous audits reviewed project approvals that spanned 6 months. The population of environmental approvals included 224 projects based on 12 certified lists of NEPA approvals reported monthly by TxDOT. The NEPA project file approvals reviewed included: (1) categorical exclusion (CE) determinations, (2) approvals to circulate draft Environmental Assessments (EA), (3) findings of no significant impacts (FONSI), (4) re-evaluations of EAs, Section 4(f) decisions, (5) approvals of a draft environmental impact statement, and (6) re-evaluations of EISs and records of decision (ROD). Project files reviewed constitute a sample of randomly selected c-listed CEs, and 100 percent of the following file approvals: 4(f) approvals; CE determinations for actions not listed in the “c” or “d” lists; the FONSI and its EA; the ROD and its EIS; and re-evaluations of these documents and approvals.
The interviews conducted by the team focused on TxDOT's leadership and staff at the Environmental Affairs Division (ENV) Headquarters in Austin and staff in four of TxDOT's Districts. The team interviewed the Austin District and then divided into two groups (the next day) to complete the face-to-face interviews of district staff in Waco and San Antonio. Members of the team interviewed staff from the Ft. Worth District via teleconference. The team used the same ECOS project document review form but updated interview questions for districts and ENV staff with new focus areas to gather data.
The TxDOT continues to make progress in the implementation of its program that assumes FHWA's NEPA project-level decision responsibility and other environmental responsibilities. The team acknowledges TxDOT's effort to refine and, when necessary, establish additional written internal policies and procedures. The team found evidence of TxDOT's continuing efforts to train staff in clarifying the roles and responsibilities of TxDOT staff, and in educating staff in an effort to assure compliance with all of the assigned responsibilities.
The team identified two non-compliant observations in this audit that TxDOT will need to address through corrective actions. These non-compliance observations come from a review of TxDOT procedures, project file documentation, and interview information. This report also identifies several notable observations and successful practices that we recommend be expanded.
Non-compliance observations are instances where the team found the TxDOT was out of
The MOU (Part 3.1.1) states that “[p]ursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327(a)(2)(A), on the Effective Date, FHWA assigns, and TxDOT assumes, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in 23 U.S.C. 327 and this MOU, all of the USDOT Secretary's responsibilities for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. with respect to the highway projects specified under subpart 3.3. This includes statutory provisions, regulations, policies, and guidance related to the implementation of NEPA for Federal highway projects such as 23 U.S.C. 139, 40 CFR 1500-1508, DOT Order 5610.1C, and 23 CFR 771 as applicable.” Also, the performance measure in MOU Part 10.2.1(A) for compliance with NEPA and other Federal environmental statutes and regulations commits TxDOT to maintaining documented compliance with requirements of all applicable statutes and regulations, as well as provisions in the MOU. The following non-compliance observations are presented as two categories of non-compliance observations: (1) with procedures specified in Federal laws, regulations, policy, or guidance, or (2) with the State's environmental review procedures.
a)
Making an approval that includes actions not considered as part of environmental review is deficient according to the FHWA Technical Advisory 6640.8A. The scope of the FONSI cannot include actions not considered in the EA. This recurring deficiency was also identified for a project file in Audit #3.
b)
Section 3.3.1 of the MOU requires that prior to approving any CE determination, FONSI, final EIS, or final EIS/ROD, TxDOT will ensure and document that the project is consistent with the current Transportation Improvement Plan, Regional Transportation Plan, or Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The team identified two projects where TxDOT made NEPA approval without meeting the MOU consistency requirement.
c)
The FHWA's regulation at 23 CFR 771.119(h) requires a second public notification to occur 30 days prior to issuing a FONSI. The team reviewed a project file where TxDOT approved a FONSI for an action described in 23 CFR 771.115(a) without evidence of a required additional public notification. TxDOT acknowledges this requirement in their updated public involvement handbook.
d)
One project file lacked documentation for Section 106 compliance prior to TxDOT making a NEPA approval. The FHWA regulation at 23 CFR 771.133 expects compliance with all applicable laws or reasonable assurance all requirements will be met at the time of an approval.
a)
MOU section 8.7.1 requires the State to certify on a list the approvals it makes pursuant to the terms of the MOU and Federal review requirements so FHWA knows which projects completed NEPA and are eligible for Federal-aid funding. The FHWA identified a project whose approval was made pursuant to State law and therefore should not have been on the certified list of projects eligible for Federal-aid funding. This is a recurrence from Audit #3.
b)
One project did not follow the TxDOT Noise guidelines for the timing of a required noise workshop. TxDOT improperly held a noise workshop months before the public hearing opportunity. The TxDOT noise guidelines (Guidelines for Analysis and Abatement of Roadway Traffic Noise, 2011) identifies procedures for compliance with 23 CFR 772. This is a recurrence of the same non-compliance observation in Audit #3.
c)
The TxDOT provided training to staff and updated its Section 7 compliance procedures, as part of a partnering effort after Audit #3 between FHWA, TxDOT, and USFWS. However, one project was still not in compliance with the updated procedures.
d)
One project file reviewed by the team lacked the indirect and cumulative impact analysis that is expected according to TxDOTs indirect and cumulative impact evaluation procedures.
e)
The review team reviewed a project file where TxDOT followed State environmental laws and then requested Federal-aid to purchase right-of-way. TxDOT informed the team that they are removing Federal funds from the ROW portion of this project as corrective action. This is a recurrence from Audit #3.
This section summarizes the team's observations about issues or practices that TxDOT may consider as areas to improve. It also summarizes practices that the team believes are successful, so that TxDOT can consider continuing or expanding those programs in the future. Further information on these successful practices and observations is contained in the following subsections that address these six topic areas: program management; documentation and records management; quality assurance/quality control; legal sufficiency; performance management; and training.
Throughout the following subsections, the team lists eight observations for TxDOT to consider in order to make improvements. The FHWA's suggested implementation methods of action include: corrective action, targeted training, revising procedures, continued self-assessment, improved QA/QC, or some other means. The team acknowledges that, by sharing the preliminary draft audit report with TxDOT, TxDOT has begun the process of implementing actions to address these observations and improve its program prior to the publication of this report.
The team appreciates TxDOT ENV willingness to partner with FHWA before, during, and after audit reviews. This has resulted in improved communication and assisted the team in verifying many of the conclusions in this report. The quarterly partnering sessions, started in 2016, will be an ongoing effort. These exchanges of information between FHWA and TxDOT have clarified and refined FHWA's reviews and assisted TxDOT's efforts to make improvements to their environmental review processes and procedures.
The team noted in district and ENV staff interviews that they welcomed the opportunity to be responsible and accountable for NEPA decisions. In addition, TxDOT District staff members and management have said in interviews that they are more diligent with their documentation because they know that these approvals will be internally assessed and the district held accountable by the TxDOT ENV Program Review Team (formerly TxDOT's Self-Assessment Branch, [SAB]). District staff indicated in interviews that the former SAB detailed reviews were highly valued because they learned from their mistakes and make improvements. Accountability, in part, is driving an enhanced desire for TxDOT staff to consistently and carefully complete environmental reviews.
The team recognizes enhanced communication among individuals in the project development process through the Core Team (a partnership of district and ENV environmental staff assigned to an individual EIS project) as a valuable concept. Information gained from interviews and materials provided by TxDOT in most cases demonstrate improved communication amongst districts and between districts and ENV. The team noted that “NEPA Chats” (regular conference calls led by ENV,
TxDOT ENV is currently in the process of proposing an update to their Noise Guidelines. The team reviewed a project file where the decisions based on an original Noise Study were re-examined to reach a different conclusion. The current TxDOT Noise Guidelines do not address how, or under what conditions a re-examination of an original Noise Study report that reaches different conclusions could occur. The team urges TxDOT to clarify their Noise Guidelines to ensure consistent and fair and equitable treatment of stakeholders affected by highway noise impacts.
During the interviews, the review team learned that there is a disincentive for “may affect” determinations because TxDOT cannot predict the amount of time required to complete informal consultation. If a particular project's schedule could accommodate the time required for informal consultation, a “may affect” determination might be made to minimize a risk of a legal challenge.
The review team would like to draw TxDOT's attention to the possibility that risk management decisionmaking can introduce a bias or “disincentive” to coordinate with USFWS when it is expected according to Federal policy and guidance. In fulfilling ESA Section 7(a)(2) responsibilities, Congress intended the “benefit of the doubt” to be given to the species (H.R. Conf. Rep. 96-697, 96 Cong., 1st sess. 1979).
The team acknowledges that TxDOT plans to train staff on its revised ESA handbook and standard operating procedures (SOP), and this may inform staff of this bias. Through interviews, the team learned that in certain districts with sensitive habitats (i.e., karst) or the possibility of a species present (i.e., a salamander), ENV managers would review a project's information in addition to the district's and/or ENV biologists. This enhanced review process is currently limited only to two districts and could be expanded to include instances where such bias may occur.
The team reviewed one project where the scope described in the NEPA document differed from what was proposed to be implemented. A proposed added capacity project's description indicated a longer terminus compared to a schematic. The team could not determine whether the description or the schematic accurately reflected the project proposal.
A second reviewed project contained a description of the proposed project as the project's purpose instead of identifying a purpose that would accommodate more than one reasonable alternative. The team urges TxDOT to make reviewers aware of these challenges.
The team relied on information in ECOS, TxDOT's official file of record, to evaluate project documentation and records management practices. Many TxDOT toolkit and handbook procedures mention the requirement to store official documentation in ECOS. The ECOS is also a tool for storage and management of information records, as well as for disclosure within TxDOT District Offices. ECOS is how TxDOT identifies and procures information required to be disclosed to, and requested by, the public. ECOS is being upgraded, and there are four more phased upgrades planned over time. The most recent work includes incorporation of a revised scope development tool, Biological Evaluation form, and new way to electronically approve a CE determination form in lieu of paper. The TxDOT staff noted that ECOS is both adaptable and flexible.
A number of successful practices demonstrated by TxDOT were evident as a result of the documentation and records management review. The team learned that ECOS continues to improve in download speed and compatibility. The team learned through interviews with TxDOT staff members that ENV is changing the scope development tool within ECOS and that functionality will improve. Some staff indicated that they also utilized the scope development tool to develop their own checklists to ensure that all environmental requirements have been met prior to making a NEPA approval.
The team's review included project files that were incomplete because of missing or incorrect references that would link the files to environmental review documentation. TxDOT has indicated that they are working to address this problem. In addition to the issue of database links, the team identified a project file that lacked a record of required public involvement required per TxDOT procedures. The team learned from interviews that ENV and district staff do not consistently include such documentation in ECOS. Also, one reviewed project file had outdated data for threatened and endangered species. The team urges TxDOT staff to rely upon up to date and complete data in making project decisions.
The team identified one project file where total project costs were not presented in the project documentation and EA documents were added after the FONSI was signed. The added EA documentation was editorial in nature. The team urges TxDOT to ensure the project file contains supportive documentation. Material that was not considered as part of the NEPA decision, and that was dated after the NEPA approval should not be included in a project's file.
The team found a project file that had conflicting information about a detour. The review form indicated that no detour was proposed, but letters to a county agency said that a road would be closed, which would require addressing the need for a detour. Our review was unable to confirm the detour or whether the impact road closure was considered.
The team observed some continued successful practices from previous audits in QA/QC. These successful practices include the use of established checklists, certifications, NEPA Chats, and the CORE Team concept (items described in previous audit reports). The TxDOT District Office environmental staff continue to do peer reviews of environmental decisions to double check the quality and accuracy of documentation. The Environmental Affairs Division has established a post-NEPA review team (performance review team) that was briefly mentioned in the Self-Assessment report to FHWA. Through our interviews, we learned that the team reaches out to ENVs own Section Directors and subject matter experts, in addition to District environmental staff, regarding their observations to improve the quality of documentation in future NEPA decisions. The FHWA team observed increased evidence in ECOS of documentation of collaboration illustrating the efforts to improve document quality and accuracy.
Based on project file reviews, the team found errors and omissions that should have been identified and addressed through TxDOT quality control. Also, TxDOT's certified monthly list of project decisions contained errors, some of which were recurring.
During this review period, the team was informed that TxDOT's approach to QA/QC had changed since the previous audit review. In audit #3, the team identified the Self-Assessment Branch (SAB) as a successful practice. TxDOT's response in the PAIR #4 indicated SAB was disbanded and ENV did not explain how its function would be replaced. Through interviews, the team learned that TxDOT had reorganized its SAB staff and modified its approach to QA/QC. This report identifies a higher number of observations that were either non-compliant or the result of missing or erroneous information compared to previous audits. The team could not assess the validity and relevance of TxDOT's self-assessment of QA/QC because TxDOT's methodology (sampling and timeframe) was not explained. Lastly, through interviews with district environmental staff, the team learned that they are unclear on how errors and omissions now identified by the new “performance review team” and ENV subject matter experts (SMEs) are to be resolved. The team urges TxDOT to evaluate its new approach to QA/QC with relevant and valid performance measures and to explain its approach to QA/QC to its staff.
Based on the interviews with two of the General Counsel Division (GCD) staff and documentation review, the requirements for legal sufficiency under the MOU continue to be adequately fulfilled.
There are five attorneys in TxDOT's GCD, with one serving as lead attorney. Additional assistance is provided by a consultant attorney who has delivered environmental legal assistance to ENV for several years and by an outside law firm. The contract for the outside law firm is currently going through a scheduled re-procurement. The GCD assistance continues to be guided by ENVs Project Delivery Manual Sections 303.080 through 303.086. These sections provide guidance on conducting legal sufficiency review of FHWA-funded projects and those documents that are to be published in the
GCD continues to serve as a resource to ENV and the districts and is involved early in the development of large and complex projects. One example is the very large Houston District IH 45 project around downtown Houston with an estimated cost of $4.5 billion. The GCD lead attorney has been involved in the project and participated in the project's public hearing. GCD participates in the monthly NEPA chats and recently provided informal training during the chat on project scoping, logical termini, and independent utility.
According to TxDOT's response to FHWA's PAIR #4, GCD staff has reviewed or been involved in legal review for eight projects. The ENV project delivery managers make requests for review of a document or assistance to the lead attorney, who then assigns that project to an attorney for legal review. Attorney comments are provided in the standard comment response matrix back to ENV and are reviewed by the lead attorney. All comments must be satisfactorily addressed for GCD to complete its legal sufficiency determination. The GCD does not issue conditional legal sufficiency determinations. Legal sufficiency is documented by email to ENV.
A notable effort by GCD, in the last year, were the two lawsuits on TxDOT issued Federal environmental FONSI decision on the MOPAC intersections, the ongoing environmental process on the widening of south MOPAC, and State environmental decision on SH 45 SW. The lawsuit advanced only the Federal environmental decision on the MOPAC intersections. GCD worked first to develop the administrative record, having the numerous consultant and TxDOT staff provide documentation of their involvement on the MOPAC intersections project. Staff from GCD, Attorney General, and outside counsel then developed the voluminous record, which is their first since assuming NEPA responsibilities. The initial request by the plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction on the project was denied in Federal court, and, since a hearing on the merits was held later, they are awaiting the judge's decision. The FHWA and DOJ were notified, as appropriate, of the notices of pleadings through the court's PACE database.
ENV involves GCD early on projects and issues in need of their attention and expertise. Based on our discussions, GCD continues to be involved with the districts and ENV throughout the NEPA project development process, when needed, and addresses legal issues, as appropriate. Based on interview responses, observation, and the comments above, TxDOT's approach to legal sufficiency is adequate.
TxDOT states in their self-assessment summary report that they achieved acceptable performance goals for all five performance-based performance metrics with the remaining seven performance goals remaining, consistent with the March 2016 self-assessment. The TxDOT continues to devote a high level of effort to develop the metrics to measure performance. During this audit, the team learned through interviews that the methodology employed to assess QA/QC performance had been revamped to the point that the results do not appear to be comparable with measures from previous years.
As part of TxDOT's response to the PAIR #4, TxDOT provided an alternate performance metric for EA timeframes that analyzed the distribution of EA durations for projects initiated and completed prior to assignment, initiated prior to assignment but completed after assignment, and ones initiated and completed after assignment. This creative approach identified both improved and diminished performance in EA timeframes for projects initiated before assignment but completed after assignment. TxDOT reports in their response to the PAIR #4 that, at a 95 percent confidence interval, comparing completion times for EA projects before and after assignment, the post-assignment median timeframe for completion is faster after assignment.
The team noted through interviews of TxDOT District Office staff that many were unaware of TxDOT performance measures and their results. We encourage TxDOT environmental leadership to make these results available to their staff, if only as a means of feedback on performance. Overall, these measures are a positive reflection of actions taken by TxDOT staff, and sharing changes in performance measures may lead to improved performance.
As mentioned above, the team learned that TxDOT's QA/QC methodology changed from that utilized since the previous audit. Previously, the measure reported the percent of project files determined to be complete and accurate, but included information on substantive errors made across different documents. Now the measure is limited only to the percent of project files determined to be complete that relies upon new yes/no/NA response questions whose result lacks an evaluation of the substantial-ness of errors of accuracy or completion. The team urges TxDOT to continue to analyze the information they are already collecting on the completeness and accuracy of project files as means of implementing information that usually leads to continuous improvement.
Since the period of the previous audit, TxDOT has revamped its on-line training program, as training courses content were out of date. Training continues to be offered to TxDOT staff informally through NEPA chats as well as through in-person instructor training. All of the training information for any individual TxDOT District staff environmental professional can be found on a TxDOT SharePoint site and is monitored by the training coordinator (especially the qualifications in the Texas Administrative Code). This makes it much more straightforward for third parties (including FHWA) to assess the district staff competency and exposure to training. Since Audit #3 TxDOT has increased the number of hours of training that staff are required to have to maintain environmental certification from 16 to 32 hours. Based on interviews, we learned that some individuals had far exceeded the minimal number of training hours required. We learned that training hours could be earned by participating in the environmental conference, but with a stipulation that other sources of training would be required.
The team recognizes the following successful training practices. We learned from interviews that two TxDOT District Offices conduct annual training events for staff of local governments as a means to help them develop their own projects. This training identifies the TxDOT expectations for successful project development, including environmental review.
Another successful practice we learned from interviews, and reported by TxDOT in the list of training scheduled, is that public involvement training has been revised to emphasize additional outreach that goes beyond the minimum requirements. The emphasis appears to be on achieving meaningful public engagement rather than simple public disclosure.
Finally, the team would like to acknowledge that TxDOT has recognized and taken advantage of cross training that is a successful practice. The TxDOT ENV strategic planning coordinator informed us in an interview that he co-taught a class on planning consistency by adding an environmental component. The team taught how the planning issues relate to environmental review and compliance five or six times throughout the State. The ENV strategic planning coordinator is now working with the local government division to add an environment module to the Local Project Assistance class with specific discussion of environmental reviews (adding information on how to work with ENV at TxDOT, or how to find consultants who are approved to do work for TxDOT).
The team learned through interviews the value and importance of NEPA chats for informing ENV staff when there are changes
The Fixing America's Transportation (FAST) Act included several new statutory requirements for the environmental review process, as well as other changes that change NEPA procedures and requirements. The FHWA's Office of Project Development and Environmental Review has released some guidance on how to implement these requirements and anticipates releasing additional information. Even though additional information on these changes is forthcoming, States under NEPA assignment are required to implement these changes. The team learned through TxDOT's PAIR #4, and through interviews, that TxDOT has neither developed nor delivered training to its staff concerning new requirements for the FAST Act for environmental review. In response to this observation, TxDOT is currently collaborating with FHWA to develop a presentation on this topic for its annual environmental conference.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The FHWA received seven responses to the
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before May 10, 2018.
Tia Swain, Office of Administration, Management Planning Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop TAD-10, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-0354 or
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, Section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On December 11, 2017, FTA published a 60-day notice (82 FR 27958) in the
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summaries below describe the nature of the information collection requirements (ICRs) and the expected burden. The requirements are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the VA Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Advisory Committee will be held on May 17, 2018 from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. (CST) and May 18, 2018 from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. (CST) at the Financial Services Center, 7600 Metropolis Drive, Austin, TX 78744. The sessions are closed to the public while the Committee conducts tours of VA facilities, participating in off-site events, and participating in workgroup sessions. The sessions are also closed because the Committee is likely to disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer, on matters relating to improving and enhancing VA's efforts to identify, prevent, and mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse across VA in order to improve the integrity of VA's payments and the efficiency of its programs and activities.
The agenda will include detailed discussion of data analytics relating to VA's Office of Community Care, Office of Inspector General, claims processing system, and Treasury Partnership. During the closed meeting the Committee will discuss VA beneficiary and patient information in which there is a clear unwarranted invasion of the Veteran or beneficiary privacy.
For additional information about the meeting, please contact Ms. Tamika Barrier, Designated Federal Officer, at (757) 254-8630 or email at
The Office of Management (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Office of Management (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 10, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
The information that is gathered under VAAR 832.202-4 will be used by the VA contracting officer to assess whether or not the contractor's overall financial condition represents adequate security to warrant paying the contractor in advance.
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
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice that the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans will be held in Saint Louis, Missouri from April 17-19, 2018, at the below times and locations:
On April 17, from 8:45 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., at the VA St. Louis Health Care System—John Cochran Division, Bldg. 2, Education Wing, Room 141 & 142, 915 North Grand Blvd., St. Louis, Missouri.
On April 18, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., at the Jefferson National Cemetery, 2900 Sheridan Road, Saint Louis, MO; from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., conducting a Town Hall Meeting at the Harris-Stowe State University (HSSU) William L. Clay Sr. Early Childhood Center's Professional Development Auditorium—Room 204, 3026 Laclede Ave., Saint Louis, MO.
On April 19, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., at the VA St. Louis Health Care System—John Cochran Division, Bldg. 2, Education Wing, Room 141 & 142, 915 North Grand Blvd., Saint Louis, MO.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary on the administration of VA benefits and services to minority Veterans, to assess the needs of minority Veterans and to evaluate whether VA compensation and pension, medical and rehabilitation services, memorial services outreach, and other programs are meeting those needs.
The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities subsequent to the meeting.
On the morning of April 17 from 8:45 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., the Committee will meet in open session with key staff at the VA Saint Louis Health Care System—John Cochran Division to discuss services, benefits, delivery challenges, and successes. From 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., the Committee will convene a closed session in order to protect patient privacy as the Committee tours the VA Health Care System. The Committee will reconvene in a closed session from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. as it receives the Veterans' benefits briefing and tours the Veterans Benefits Administration staff from the Saint Louis Regional Benefit Office.
On the morning of April 18 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., the Committee will convene in open session at the Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery followed by a tour of the cemetery. The Committee will meet with key staff to discuss services, benefits, delivery challenges and successes. In the evening, the Committee will hold a Veterans Town Hall meeting beginning at 4:30 p.m., at the Harris-Stowe State University (HSSU) William L. Clay Sr. Early Childhood Center in the Professional Development Auditorium—Room204.
On the morning of April 19 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., the Committee will convene in open session at the VA Saint Louis Health Care System—John Cochran Division to conduct an exit briefing with leadership from the VA Saint Louis Health Care System, Saint Louis Regional Benefit Office, and Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery. In the afternoon from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., the Committee will work on drafting recommendations for the annual report to the Secretary.
Sessions are open to the public, except when the Committee is conducting tours of VA facilities, participating in off-site events, and participating in workgroup sessions. Tours of VA facilities are closed, to protect from disclosure Veterans' information the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Time will be allocated for receiving public comments on April 19, at 10 a.m. Public comments will be limited to three minutes each. Individuals wishing to make oral statements before the Committee will be accommodated on a first-come first serve basis. Individuals who speak are invited to submit a 1-2 page summaries of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official record. The Committee will accept written comments from interested parties on issues outlined in the meeting agenda, as well as other issues affecting minority Veterans. Such comments should be sent to Ms. Juanita Mullen, Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, Center for Minority Veterans (00M), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, or email at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
This action proposes amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Refinery MACT 1 and Refinery MACT 2 regulations to clarify the requirements of these rules and to make technical corrections and minor revisions to requirements for work practice standards, recordkeeping and reporting. This action also proposes technical corrections for the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Petroleum Refineries.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before May 10, 2018.
Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. See section I.C of this preamble for instructions on submitting CBI.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. If a hearing is held at a U.S. government facility, individuals planning to attend should be prepared to show a current, valid state- or federal-approved picture identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. An expired form of identification will not be permitted. Please note that the Real ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal facilities. If your driver's license is issued by a noncompliant state, you must present an additional form of identification to enter a federal facility. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee badge, passports, enhanced driver's licenses, and military identification cards. Additional information on the Real ID Act is available at
For questions about this proposed action, contact Ms. Brenda Shine, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3608; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email address:
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP, NSPS, and associated regulated industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As defined in the
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682).
On December 1, 2015 (80 FR 75178), the EPA finalized amendments to the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP in 40 CFR part 63, subparts CC and UUU, referred to as Refinery MACT 1 and 2, respectively and the NSPS for petroleum refineries in 40 CFR part 60, subparts J and Ja. The final amendments to Refinery MACT 1 include a number of new requirements, such as those for maintenance vents, pressure relief devices (PRDs), delayed coking units (DCUs), fenceline monitoring, and flares. The final amendments to Refinery MACT 2 include revisions to the continuous compliance alternatives for catalytic cracking units and provisions specific to startup and shutdown of catalytic cracking units and sulfur recovery plants. The December 2015 action also finalized technical corrections and clarifications to Refinery NSPS subparts J and Ja to address issues raised by the American Petroleum Institute (API) in their 2008 and 2012 petitions for reconsideration of the final NSPS Ja rule that had not been previously addressed. These include corrections and clarifications to provisions for sulfur recovery plants, performance testing, and control device operating parameters.
In the process of implementing these new requirements, numerous questions and issues have been identified and we are proposing clarifications or technical amendments to address these questions and issues. These issues were raised in petitions for reconsideration and in separately issued letters from industry and in meetings with industry groups.
The EPA received three separate petitions for reconsideration. Two petitions were jointly filed by the API and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM). The first of these petitions was filed on January 19, 2016, and requested an administrative reconsideration under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) of certain provisions of Refinery MACT 1 and 2, as promulgated in the December 2015 final rule. Specifically, API and AFPM requested that the EPA reconsider the maintenance vent provisions in Refinery MACT 1 for sources constructed on or before June 30, 2014; the alternate startup, shutdown, or hot standby standards for fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCUs) constructed on or before June 30, 2014, in Refinery MACT 2; the alternate startup and shutdown for sulfur recovery units constructed on or before June 30, 2014, in Refinery MACT 2; and the new catalytic reforming units (CRUs) purging limitations in Refinery MACT 2. The request pertained to providing and/or clarifying the compliance time for these sources. Based on this request and additional information received, the EPA issued a proposal on February 9, 2016 (81 FR 6814), and a final rule on July 13, 2016 (81 FR 45232), fully responding to the January 19, 2016, petition for reconsideration. The second petition from API and AFPM was filed on February 1, 2016, and outlined a number of specific issues related to the work practice standards for PRDs and flares, and the alternative water overflow provisions for DCUs, as well as a number of other specific issues on other aspects of the rule. The third petition was filed on February 1, 2016, by Earthjustice on behalf of Air Alliance Houston, California Communities Against Toxics, the Clean Air Council, the Coalition for a Safe Environment, the Community In-Power and Development Association, the Del Amo Action Committee, the Environmental Integrity Project, the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, the Sierra Club, the Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, and Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. The Earthjustice petition claimed that several aspects of the revisions to Refinery MACT 1 were not proposed, and, thus, the public was precluded from commenting on them during the public comment period, including: (1) Work practice standards for PRDs and flares; (2) alternative water overflow provisions for DCUs; (3) reduced monitoring provisions for fenceline monitoring; and (4) adjustments to the risk assessment to account for these new work practice standards. On June 16, 2016, the EPA sent letters to petitioners granting reconsideration on issues where petitioners claimed they had not been provided an opportunity to comment. These petitions and letters granting reconsideration are available for review in the rulemaking docket (see Docket Item Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0860, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0891 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0892).
On October 18, 2016 (81 FR 71661), the EPA proposed for public comment the issues for which reconsideration was granted in the June 16, 2016, letters. The EPA identified five issues in the proposal: (1) The work practice standards for PRDs; (2) the work practice standards for emergency flaring events; (3) the assessment of risk as modified based on implementation of these PRD and emergency flaring work practice standards; (4) the alternative work practice (AWP) standards for DCUs employing the water overflow design; and (5) the provision allowing refineries to reduce the frequency of fenceline monitoring at sampling locations that consistently record benzene concentrations below 0.9 micrograms per cubic meter. In that notice, the EPA also proposed two minor clarifying amendments to correct
The February 1, 2016, API and AFPM petition for reconsideration included a number of recommendations for technical amendments and clarifications that were not specifically addressed in the October 18, 2016, proposal.
We are proposing to clarify the Refinery MACT 1 rule requirements by revising several definitions and adding one definition.
In their March 28, 2017, letter seeking additional clarifications, API and AFPM noted that the definition of “flare purge gas” could be interpreted to preclude the flaring of purge gas that may be introduced for safety reasons other than to prevent oxygen infiltration, such as to prevent freezing at the flare tip.
In their February 1, 2016, petition for reconsideration, API and AFPM requested a change to the definition of “flare supplemental gas” on the basis that the definition's reference to “all gas that improves the combustion in the flare combustion zone” could be interpreted to include assist air and assist steam. API and AFPM noted, in contrast, that the way the term “flare supplemental gas” is used throughout the rule appears to only include gases that increase combustion efficiency by raising the heat content of the combustion zone. This is evidenced by the fact that the definition of flare vent gas specifically includes flare supplemental gas and specifically excludes total steam or assist air. Further, they claimed that the rule incorrectly assumes that supplemental gas is always natural gas, and uses the term “natural gas” in the equations, and, thus, limiting a refiner's ability to use fuel gas as supplemental gas.
We agree that, as written, the definition could be misinterpreted and we are proposing to revise the definition of “flare supplemental gas” at 40 CFR 63.641. We also agree that we did not intend to limit flare supplemental gas to only natural gas, so throughout the rule, we are proposing to replace all instances of the term “supplemental natural gas” with the defined term “flare supplemental gas.” The specific instances of these replacements are provided in Table 2 of this preamble (see section III.A.7).
In their February 1, 2016, petition for reconsideration, API and AFPM noted that Refinery MACT 1 interchangeably uses the term “relief valve” and the term “pressure relief device,” and instead should be using the term “pressure relief device” throughout because a relief valve is only one type of pressure relief device. They requested that a definition of pressure relief device be added to Refinery MACT 1 to clarify that it includes different types of relief devices, such as relief valves and rupture disks. We agree, and we are proposing a definition of pressure relief device, proposing to revise the definition of relief valve, and proposing to consistently use the term “pressure relief device” throughout the rule.
In their February 1, 2016, petition for reconsideration, API and AFPM noted that the Refinery MACT 1 storage vessel provisions at 40 CFR 63.660 require Group 1 storage vessels with floating roofs to comply with all the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW, including requirements for fitting controls. However, the Refinery MACT 1 definition of “reference control technology for storage vessels” at 40 CFR 63.641 omits reference to these fitting requirements. They requested that the EPA revise the definition in 40 CFR 63.641 of Refinery MACT 1 to be consistent with the Refinery MACT 1 requirements for storage vessels at 40 CFR 63.660. They also noted that the term, “reference control technology for storage vessels,” is never actually used in the Refinery MACT 1 storage vessel provisions at 40 CFR 63.660. We agree and are revising the definition of reference control technology for storage vessels to be consistent with the storage vessel rule requirements at 40 CFR 63.660. As it relates to storage vessels, the only use of the term, “reference control technology,” is in the Refinery MACT 1 provisions pertaining to emissions averaging in 40 CFR 63.652.
Petitioners requested a number of amendments and clarifications to the
In their March 28, 2017, letter, API and AFPM noted that the miscellaneous process vent provision at 40 CFR 63.643(c) does not require an owner or operator to designate a maintenance vent as a Group 1 or Group 2 miscellaneous process vent. However, they stated that the reporting requirements at 40 CFR 63.655(f)(1)(ii) are unclear as to whether a NOCS report is needed for maintenance vents. We did not intend for the maintenance vents to be included in the NOCS report since we do not require the owner or operator to designate a maintenance vent as a Group 1 or Group 2 miscellaneous process vent. The rule has separate requirements for characterizing, recording, and reporting maintenance vents in 40 CFR 63.655 (g)(13) and (h)(12); therefore, it is not necessary to identify each and every place where equipment may be opened for maintenance in a NOCS report. To clarify, we are proposing to add language to 40 CFR 63.643(c) to explicitly state that maintenance vents need not be identified in the NOCS report.
Under 40 CFR 63.643(c) an owner or operator may designate a process vent as a maintenance vent if the vent is only used as a result of startup, shutdown, maintenance, or inspection of equipment where equipment is emptied, depressurized, degassed, or placed into service. Facilities generally must comply with one of three conditions prior to venting maintenance vents to the atmosphere (40 CFR 63.643(c)(1)(i-iii)). However, 40 CFR 63.643(c)(1)(iv) of the rule currently provides some flexibility for maintenance vents associated with equipment containing pyrophoric catalyst (
API and AFPM requested that the EPA reconsider the standards in 40 CFR 63.643(c)(1)(iv) for equipment containing pyrophoric catalyst,
As pyrophoric units (
We reviewed the recent comments received and the additional information provided by API and AFPM.
Specifically, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.643(c)(1)(iv) to read (new text highlighted in bold): “If the maintenance vent is associated with equipment containing pyrophoric catalyst (
Paragraph 63.643(a) specifies that Group 1 miscellaneous process vents must be controlled by 98 percent or to 20 parts per million by volume or to a flare meeting the requirements in 40 CFR 63.670. This paragraph also states in the second sentence that requirements for maintenance vents are specified in 40 CFR 63.643(c), “and the owner or operator is only required to comply with the requirements in § 63.643(c).” Paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) then specify requirements for maintenance vents. Paragraph (c)(1) requires that equipment must be depressured to a control device, fuel gas system, or back to the process until one of the conditions in paragraph (c)(1)(i) through (iv) is met. In reviewing these rule requirements, the EPA noted that we did not specify that the control device in (c)(1) must also meet requirements in paragraph (a). The second sentence in 40 CFR 63.643(a) could be misinterpreted to mean that a facility complying with the maintenance vent provisions in 40 CFR 63.643(c) must only comply with the requirements in paragraph (c) and not the control requirements in paragraph (a) for the control device referenced by paragraph (c)(1). The second sentence was meant to clarify that there is no obligation for characterizing and reporting miscellaneous process vents as Group 1 and Group 2 if these are maintenance vents. However, we inadvertently did not specify control device requirements for the control referenced by paragraph (c)(1) in paragraph (c). In omitting these requirements, we did not intend that the control requirement for maintenance vents prior to atmospheric release would not be compliant with Group 1 controls as specified under 40 CFR 63.643(a). These control requirements
We received several requests to address equipment blinding in the maintenance venting provisions of 40 CFR 63.643(c). Equipment blinding is conducted to isolate equipment for maintenance activities. During the installation of the blind flange, a flanged connection in the equipment piping must be opened, allowing vapors in the equipment to be released to the atmosphere. Additionally, while the piping is open, a small amount of purge gas is typically used to ensure air (oxygen) does not enter the process equipment. The introduction of purge gas also results in emissions.
In their February 1, 2016, petition for reconsideration, API and AFPM requested clarification that emissions that occur when “opening a flange on a CRU reactor to install a blind” are considered emissions from a maintenance vent rather than a CRU vent. Additionally, API provided separate submissions with example scenarios and emissions data for CRU vents to the EPA on September 11, 2017,
In their March 28, 2017, letter, API and AFPM raised additional concerns with the maintenance vent requirements and the need to address the installation of blinds to isolate equipment for certain maintenance activities. They claimed there may be situations where refiners may not be able to meet the requirements in 40 CFR 63.643(c)(1)(i) through (iv) for maintenance vents, but they must be able to conduct these activities. For example, they may not be able to achieve the 10-percent LEL criterion in 40 CFR 63.643(c)(1)(i) prior to atmospheric venting because a valve used to isolate the equipment will not seat fully so organic material may continually leak into the isolated equipment.
We agree that installing a blind to prepare equipment for maintenance may be necessary and may not currently meet the conditions specified in 40 CFR 63.643(c)(1). To limit the emissions during the blind installation, we are proposing an additional condition addressed by the maintenance vent provisions as 40 CFR 63.643(c)(1)(v). We are proposing to require depressuring the equipment to 2 pounds (lb) per square inch gauge (psig) or less prior to equipment opening and maintaining pressure of the equipment where purge gas enters the equipment at or below 2 psig during the blind flange installation. The low allowable pressure limit will reduce the amount of process gas that will be released during the initial equipment opening and ongoing 2-psig pressure requirement will limit the rate of purge gas use. Together, these requirements will limit the emissions during blind flange installation and will result in comparable emissions allowed under the existing maintenance vent provisions. While we acknowledge that there may be circumstances where equipment blinding prior to achieving the 10-percent LEL criterion may be necessary, we expect these situations to be rare and that the owner or operator would remedy the situation as soon as practical (
Under 40 CFR 63.643(c) an owner or operator may designate a process vent as a maintenance vent if the vent is only used as a result of startup, shutdown, maintenance, or inspection of equipment where equipment is emptied, depressurized, degassed, or placed into service. The rule specifies that prior to venting a maintenance vent to the atmosphere, process liquids must be removed from the equipment as much as practical and the equipment must be depressured to a control device, fuel gas system, or back to the process until one of several conditions, as applicable, is met (40 CFR 63.643(c)(1)). One condition specifies that equipment containing less than 72 lbs/day of volatile organic compounds (VOC) can be depressured directly to the atmosphere provided that the mass of VOC in the equipment is determined and provided that refiners keep records of the process units or equipment associated with the maintenance vent, the date of each maintenance vent opening, and records used to estimate the total quantity of VOC in the equipment at the time of vent opening. Therefore, each maintenance vent opening would be documented on an event-basis.
Industry petitioners noted that there are numerous routine maintenance activities, such as replacing sampling line tubing or replacing a pressure gauge, that involve potential release of very small amounts of VOC, often less than 1 lb per day, that are well below the 72 lbs/day of VOC threshold provided in 40 CFR 63.643(c)(1)(iii). They claimed that documenting each individual event is burdensome and unnecessary. We agree that documentation of each release from maintenance vents which serve equipment containing less than 72 lbs of VOC is not necessary, as long as there is a demonstration that the event is compliant with the requirement that the equipment contains less than 72 lbs of VOC. We are, therefore, proposing to revise these provisions to require a record demonstrating that the total
API and AFPM
In their February 1, 2016, petition, API and AFPM sought reconsideration of certain aspects of the requirements for PRDs in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(1) through (5). As finalized, 40 CFR 63.648(j)(1) provides operating requirements for PRDs in organic HAP gas or vapor service. Section 63.648(j)(2) specifies pressure release requirements for PRDs in organic HAP gas or vapor service. Section 63.648(j)(3) (discussed in greater detail below) specifies requirements for pressure release management for all PRDs in organic HAP service. Sections 63.648(j)(4) and (j)(5) provide exemptions from the requirements in (j)(1), (2), and (3) if all releases and potential leaks from a PRD are routed through a compliant control device or if the PRDs meet certain criteria.
As noted above, 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3) specifies requirements for pressure release management for all PRDs in organic HAP service, specifically: (j)(3)(i) provides requirements for monitoring affected PRDs; (j)(3)(ii) lists options for three redundant release prevention measures that must be applied to affected PRDs; (j)(3)(iii) requires root cause analysis and corrective action if an affected PRD releases to the atmosphere as a result of a pressure release event; (j)(3)(iv) stipulates how the facility must determine the number of release events during the calendar year for each affected PRD; and (j)(3)(v) specifies what release events are deemed a violation of the pressure release management work practice standards. Section 63.648(j)(5) identifies the types of PRDs exempted from pressure release management requirements in (j)(3).
Regarding the applicability of the PRD requirements in 40 CFR 63.648(j), API and AFPM requested that we clarify whether releases listed in paragraph 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3)(v) are limited to PRDs “in organic HAP service.” The heading for 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3)(v),
We also are proposing to amend the introductory text in paragraph (j). Currently, paragraph (j) states “Except as specified in paragraphs (j)(4) and (5) of this section, the owner or operator must also comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (j)(3) of this section for all pressure relief devices.” For consistency and clarity, we are proposing to add “in organic HAP service” to the end of this sentence to clearly indicate that the word “all” includes organic HAP liquid service PRDs.
As stated earlier, section (j)(3)(ii) lists options for three redundant release prevention measures that must be applied to affected PRDs. The prevention measures in (j)(3)(ii) include: (A) Flow, temperature, level, and pressure indicators with deadman switches, monitors, or automatic actuators; (B) documented routine inspection and maintenance programs and/or operator training (maintenance programs and operator training may count as only one redundant prevention measure); (C) inherently safer designs or safety instrumentation systems; (D) deluge systems; and (E) staged relief system where initial pressure relief valve (with lower set release pressure) discharges to a flare or other closed vent system and control device.
The API and AFPM February 1, 2016, petition for reconsideration requested clarification as to whether two prevention measures can be selected from the list in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3)(ii)(A). The rule does not state that the measures in paragraph (j)(3)(ii)(A) are to be considered a single prevention measure. These measures were grouped in subparagraph A because of similarities they have; however, they are separate measures. For example, a liquid level monitor discontinues the feed to the unit when the liquid level exceeds a set point and an overhead pressure monitor discontinues the feed to the unit if the pressure exceeds a certain level. If these measures operate independently, the EPA considers them two separate redundant prevention measures—that is, if the pressure exceeds a certain set point, then the feed to the unit is discontinued regardless of the liquid level and vice a versa. If both the pressure limit and the liquid level must be exceeded to trigger shutting off the feed to the unit, then that would be considered a single prevention measure. We also note that there may be occasions where the same type of monitor is used, but the parameter monitored is different. For example, a temperature monitor on the feed to a unit may be used to trigger feed shut-off to the unit, and a separate temperature monitor may be used for the vessel
In a letter dated March 28, 2017, API and AFPM requested clarification on whether pilot-operated PRDs are required to comply with the pressure release management provisions of 40 CFR 63.648(j)(1) through (3).
A pilot-operated or balanced bellows PRD is often used to relieve back pressure so that the main PRD with which it is associated can be routed to a control device, back into the process or to the fuel gas system. Pilot-operated and balanced bellows PRDs are primarily used for pressure relief when the back pressure of the discharge vent may be high or variable. Conventional pressure relief devices act on a differential pressure between the process gas and the discharge vent. If the discharge vent pressure increases, the vessel pressure at which the PRD will open increases, potentially leading to vessel over-pressurization that could cause vessel failure. For systems that have high or variable back pressure, either balanced bellows or pilot-operated PRDs are used. Balanced bellows PRDs use a bellow to shield the pressure relief stem and top portion of the valve seat from the discharge vent pressure. A balanced bellows PRD will not discharge gas to the atmosphere during a release event, except for leaks through the bellows vent due to bellows failure or fatigue. Pilot-operated PRDs use a small pilot safety valve that discharges to the atmosphere to effect actuation of the main valve or piston, which then discharges to a control device. Balanced bellows or pilot operated PRDs are a reasonable and necessary means to safely control the primary PRD release.
Pilot-operated and balanced bellows PRDs are subject to the requirements at 40 CFR 63.648(j)(1) and (2) to ensure the PRDs do not leak and properly reseat following a release. However, based on our understanding of pilot-operated PRDs (see memorandum, “Pilot-operated PRD,” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682) and balanced bellows PRDs, we are proposing that these PRDs are not subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3).
Section 63.648(j)(5) identifies the types of PRDs not subject to the pressure release management requirements in (j)(3). These include PRDs that do not have the potential to emit 72 lbs/day or more of VOC based on the valve diameter, the set release pressure, and the equipment contents (40 CFR 63.648(j)(5)(v)). In most cases, we expect that pilot-operated PRDs would release less than 72 lbs of VOC/day. However, this provision does not apply to all pilot vents because some have the potential to emit greater than 72 lbs/day of VOC. Even for releases greater than 72 lbs/day of VOC, we agree that the root cause analysis and corrective action is not necessary because the main release vent is not an atmospheric vent, but is instead routed to the flare header. Unless this event contributes to a flaring event resulting in visible emissions or velocity exceedance, the flare is operating as intended and controlling the PRD release. Although we expect pilot vent discharges will release less than 72 lbs/day of VOC, to ensure these vent discharges are indeed small, and to encourage low-emitting (
The provisions in 40 CFR 63.657(a) require owners or operators of DCU to depressure each coke drum to a closed blowdown system until the coke drum vessel pressure or temperature meets the applicable limits specified in the rule (2 psig or 220 degrees Fahrenheit for existing sources). Special provisions are provided in 40 CFR 63.657(e) and (f) for DCU using “water overflow” or “double-quench” method of cooling, respectively. According to 40 CFR 63.657(e), the owner or operator of a DCU using the “water overflow” method of coke cooling must hardpipe the overflow water (
In the October 18, 2016, reconsideration proposal, we opened the provisions in 40 CFR 63.657(e) for public comment, but we did not propose to amend the requirements. In response to the October 18, 2016, reconsideration proposal, we received several comments regarding the provisions in 40 CFR 63.657(e) for DCU using the water overflow method of coke cooling. API and AFPM wanted clarification that the water overflow requirements in 40 CFR 63.657(e) are only applicable if the primary pressure or temperature limits in 40 CFR 63.657(a) were not met prior to overflowing any water. We agree that an owner or operator of a DCU with a water overflow design does not need to comply with the provisions in 40 CFR 63.657(e) unless they cannot comply with the primary pressure or temperature limits in 40 CFR 63.657(a) prior to overflowing any water. However, if water overflow is used before the primary pressure or temperature limits in 40 CFR 63.657(a) are met, then the owner or operator must use “controlled” water overflow until the applicable temperature limit is achieved. This is required because the primary pressure limits are based on the vessel pressure, which is the pressure of the gas at the top of the coke drum, and once the water starts to overflow, we do not consider the pressure in the liquid filled overhead line to be representative of the DCU vessel pressure. We are proposing to clarify these points in 40 CFR 63.657(e).
In addition, environmental petitioners questioned whether the submerged fill requirement would effectively reduce emissions if gas is entrained into the overflow water leaving the coke drum such that the gas could then be emitted to the air out of the overflow water storage tank. We reviewed schematics of water overflow design DCU and found that a typical water overflow DCU uses a separator to prevent gas entrainment with the overflow water.
We are proposing several amendments to the fenceline monitoring provisions in Refinery MACT 1. Many of the proposed revisions to the fenceline monitoring provisions are related to requirements for reporting monitoring data.
The December 1, 2015, final rule established provisions for monitoring fugitive emissions at refinery fencelines (40 CFR 63.658). Under the fenceline monitoring provisions, an owner/operator must monitor benzene concentrations around the perimeter (fenceline) of their facility using a network of passive air monitors that contain sorbent tubes (40 CFR 63.658(c)). Facilities are required to collect the tubes and analyze them for benzene every 2 weeks (40 CFR 63.658(e)), but may request an alternative test method for collecting and/or analyzing samples (40 CFR 63.658(k)). Facilities must then calculate the difference in the highest and lowest 2-week benzene concentrations reported at the facility fenceline, called the Δc (40 CFR 63.658(f)). If the annual rolling average Δc exceeds an action level of 9 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m
The December 1, 2015, final rule included new EPA Methods 325A and B specifying monitor siting and quantitative sample analysis procedures. Method 325A requires an additional monitor be placed near known VOC emission sources if the VOC emissions source is located within 50 meters of the monitoring perimeter and the source is between two monitors. The December 1, 2015, final rule at 40 CFR 63.658(c)(1) provides “known sources of VOCs . . . means a wastewater treatment unit, process unit, or any emission source requiring control according to the requirements of this subpart, including marine vessel loading operations.” In their February 1, 2016, petition for reconsideration, API and AFPM recommended that the EPA exclude sources requiring control under the miscellaneous process vent requirements of 40 CFR 63.643 and the equipment leak requirements of 40 CFR 63.648 from the known sources of VOC specified in 40 CFR 63.658(c)(1) so that these emission sources would not trigger the need for additional fenceline monitors. In response, we are proposing an alternative to the additional monitor siting requirement for pumps, valves, connectors, sampling connections, and open-ended lines sources that are actively monitored monthly using audio, visual, or olfactory means and quarterly using Method 21 or the AWP. We believe this is reasonable because these sources may be insignificant and, under these circumstances, the timeframe for discovery of a leak (1 month to 3 months) and repair (within 15 days of discovery) is consistent with the timeframe needed to analyze a passive monitor sample (45 days) and complete the initial root cause analysis and corrective action (45 days after discovery). We consider this requirement to be an adequate alternative to the additional monitor requirement.
In their February 1, 2016, petition for reconsideration, API and AFPM suggested that if the Δc for the 2-week sampling period following an exceedance of the annual average Δc action level is 9 µg/m
In addition, we are proposing a revision to the reporting requirements for the fenceline data in 40 CFR 63.655(h)(8). Consistent with requests from API and AFPM in their February 1, 2016, petition for reconsideration, we are proposing that the quarterly reports are to cover calendar year quarters (
We are also proposing several measures that would reduce burden and clarify reporting associated with collecting and analyzing quality assurance/quality control samples (field blanks and duplicates) associated with the fenceline monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 63.658(c)(3). First, we are proposing to require only one field blank per sampling period rather than two as currently required. Second, we are proposing to decrease the number of duplicate samples that must be collected each sample period. Instead of requiring a duplicate sample for every 10 monitoring locations, we propose that facilities with 19 or fewer monitoring locations only be required to collect one duplicate sample per sampling period and facilities with 20 or more sampling locations only be required to collect two duplicate samples per sampling period. These proposed changes reflect current practices and the needed quality assurance/quality control of blanks and samples. The reduced need for quality assurance/quality control samples is a result of enhancement and refinement of sample preparation and sorbent tube manufacturing, leading to an increase in precision of blanks and lower levels of containments in blanks as compared to the developmental stage of the method.
We received questions during the fenceline reporting webinars on how to report duplicate sample results and whether duplicate sample results are to be used in the calculation of Δc. Because there are two analytical results for each set of duplicate samples and the final rule was unclear on how to report these results, facilities were uncertain whether they should choose one of the two results for use in the calculation of
Consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.658(k) for requesting an alternative test method for collecting and/or analyzing samples, we are proposing to revise the Table 6 entry for 40 CFR 63.7(f) to indicate that 40 CFR 63.7(f) applies except that alternatives directly specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC do not require additional notification to the Administrator or the approval of the Administrator. We also are proposing editorial revisions to the fenceline monitoring section; these proposed revisions are included in Table 2 in section III.A.7 of this preamble.
API and AFPM requested clarification in a December 1, 2016, letter to EPA
We calculated the amount of air that must be entrained in the steam to cause a flare meeting the NHV
Steam-assisted flares with perimeter assist air and an effective tip diameter of less than 9 inches would remain subject to the requirement to account for the amount of assist air intentionally entrained within the calculation of NHV
In addition to these revisions, for air assisted flares, we also are providing clarification on determining air flow rates. While we specifically provided for the use of engineering calculations for determining the flow rate, we received questions in the February 1, 2016, petition as to whether or not this allowed the use of fan curves for determining air assist flow rates. In the December 2015 final rule in the introductory paragraph of 40 CFR 63.670(i), we stated that continuously monitoring fan speed or power and using fan curves is an acceptable method for continuously monitoring assist air flow rates. To further clarify this point, we are proposing to include specific provisions for continuously monitoring fan speed or power and using fan curves for determining assist air flow rates.
In response to the February 1, 2016, petition for reconsideration from API and AFPM, we are also proposing to clarify the requirements for conducting visible emissions monitoring. API and AFPM raised a concern that the current language in 40 CFR 63.670(h) is unclear and could be interpreted to require facilities to flare regulated materials in order to conduct the required visible emissions monitoring. We recognize that many flares are used only during startup, shutdown, or emergency events and we agree that it is not reasonable to require refiners to flare regulated materials intentionally in order to conduct a visible emissions compliance demonstration. We are proposing to clarify that the initial 2-hour visible emissions demonstration should be conducted the first time regulated materials are routed to the flare. We are also proposing to clarify 40 CFR 63.670(h)(1) to provide that the daily 5-minute observations must only be conducted on days the flare receives regulated material and that the additional visible emissions monitoring is specific to cases when visible emissions are observed while regulated material is routed to the flare.
API and AFPM requested in their February 1, 2016, petition for reconsideration that we specify the averaging period for establishing the limit for the smokeless capacity of the flare and that it be a 15-minute average consistent with other flow parameters and velocity requirements. Owners or operators would use the cumulative flow rate and/or flare tip velocity determined according to 40 CFR 63.670(k) for assessing exceedances of the smokeless capacity, and this flow rate is specifically determined on a 15-minute block average. Consistent with these requirements, we are proposing to clarify, at 40 CFR 63.670(o)(1)(iii)(B), that the owner or operator must establish the smokeless capacity of the flare in a 15-minute block average and at 40 CFR 63.670(o)(3)(i) that the exceedance of the smokeless capacity of the flare is based on a 15-minute block average. We are also correcting an error in the units for the cumulative volumetric flow used in the flare tip velocity equation in 40 CFR
Industry stakeholders with input from vendors have also made submissions
We received comments from API and AFPM in their February 1, 2016, petition for reconsideration regarding the incorporation of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW storage vessel provisions and 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS closed vent systems and control device provisions into Refinery MACT 1 requirements for Group 1 storage vessels at 40 CFR 63.660. The pre-amended version of the Refinery MACT 1 rule specified (by cross reference at 40 CFR 63.646) that storage vessels containing liquids with a vapor pressure of 76.6 kilopascals (11.0 pounds per square inch (psi)) or greater must be vented to a closed vent system or to a control device consistent with the requirements in the HON. The petitioners pointed out that the EPA did not retain this provision at 40 CFR 63.660 in the December 2015 final rule. In reviewing the introductory text at 40 CFR 63.660, we agree that the language was inadvertently omitted. We did not intend to deviate from the longstanding requirement limiting the vapor pressure of material that can be stored in a floating roof tank. We are, therefore, proposing to revise the introductory text in 40 CFR 63.660 to clarify that owners or operators of affected Group 1 storage vessels storing liquids with a maximum true vapor pressure less than 76.6 kilopascals (11.0 psi) can comply with either the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW or SS and that owners or operators storing liquids with a maximum true vapor pressure greater than or equal to 76.6 kilopascals (11.0 psi) must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS.
We also received comments from API and AFPM in their February 1, 2016, petition for reconsideration regarding provisions in 40 CFR 63.660(b). Section 63.660(b)(1) allows Group 1 storage vessels to comply with alternatives to those specified in 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(2) of subpart WW. Section 63.660(b)(2) specifies additional controls for ladders having at least one slotted leg. The petitioners explained that 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(2)(ix) provides extended compliance time for these controls, but that it is unclear whether this additional compliance time extends to the use of the alternatives to comply with 40 CFR 63.660(b). We are proposing language to make clear that the additional compliance time applies to the implementation of controls in 40 CFR 63.660(b).
We received several questions from industry pertaining to the requirement in paragraphs 40 CFR 63.655(f) and 40 CFR 63.655(f)(6) to submit a NOCS report. The final rule allows sources that are newly subject to Refinery MACT 1 to submit the NOCS in a periodic report rather than in a separate notification submission (40 CFR 63.655(f)(6)). It is reasonable that any source with a compliance date on or after February 1, 2016, should be able to follow the same approach. We are proposing to amend paragraphs 40 CFR 63.655(f) and 40 CFR 63.655(f)(6) to expressly provide that sources having a compliance date on or after February 1, 2016, may submit the NOCS in the periodic report rather than as a separate submission.
We are also proposing to clarify at 40 CFR 63.660(e) that the initial inspection requirements that applied with initial filling of the storage vessels are not required again simply because the source transitions from the requirements in 40 CFR 63.646 to 40 CFR 63.660.
We also received comments from API and AFPM
We also received questions from API and AFPM
We recognize that there are instances when two primary pollutants may be measured during a single performance test, one supported by the ERT and one not supported by the ERT. For petroleum refineries, this occurs if the owner or operator conducts a particulate matter (PM) performance test coincident with the hydrogen cyanide performance test. Since the PM test methods (Methods 5, 5B, and 5F) are supported by the ERT, we require that this performance test be submitted via the ERT. However, testing for hydrogen cyanide is not supported by the ERT. The owner or operator may meet the reporting requirement for the hydrogen cyanide test by either including the test report as an attachment to the ERT submission so that both results are submitted electronically or by submitting the test report in hard copy or other agreed upon format.
Industry representatives also recommended that the requirement to report electronically be suspended until a reliable system is in place. We note that the submission of ERT-formatted performance test and performance evaluation reports using CEDRI is fully operational, and there are no known or reported system issues. CEDRI accepts all ERT version 5 report submissions that are properly created using the ERT. If the ERT zip file being uploaded to CEDRI is not created from the ERT or does not meet the file format requirements established by the EPA, CEDRI will not accept the file upload and will provide the user instructions on how to resolve the error(s). In addition, the Central Data Exchange (CDX) Helpdesk staff are available during regular business hours to support industry users in completing their submissions electronically using CEDRI. Any user concerns that cannot be resolved by the CDX Helpdesk are escalated to either EPA staff or the application support contractors for resolution. To date, over 3,400 ERT files have been submitted to the EPA through CEDRI. There have been 43 calls to the Helpdesk for assistance. The CDX Helpdesk resolved 34 of these calls, and the EPA and their support contractors resolved the remaining nine. We encourage all users to continue to contact the CDX Helpdesk with any issues encountered during the submission process.
We have also identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept a claim of needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. In 40 CFR 63.655(h)(10)(i), we address the situation where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which preclude a user from accessing the system and submitting required reports. If either the CDX or CEDRI is unavailable at any time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, and the unavailability prevents a user from submitting a report by the required date, users may assert a claim of EPA system outage. We consider 5 business days prior to the reporting deadline to be an appropriate timeframe because, if the system is down prior to this time, users still have 1 week to complete reporting once the system is back online. However, if the CDX or CEDRI is down during the week a report is due, we realize that this could greatly impact the ability to submit a required report on time. We will notify users about known outages as far in advance as possible by CHIEF Listserv notice, posting on the CEDRI website, and posting on the CDX website so that users can plan accordingly and still meet reporting deadlines. However, if a planned or unplanned outage occurs and users believe that it will affect or it has affected their ability to comply with an electronic reporting requirement, we have provided a process to assert such a claim.
Consistent with 40 CFR 63.655(h)(10), a source may seek an extension of the time to comply with an electronic reporting requirement. We are proposing to revise this provision to address the situation where an extension may be warranted due to a
We received questions from API and AFPM
In codifying the amendments to 40 CFR 63.655(i)(5), the specific recordkeeping requirements in the subparagraphs for regulation as it existed prior to the revisions were not retained in the regulations as published by the CFR. As reflected in the instructions to the amendments, we intended to move the heat exchanger recordkeeping requirements from paragraph (i)(4) to (i)(5) and to revise the introductory text to new paragraph (i)(5)
Similarly, the amendments to 40 CFR 63.655(h)(5)(iii) included in the December 2015 final rule
There are several additional revisions that we are proposing to Refinery MACT 1 to correct typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. Table 2 of this preamble summarizes these editorial changes as well as other changes as discussed in this preamble.
In order to demonstrate compliance with the alternative PM standard for FCCU at 40 CFR 63.1564(a)(5)(ii), the outlet (exhaust) gas flow rate of the catalyst regenerator must be determined. Refinery MACT 2 provides that owners or operators may determine this flow rate using a flow CPMS or the alternative provided in 40 CFR 63.1573(a). Currently, the language in 40 CFR 63.1573(a) restricts the use of the alternative to occasions when “the unit does not introduce any other gas streams into the catalyst regenerator vent.” API and AFPM
Additionally, API and AFPM noted in their February 1, 2016, petition for reconsideration that the FCCU alternative organic HAP standard for startup, shutdown, and hot standby in 40 CFR 63.1565(a)(5)(ii) requires maintaining the oxygen concentration in the regenerator exhaust gas at or above 1 vol. percent (dry) (
API and AFPM commented in their February 1, 2016, petition for reconsideration that the amendments to the provision for CPMS monitoring and data collection in Refinery MACT 2 at 40 CFR 63.1572(d)(1) which do not exclude periods of monitoring system malfunction, associated repairs, and quality assurance or control activities is inconsistent with paragraph (d)(2) which specifies that data recorded during required quality assurance or control activities may not be used. Additionally, API and AFPM stated that an analogous provision in 40 CFR 63.1572(d) for CPMS monitoring and data collection was maintained in the final Refinery MACT 1 at 40 CFR 63.671(a)(4). We agree that we should maintain consistency between Refinery MACT 1 and Refinery MACT 2 whenever possible and, in this case, there is no good reason for the two subparts to differ. CPMS readings taken during periods of monitoring system malfunctions and repairs do not provide accurate or valid data. In order to repair a monitoring system, the CPMS must generally be taken offline or completely out of service, and, therefore, there would be no data to record. During a monitoring system malfunction, while there may or may not be data to record, the malfunction will affect the accuracy of the data. This is the reason why these data are generally excluded from data averages (as noted in 40 CFR 63.8(g)(5)). Therefore, we are proposing to amend the language in Refinery MACT 2 at 40 CFR 63.1572(d)(1) so that the language is the same as that in Refinery MACT 1 at 40 CFR 63.671(a)(4).
The final amendments provide alternative emission limits during periods of startup and shutdown for some units, such as the FCCU alternative organic HAP standard for startup, shutdown, and hot standby in 40 CFR 63.1565(a)(5)(ii). API and AFPM questioned in their February 1, 2016, petition for reconsideration whether the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.1576(a)(2)(i) apply when the owners or operators elect to comply with the otherwise applicable emissions limitations during periods of startup and shutdown. Separate recordkeeping requirements apply when a source is subject to the otherwise applicable emissions limits; thus, it is not necessary for the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.1576(a)(2)(i) to also apply. Therefore, we are proposing to amend the recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR 63.1576(a)(2)(i) to apply only when facilities elect to comply with the alternative startup and shutdown standards provided in 40 CFR 63.1564(a)(5)(ii) or 40 CFR 63.1565(a)(5)(ii) or 40 CFR 63.1568(a)(4)(ii) or (iii).
We are proposing to revise Refinery MACT 2 to address the same issue raised for Refinery MACT 1 regarding the reporting of initial performance tests. We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.1574(a)(3) to clarify that the results of performance tests conducted to demonstrate initial compliance are to be reported by the date the NOCS report is due (150 days from the compliance date) whether the results are reported using CEDRI or in hard copy as part of the NOCS report and to clarify the information to be included in the NOCS if the test results are submitted through CEDRI. Unlike Refinery MACT 1, Refinery MACT 2 has on-going performance test requirements. We are proposing that the results of periodic performance tests and the one-time hydrogen cyanide (HCN) test required by 40 CFR 63.1571(a)(5) and (6) must be reported with the semi-annual compliance reports as specified in 40 CFR 63.1575(f) instead of within 60 days of completing the performance evaluation. Similarly, we are also proposing to streamline reporting of the results of performance evaluations for continuous monitoring systems (as provided in entry 2 to Table 43) to align with the semi-annual compliance reports as specified in 40 CFR 63.1575(f), rather than requiring a separate report submittal. We are proposing to add the phrase “Unless otherwise specified by this subpart” to 40 CFR 63.1575(k)(1) and (2) to indicate that any performance tests or performance evaluations required to be reported in a NOCS report or a semi-annual compliance report are not subject to the 60-day deadline specified in these paragraphs. We are also proposing to add 40 CFR 63.1575(l) to
Similar to the revisions in Table 6 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC (see section III. A.7), we are proposing to revise selected entries in Table 44 to Subpart UUU of Part 63—Applicability of NESHAP General Provisions to Subpart UUU, to clarify several sections of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) that the reporting can be written or electronic, the timing of these reports is specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU, and the subpart UUU provisions supersede the General Provisions. Specifically, we are proposing to revise Table 44 entries for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(3), 63.7(h)(7)(i), 63.6(h)(8), 63.7(a)(2), 63.7(g), 63.8(e), 63.10(d)(2), 63.10(e)(1), 63.10(e)(2), and 63.10(e)(4) to explain that 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU specifies how and when to report the results of performance tests or performance evaluations.
There are several additional revisions that we are proposing to Refinery MACT 2 to correct typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. These editorial corrections are summarized in Table 3 of this preamble.
During recent implementation efforts, it was brought to our attention that the testing requirement in 40 CFR 60.105a(b)(2)(ii) differs from similar requirements in 40 CFR 60.105a(d)(4), (f)(4), and (g)(4) where we allow use of Method 3, 3A, or 3B, both for the performance tests and the relative accuracy tests. The language in 40 CFR 60.105a(b)(2)(ii) does not currently include Methods 3A and 3B (and the alternative ANSI/ASME method for EPA Method 3B) and mistakenly cites Appendix A-3 rather than Appendix A-2. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 60.105a(b)(2)(ii), consistent with the other similar requirements in NSPS subpart Ja listed above, to read as follows, “The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each CO
We also identified that the second sentence of 40 CFR 60.106a(a)(1)(iii) includes the following clause, “. . . and Method 3 or 3A of appendix A-2 of part 60 for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations” which is redundant to 40 CFR 60.106a(a)(1)(vi) (and again, does not include all three Methods). We are proposing to delete this clause. We are also proposing to change the word “Methods” to “Method” in the second sentence of 40 CFR 60.106a(a)(1)(iii) to better reflect our intent for facilities to select a single performance evaluation method.
This proposed rule is expected to result in overall cost and burden reductions. Specifically, the proposed amendments expected to reduce burden are: Revisions of the maintenance vent provisions related to the availability of a pure hydrogen supply for equipment containing pyrophoric catalyst, revisions of recordkeeping requirements for maintenance vents associated with equipment containing less than 72 lbs VOC, inclusion of specific provisions for pilot-operated and balanced bellows PRDs, and inclusion of specific provisions related to steam tube air entrainment for flares. These proposed amendments are described in detail in sections III.A.2.b, III.A.2.d, III.A.3.c, and III.A.5 of this preamble, respectively. The other proposed amendments will have an insignificant effect on the
Some of the cost reductions associated with this proposed rule were not fully captured in the impacts estimated for the December 2015 final rule. The total capital investment cost of the December 2015 final rule was estimated at $283 million, $112 million from the final amendments for storage vessels, DCUs, and fenceline monitoring, and $171 million from standards for flares and PRDs. The annualized costs of the final amendments for storage vessels, DCUs, and fenceline monitoring were estimated to be approximately $13.0 million and the annualized costs of the final standards for flares and PRDs were estimated to be approximately $50.2 million. There were no capital costs estimated for the maintenance vent provisions in the December 2015 final rule and only limited recordkeeping and reporting costs. Furthermore, while significant capital and operating costs were projected for flares, we may have underestimated the number of steam-assisted flares that would also have to demonstrate compliance with the NHV
As described previously in section III.A.2.b of this preamble, we did not specifically consider that some units with pyrophoric catalyst at the refinery would have a pure hydrogen supply and others would not. Therefore, we did not include costs in the December 2015 final rule impacts for refineries that have a pure hydrogen supply to add new piping (and possibly increase their hydrogen production capacity) to bring pure hydrogen to units with pyrophoric catalyst that were not currently piped to receive pure hydrogen. Based on information provided by industry petitioners, the capital investment cost to supply pure hydrogen to pyrophoric units that currently do not have a pure hydrogen supply (but that are located at refineries with a pure hydrogen supply) is estimated to be approximately $76 million. Using a capital recovery of 0.0944 based on 20-year equipment life and 7-percent interest, hydrogen supply upgrades would have increased the previously estimated annualized cost by $7,174,400 per year. Table 4 provides the cost reduction expected for the proposed amendments concerning hydrogen supply for pyrophoric units, as well as other proposed amendments.
For the proposed amendments to the recordkeeping requirements for equipment containing less than 72 lbs of VOC, the impacts in the December 2015 final rule only included one-time planning costs for how to comply with the maintenance vent requirements; it was assumed that facilities would have maintenance records for each activity, so no additional recordkeeping burden was estimated. According to industry petitioners, there are numerous activities, such as replacing pressure transducers or tubing that would qualify under the less than 72 lbs of VOC provisions, but for which event-specific records are not traditionally maintained. Based on the per event recordkeeping requirement for maintenance vents using the 72 lbs VOC provision in the December 2015 rule, we now estimate that there would be 500 of these small maintenance vent openings per year per refinery and that 0.1 hour would be required to record each individual event, resulting in a nationwide burden of $678,625 per year. The revisions in the proposed rule, would only require records that should be part of the annual planning assessment and records for events not following the deinventory procedures included in these plans. We estimate that each facility would spend 0.1 hour for each non-conforming event and would only have one such event each year with an estimated nationwide burden of $1,357 per year. Thus, the proposed amendments are estimated to yield savings of approximately $677,268 per year considering the actual estimated annualized burden of the December 2015 final rule.
We estimated the PRD requirements in the December 2015 rule would result in a capital investment of $11.1 million to implement prevention measures and flow monitoring systems on PRDs. Combined with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements, the annualized cost of the PRD provisions in the December 2015 final rule was estimated to be $3.3 million per year. We estimate that approximately 10 percent of PRDs at refineries are either pilot-operated or balanced bellows. Thus, if there is a commensurate 10-percent decrease in these costs based on the proposed provisions for pilot-operated or balanced bellows PRD, we estimate the proposed amendments would yield a reduction in capital investment of $1.1 million and a reduction in annualized costs of $330,000 per year.
We estimated that the provisions for steam-assisted flares in the December 2015 rule would result in a capital investment of $130 million and annualized costs of $23.6 million. However, these costs did not include costs to also assess compliance with the NHV
A detailed memorandum documenting the estimated burden reduction has been included in the docket for this rulemaking (see memorandum titled, “Impact Estimates for the 2017 Proposed Revisions to Refinery MACT 1,” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682).
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1692.11. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
One of the proposed technical amendments included in this notice impacts the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC for certain maintenance vents associated with equipment containing less than 72 lbs VOC as found at 40 CFR 63.655(i)(12)(iv). The new recordkeeping requirement specifies records used to estimate the total quantity of VOC in the equipment and the type and size limits of equipment that contain less than 72 lb of VOC at the time of the maintenance vent opening be maintained. As specified in 40 CFR 63.655(i)(12)(iv), additional records are required if the deinventory procedures were not followed for each maintenance vent opening or if the equipment opened exceeded the type and size limits (
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The action consists of amendments, clarifications, and technical corrections which are expected to reduce regulatory burden. As described in section IV of this preamble, we expect burden reduction for: Revisions of the maintenance vent provisions related to the availability of a pure hydrogen supply for equipment containing pyrophoric catalyst, revisions of recordkeeping requirements for maintenance vents associated with equipment containing less than 72 lbs VOC, inclusion of specific provisions for pilot-operated and balanced bellows PRDs, and inclusion of specific provisions related to steam tube air entrainment for flares. Furthermore, as noted in section IV of this preamble, we do not expect the proposed amendments to change the expected economic impact analysis performed for the existing rule. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effect on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The proposed amendments serve to make technical clarifications and corrections. We expect the proposed revisions will have an insignificant effect on emission reductions. Therefore, the proposed amendments should not appreciably increase risk for any populations.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. As described in section III.C of this preamble, the EPA proposes to use the voluntary consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981—Part 10 “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses” as an acceptable alternative to EPA Methods 3A and 3B for the manual procedures only and not the instrumental procedures. This method is available at the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1899 L Street NW, 11th floor, Washington, DC 20036 and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990. See
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The proposed amendments serve to make technical clarifications and corrections. We expect the proposed revisions will have an insignificant effect on emission reductions. Therefore, the proposed amendments should not appreciably increase risk for any populations.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
(g) * * *
(14) ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], (Issued August 31, 1981), IBR approved for §§ 60.56c(b), 60.63(f), 60.106(e), 60.104a(d), (h), (i), and (j), 60.105a(b), (d), (f), and (g), § 60.106a(a), § 60.107a(a), (c), and (d), tables 1 and 3 to subpart EEEE, tables 2 and 4 to subpart FFFF, table 2 to subpart JJJJ, § 60.285a(f), §§ 60.4415(a), 60.2145(s) and (t), 60.2710(s), (t), and (w), 60.2730(q), 60.4900(b), 60.5220(b), tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM, 60.5406(c), 60.5406a(c), 60.5407a(g), 60.5413(b), 60.5413a(b) and 60.5413a(d).
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each CO
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) The owner or operator shall conduct performance evaluations of each SO
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(1) * * *
(i) An internal floating roof, including an external floating roof converted to an internal floating roof, meeting the specifications of § 63.1063(a)(1)(i), (a)(2), and (b) and § 63.660(b)(2);
(ii) An external floating roof meeting the specifications of § 63.1063(a)(1)(ii), (a)(2), and (b) and § 63.660(b)(2); or
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c) An owner or operator may designate a process vent as a maintenance vent if the vent is only used as a result of startup, shutdown, maintenance, or inspection of equipment where equipment is emptied, depressurized, degassed or placed into service. The owner or operator does not need to designate a maintenance vent as a Group 1 or Group 2 miscellaneous process vent nor identify maintenance vents in a Notification of Compliance Status report. The owner or operator must comply with the applicable requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section for each maintenance vent according to the compliance dates specified in table 11 of this subpart, unless an extension is requested in accordance with the provisions in § 63.6(i).
(1) Prior to venting to the atmosphere, process liquids are removed from the equipment as much as practical and the equipment is depressured to a control device meeting requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section, a fuel gas system, or back to the process until one of the following conditions, as applicable, is met.
(i) * * *
(ii) If there is no ability to measure the LEL of the vapor in the equipment based on the design of the equipment, the pressure in the equipment served by the maintenance vent is reduced to 5 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) or less. Upon opening the maintenance vent, active purging of the equipment cannot be used until the LEL of the vapors in the maintenance vent (or inside the equipment if the maintenance is a hatch or similar type of opening) is less than 10 percent.
(iii) The equipment served by the maintenance vent contains less than 72 pounds of total volatile organic compounds (VOC).
(iv) If the maintenance vent is associated with equipment containing pyrophoric catalyst (
(v) If, after applying best practices to isolate and purge equipment served by a maintenance vent, none of the applicable criterion in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) can be met prior to installing or removing a blind flange or similar equipment blind, the pressure in the equipment served by the maintenance vent is reduced to 2 psig or less, Active purging of the equipment may be used provided the equipment pressure at the location where purge gas is introduced remains at 2 psig or less.
(c) The owner or operator of a Group 1 miscellaneous process vent using a vent system that contains bypass lines that could divert a vent stream away from the control device used to comply with paragraph (a) of this section either directly to the atmosphere or to a control device that does not comply with the requirements in § 63.643(a) shall comply with either paragraph (c)(1), (2), or (3) of this section. Use of the bypass at any time to divert a Group 1 miscellaneous process vent stream to the atmosphere or to a control device that does not comply with the requirements in § 63.643(a) is an emissions standards violation. Equipment such as low leg drains and equipment subject to § 63.648 are not subject to this paragraph (c).
(3) Use a cap, blind flange, plug, or a second valve for an open-ended valve or line following the requirements specified in § 60.482-6(a)(2), (b) and (c).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) Each owner or operator of an existing source subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply with the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, and paragraph (b) of this section except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3), and (c) through (j) of this section. Each owner or operator of a new source subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply with subpart H of this part except as provided in paragraphs (c) through (j) of this section.
(c) In lieu of complying with the existing source provisions of paragraph (a) in this section, an owner or operator may elect to comply with the requirements of §§ 63.161 through 63.169, 63.171, 63.172, 63.175, 63.176, 63.177, 63.179, and 63.180 of subpart H except as provided in paragraphs (c)(1) through (12) and (e) through (j) of this section.
(j) Except as specified in paragraph (j)(4) of this section, the owner or
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Flow, temperature, liquid level and pressure indicators with deadman switches, monitors, or automatic actuators. Independent, non-duplicative systems within this category count as separate redundant prevention measures.
(B) * * *
(C) * * *
(D) * * *
(E) Staged relief system where initial pressure relief device (with lower set release pressure) discharges to a flare or other closed vent system and control device.
(iv) The owner or operator shall determine the total number of release events occurred during the calendar year for each affected pressure relief device separately. The owner or operator shall also determine the total number of release events for each pressure relief device for which the root cause analysis concluded that the root cause was a
(v) Except for pressure relief devices described in paragraphs (j)(4) and (5) of this section, the following release events from an affected pressure relief device are a violation of the pressure release management work practice standards.
(4)
(ii) If a pilot-operated pressure relief device is used and the primary release valve is routed through a closed vent system to a control device, back into the process or to the fuel gas system, the owner or operator is required to comply only with paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section for the pilot discharge vent and is not required to comply with paragraph (j)(3) of this section for the pilot-operated pressure relief device.
(iii) If a balanced bellows pressure relief device is used and the primary release valve is routed through a closed vent system to a control device, back into the process or to the fuel gas system, the owner or operator is required to comply only with paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section for the bonnet vent and is not required to comply with paragraph (j)(3) of this section for the balanced bellows pressure relief device.
(iv) Both the closed vent system and control device (if applicable) referenced in paragraphs (j)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section must meet the requirements of § 63.644. When complying with this paragraph (j)(4), all references to “Group 1 miscellaneous process vent” in § 63.644 mean “pressure relief device.”
(v) If a pressure relief device complying with this paragraph (j)(4) is routed to the fuel gas system, then on and after January 30, 2019, any flares receiving gas from that fuel gas system must be in compliance with § 63.670.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(f) Each owner or operator of a source subject to this subpart shall submit a Notification of Compliance Status report within 150 days after the compliance dates specified in § 63.640(h) with the exception of Notification of Compliance Status reports submitted to comply with § 63.640(l)(3), for storage vessels subject to the compliance schedule specified in § 63.640(h)(2), and for sources listed in Table 11 of this subpart that have a compliance date on or after February 1, 2016. Notification of Compliance Status reports required by § 63.640(l)(3), for storage vessels subject to the compliance dates specified in § 63.640(h)(2), and for sources listed in Table 11 of this subpart that have a compliance date on or after February 1, 2016 shall be submitted according to paragraph (f)(6) of this section. This information may be submitted in an operating permit application, in an amendment to an operating permit application, in a separate submittal, or in any combination of the three. If the required information has been submitted before the date 150 days after the compliance date specified in § 63.640(h), a separate Notification of Compliance Status report is not required within 150 days after the compliance dates specified in § 63.640(h). If an owner or operator submits the information specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section at different times, and/or in different submittals, later submittals may refer to earlier submittals instead of duplicating and resubmitting the previously submitted information. Each owner or operator of a gasoline loading rack classified under Standard Industrial Classification Code 2911 located within a contiguous area and under common control with a petroleum refinery subject to the standards of this subpart shall submit the Notification of Compliance Status report required by subpart R of this part within 150 days after the compliance dates specified in § 63.640(h).
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(
(
(B) * * *
(
(C) * * *
(
(iii) For miscellaneous process vents controlled by control devices required to be tested under § 63.645 of this subpart and § 63.116(c) of subpart G of this part, performance test results including the information in paragraphs (f)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section. Results of a performance test conducted prior to the compliance date of this subpart can be used provided that the test was conducted using the methods specified in § 63.645 and that the test conditions are representative of current operating conditions. If the performance test is submitted electronically through the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface in accordance with § 63.655(h)(9), the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance test was conducted may be submitted in the Notification of Compliance Status in lieu of the performance test results. The performance test results must be submitted to CEDRI by the date the Notification of Compliance Status is submitted.
(2) If initial performance tests are required by §§ 63.643 through 63.653, the Notification of Compliance Status report shall include one complete test report for each test method used for a particular source. On and after February 1, 2016, for data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website (
(4) Results of any continuous monitoring system performance evaluations shall be included in the Notification of Compliance Status report, unless the results are required to be submitted electronically by § 63.655(h)(9). For performance evaluation results required to be submitted through CEDRI, submit the results in accordance with § 63.655(h)(9) by the date that you submit the Notification of Compliance Status and include the process unit where the CMS is installed, the parameter measured by the CMS, and the date that the performance evaluation was conducted in the Notification of Compliance Status.
(6) Notification of Compliance Status reports required by § 63.640(l)(3), for storage vessels subject to the compliance dates specified in § 63.640(h)(2), and for sources listed in Table 11 of this subpart that have a compliance date on or after February 1, 2016 shall be submitted no later than 60 days after the end of the 6-month period during which the change or addition was made that resulted in the Group 1 emission point or the existing Group 1 storage vessel was brought into compliance or the requirements with compliance dates on or after February 1, 2016, became effective, and may be combined with the periodic report. Six-month periods shall be the same 6-month periods specified in paragraph (g) of this section. The Notification of Compliance Status report shall include the information specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(5) of this section. This information may be submitted in an operating permit application, in an amendment to an operating permit application, in a separate submittal, as part of the periodic report, or in any combination of these four. If the required information has been submitted before the date 60 days after the end of the 6-month period in which the addition of the Group 1 emission point took place, a separate Notification of Compliance Status report is not required within 60 days after the end of the 6-month period. If an owner or operator submits the information specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(5) of this section at different times, and/or in different submittals, later submittals may refer to earlier submittals instead of duplicating and resubmitting the previously submitted information.
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(B) * * *
(
(10) For pressure relief devices subject to the requirements § 63.648(j), Periodic Reports must include the information specified in paragraphs (g)(10)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(iii) For pilot-operated pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, report each pressure release to the atmosphere through the pilot vent that equals or exceeds 72 pounds of VOC per day, including duration of the pressure release through the pilot vent and
(13) For maintenance vents subject to the requirements in § 63.643(c), Periodic Reports must include the information specified in paragraphs (g)(13)(i) through (iv) of this section for any release exceeding the applicable limits in § 63.643(c)(1). For the purposes of this reporting requirement, owners or operators complying with § 63.643(c)(1)(iv) must report each venting event for which the lower explosive limit is 20 percent or greater; owners or operators complying with § 63.643(c)(1)(v) must report each venting event conducted under those provisions and include an explanation for each event as to why utilization of this alternative was required.
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) In order to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an observer present, the owner or operator of a storage vessel equipped with an external floating roof shall notify the Administrator of any seal gap measurements. The notification shall be made in writing at least 30 calendar days in advance of any gap measurements required by § 63.120(b)(1) or (2) of subpart G or § 63.1063(d)(3) of subpart WW. The State or local permitting authority can waive this notification requirement for all or some storage vessels subject to the rule or can allow less than 30 calendar days' notice.
(8) For fenceline monitoring systems subject to § 63.658, each owner or operator shall submit the following information to the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) on a quarterly basis. (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(i) Facility name and address.
(ii) Year and reporting quarter (
(iii) For the first reporting period and for any reporting period in which a passive monitor is added or moved, for each passive monitor: the latitude and longitude location coordinates; the sampler name; and identification of the type of sampler (
(iv) The beginning and ending dates for each sampling period.
(v) Individual sample results for benzene reported in units of µg/m
(vi) Data flags that indicate each monitor that was skipped for the sampling period, if the owner or operator uses an alternative sampling frequency under § 63.658(e)(3).
(vii) Data flags for each outlier determined in accordance with Section 9.2 of Method 325A of appendix A of this part. For each outlier, the owner or operator must submit the individual sample result of the outlier, as well as the evidence used to conclude that the result is an outlier.
(viii) Based on the information provided for the individual sample results, CEDRI will calculate the biweekly concentration difference (Δc) for benzene for each sampling period and the annual average Δc for benzene for each sampling period. The owner or operator may change these calculated values, but an explanation must be provided whenever a calculated value is changed.
(9) * * *
(i) Unless otherwise specified by this subpart, within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test as required by this subpart, the owner or operator shall submit the results of the performance tests following the procedure specified in either paragraph (h)(9)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
(ii) Unless otherwise specified by this subpart, within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS performance evaluation as required by this subpart, the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance evaluation following the procedure specified in either paragraph (h)(9)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section.
(10) Extensions to electronic reporting deadlines.
(i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) in the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), and due to a planned or actual outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying the date, time and length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
(ii) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. For the purposes of this paragraph, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by
(i) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Block average values for 1 hour or shorter periods calculated from all measured data values during each period. If values are measured more frequently than once per minute, a single value for each minute may be used to calculate the hourly (or shorter period) block average instead of all measured values; or
(C) All values that meet the set criteria for variation from previously recorded values using an automated data compression recording system.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(5) * * *
(i) Identification of all petroleum refinery process unit heat exchangers at the facility and the average annual HAP concentration of process fluid or intervening cooling fluid estimated when developing the Notification of Compliance Status report.
(ii) Identification of all heat exchange systems subject to the monitoring requirements in § 63.654 and identification of all heat exchange systems that are exempt from the monitoring requirements according to the provisions in § 63.654(b). For each heat exchange system that is subject to the monitoring requirements in § 63.654, this must include identification of all heat exchangers within each heat exchange system, and, for closed-loop recirculation systems, the cooling tower included in each heat exchange system.
(iii) Results of the following monitoring data for each required monitoring event:
(A) Date/time of event.
(B) Barometric pressure.
(C) El Paso air stripping apparatus water flow milliliter/minute (ml/min) and air flow, ml/min, and air temperature, °Celsius.
(D) FID reading (ppmv).
(E) Length of sampling period.
(F) Sample volume.
(G) Calibration information identified in Section 5.4.2 of the “Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water Sources” Revision Number One, dated January 2003, Sampling Procedures Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower Monitoring, prepared by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, January 31, 2003 (incorporated by reference—see § 63.14).
(iv) The date when a leak was identified, the date the source of the leak was identified, and the date when the heat exchanger was repaired or taken out of service.
(v) If a repair is delayed, the reason for the delay, the schedule for completing the repair, the heat exchange exit line flow or cooling tower return line average flow rate at the monitoring location (in gallons/minute), and the estimate of potential strippable hydrocarbon emissions for each required monitoring interval during the delay of repair.
(7) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) The pressure or temperature of the coke drum vessel, as applicable, for the 5-minute period prior to the pre-vent draining.
(11) For each pressure relief device subject to the pressure release management work practice standards in § 63.648(j)(3), the owner or operator shall keep the records specified in paragraphs (i)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section. For each pilot-operated pressure relief device subject to the requirements at § 63.648(j)(4)(ii) or (iii), the owner or operator shall keep the records specified in paragraph (i)(11)(iv) of this section.
(iv) For pilot-operated pressure relief devices, general or release-specific records for estimating the quantity of VOC released from the pilot vent during a release event, and records of calculations used to determine the quantity of specific HAP released for any event or series of events in which 72 or more pounds of VOC are released in a day.
(12) For each maintenance vent opening subject to the requirements in § 63.643(c), the owner or operator shall keep the applicable records specified in (i)(12)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(iv) If complying with the requirements of § 63.643(c)(1)(iii), records used to estimate the total quantity of VOC in the equipment and the type and size limits of equipment that contain less than 72 pounds of VOC at the time of maintenance vent opening. For each maintenance vent opening for which the deinventory procedures specified in paragraph (i)(12)(i) of this section are not followed or for which the equipment opened exceeds the type and size limits established in the records specified in this paragraph, identification of the maintenance vent, the process units or equipment associated with the maintenance vent, the date of maintenance vent opening, and records used to estimate the total quantity of VOC in the equipment at the time the maintenance vent was opened to the atmosphere.
(vi) If complying with the requirements of § 63.643(c)(1)(v), identification of the maintenance vent, the process units or equipment associated with the maintenance vent,
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) An average vessel pressure of 2 psig or less determined on a rolling 60-event average; or
(ii) An average vessel temperature of 220 degrees Fahrenheit or less determined on a rolling 60-event average.
(2) * * *
(i) A vessel pressure of 2.0 psig or less for each decoking event; or
(ii) A vessel temperature of 218 degrees Fahrenheit or less for each decoking event.
(b) * * *
(5) The output of the pressure monitoring system must be reviewed each day the unit is operated to ensure that the pressure readings fluctuate as expected between operating and cooling/decoking cycles to verify the pressure taps are not plugged. Plugged pressure taps must be unplugged or otherwise repaired prior to the next operating cycle.
(e) The owner or operator of a delayed coking unit using the “water overflow” method of coke cooling prior to complying with the applicable requirements in paragraph (a) of this section must overflow the water to a separator or similar disengaging device that is operated in a manner to prevent entrainment of gases from the coke drum vessel to the overflow water storage tank. Gases from the separator or disengaging device must be routed to a closed blowdown system or otherwise controlled following the requirements for a Group 1 miscellaneous process vent. The liquid from the separator or disengaging device must be hardpiped to the overflow water storage tank or similarly transported to prevent exposure of the overflow water to the atmosphere. The overflow water storage tank may be an open or uncontrolled fixed-roof tank provided that a submerged fill pipe (pipe outlet below existing liquid level in the tank) is used to transfer overflow water to the tank. The owner or operator of a delayed coking unit using the “water overflow” method of coke cooling subject to this paragraph shall determine the coke drum vessel temperature as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section and shall not otherwise drain or vent the coke drum until the coke drum vessel temperature is at or below the applicable limits in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) or (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
(c) * * *
(1) As it pertains to this subpart, known sources of VOCs, as used in Section 8.2.1.3 in Method 325A of appendix A of this part for siting passive monitors, means a wastewater treatment unit, process unit, or any emission source requiring control according to the requirements of this subpart, including marine vessel loading operations. For marine vessel loading operations, one passive monitor should be sited on the shoreline adjacent to the dock. For this subpart, an additional monitor is not required if the only emission sources within 50 meters of the monitoring boundary are equipment leak sources satisfying all of the conditions in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) The equipment leak sources in organic HAP service within 50 meters of the monitoring boundary are limited to valves, pumps, connectors, sampling connections, and open-ended lines. If compressors, pressure relief devices, or agitators in organic HAP service are present within 50 meters of the monitoring boundary, the additional passive monitoring location specified in Section 8.2.1.3 in Method 325A of appendix A of this part must be used.
(ii) All equipment leak sources in gas or light liquid service (and in organic HAP service), including valves, pumps, connectors, sampling connections and open-ended lines, must be monitored using EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 no less frequently than quarterly with no provisions for skip period monitoring, or according to the provisions of 63.11(c) Alternative Work practice for monitoring equipment for leaks. For the purpose of this provision, a leak is detected if the instrument reading equals or exceeds the applicable limits in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section:
(A) For valves, pumps or connectors at an existing source, an instrument reading of 10,000 ppmv.
(B) For valves or connectors at a new source, an instrument reading of 500 ppmv.
(C) For pumps at a new source, an instrument reading of 2,000 ppmv.
(D) For sampling connections or open-ended lines, an instrument reading of 500 ppmv above background.
(E) For equipment monitored according to the Alternative Work practice for monitoring equipment for leaks, the leak definitions contained in 63.11 (c) (6)(i) through (iii).
(iii) All equipment leak sources in organic HAP service, including sources in gas, light liquid and heavy liquid service, must be inspected using visual, audible, olfactory, or any other detection method at least monthly. A leak is detected if the inspection identifies a potential leak to the atmosphere or if there are indications of liquids dripping.
(iv) All leaks identified by the monitoring or inspections specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this section must be repaired no later than 15 calendar days after it is detected with no provisions for delay of repair. If a repair is not completed within 15 calendar days, the additional passive monitor specified in Section 8.2.1.3 in Method 325A of appendix A of this part must be used.
(2) The owner or operator may collect one or more background samples if the owner or operator believes that an offsite upwind source or an onsite source excluded under § 63.640(g) may influence the sampler measurements. If the owner or operator elects to collect one or more background samples, the owner or operator must develop and submit a site-specific monitoring plan for approval according to the requirements in paragraph (i) of this section. Upon approval of the site-specific monitoring plan, the background sampler(s) should be operated co-currently with the routine samplers.
(3) If there are 19 or fewer monitoring locations, the owner or operator shall
(d) * * *
(1) If a near-field source correction is used as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section or if an alternative test method is used that provides time-resolved measurements, the owner or operator shall:
(2) For cases other than those specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the owner or operator shall collect and record sampling period average temperature and barometric pressure using either an on-site meteorological station in accordance with Section 8.3.1 through 8.3.3 of Method 325A of appendix A of this part or, alternatively, using data from a United States Weather Service (USWS) meteorological station provided the USWS meteorological station is within 40 kilometers (25 miles) of the refinery.
(e) The owner or operator shall use a sampling period and sampling frequency as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(3) * * *
(iv) If every sample at a monitoring site that is monitored at the frequency specified in paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this section is at or below 0.9 µg/m
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Except when near-field source correction is used as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, the owner or operator shall determine the highest and lowest sample results for benzene concentrations from the sample pool and calculate Δc as the difference in these concentrations. Co-located samples must be averaged together for the purposes of determining the benzene concentration for that sampling location, and, if applicable, for determining Δc. The owner or operator shall adhere to the following procedures when one or more samples for the sampling period are below the method detection limit for benzene:
(B) If all sample results are below the method detection limit, the owner or operator shall use the method detection limit as the highest sample result and zero as the lowest sample result when calculating Δc.
On and after the applicable compliance date for a Group 1 storage vessel located at a new or existing source as specified in § 63.640(h), the owner or operator of a Group 1 storage vessel storing liquid with a maximum true vapor pressure less than 76.6 kilopascals (11.0 pounds per square inch) that is part of a new or existing source shall comply with either the requirements in subpart WW or SS of this part according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section and the owner or operator of a Group 1 storage vessel storing liquid with a maximum true vapor pressure greater than or equal to 76.6 kilopascals (11.0 pounds per square inch) that is part of a new or existing source shall comply with the requirements in subpart SS of this part according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section.
(b) A floating roof storage vessel complying with the requirements of subpart WW of this part may comply with the control option specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and, if equipped with a ladder having at least one slotted leg, shall comply with one of the control options as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. If the floating roof storage vessel does not meet the requirements of § 63.1063(a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(viii) as of June 30, 2014, these requirements do not apply until the next time the vessel is completely emptied and degassed, or January 30, 2026, whichever occurs first.
(1) In addition to the options presented in §§ 63.1063(a)(2)(viii)(A) and (B) and 63.1064, a floating roof storage vessel may comply with § 63.1063(a)(2)(viii) using a flexible enclosure device and either a gasketed or welded cap on the top of the guidepole.
(e) For storage vessels previously subject to requirements in § 63.646, initial inspection requirements in § 63.1063(c)(1) and (2)(i) (
(i) * * *
(2) If a closed vent system contains a bypass line, the owner or operator shall comply with the provisions of either § 63.983(a)(3)(i) or (ii) for each closed vent system that contains bypass lines that could divert a vent stream either directly to the atmosphere or to a control device that does not comply with the requirements in subpart SS of this part. Except as provided in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, use of the bypass at any time to divert a Group 1 storage vessel either directly to the atmosphere or to a control device that does not comply with the requirements in subpart SS of this part is an emissions standards violation. Equipment such as low leg drains and equipment subject to § 63.648 are not subject to this paragraph (i)(2).
(f)
(1) If the only assist air provided to a specific flare is perimeter assist air intentionally entrained in lower and upper steam at the flare tip and the flare tip diameter is 9 inches or greater, the owner or operator shall comply only with the NHV
(2) Reserved.
(h)
(1) At least once per day for each day regulated material is routed to the flare, conduct visible emissions observations using an observation period of 5 minutes using Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. If at any time the owner or operator sees visible emissions while regulated material is routed to the flare, even if the minimum required daily visible emission monitoring has already been performed, the owner or operator shall immediately begin an observation period of 5 minutes using Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. If visible emissions are observed for more than one continuous minute during any 5-minute observation period, the observation period using Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 must be extended to 2 hours or until 5-minutes of visible emissions are observed. Daily 5-minute Method 22 observations are not required to be conducted for days the flare does not receive any regulated material.
(i)
(5) Continuously monitoring fan speed or power and using fan curves is an acceptable method for continuously monitoring assist air flow rates.
(6) For perimeter assist air intentionally entrained in lower and upper steam, the monitored steam flow rate and the maximum design air-to-steam volumetric flow ratio of the entrainment system may be used to determine the assist air flow rate.
(j) * * *
(6) Direct compositional or net heating value monitoring is not required for gas streams that have been demonstrated to have consistent composition (or a fixed minimum net heating value) according to the methods in paragraphs (j)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(k) * * *
(3) * * *
Q
(m) * * *
(2) Owners or operators of flares that use the feed-forward calculation methodology in paragraph (l)(5)(i) of this section and that monitor gas composition or net heating value in a location representative of the cumulative vent gas stream and that directly monitor flare supplemental gas flow additions to the flare must determine the 15-minute block average NHV
Q
Q
NHV
(n) * * *
(2) Owners or operators of flares that use the feed-forward calculation methodology in paragraph (l)(5)(i) of this section and that monitor gas composition or net heating value in a location representative of the cumulative vent gas stream and that directly monitor flare supplemental gas flow additions to the flare must determine the 15-minute block average NHV
Q
Q
NHV
(o)
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Implementation of prevention measures listed for pressure relief devices in § 63.648(j)(3)(ii)(A) through (E) for each pressure relief device that can discharge to the flare.
(iii) * * *
(B) The smokeless capacity of the flare based on a 15-minute block average and design conditions. Note: A single value must be provided for the smokeless capacity of the flare.
(3) * * *
(i) The vent gas flow rate exceeds the smokeless capacity of the flare based on a 15-minute block average and visible emissions are present from the flare for more than 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours during the release event.
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) If you elect Option 3 in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section, the Ni lb/hr emission limit, compute your Ni emission rate using Equation 5 of this section and your site-specific Ni operating limit (if you use a continuous opacity monitoring system) using Equations 6 and 7 of this section as follows: * * *
(c) * * *
(3) If you use a continuous opacity monitoring system and elect to comply with Option 3 in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section, determine continuous compliance with your site-specific Ni operating limit by using Equation 11 of this section as follows: * * *
(4) If you use a continuous opacity monitoring system and elect to comply with Option 4 in paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of this section, determine continuous compliance with your site-specific Ni operating limit by using Equation 12 of this section as follows: * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) Calculating the inlet velocity to the primary internal cyclones in feet per second (ft/sec) by dividing the average volumetric flow rate (acfm) by the cumulative cross-sectional area of the primary internal cyclone inlets (ft
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) You can elect to maintain the oxygen (O
(c) * * *
(2) Demonstrate continuous compliance with the work practice standard in paragraph (a)(3) of this section by complying with the procedures in your operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(a)
(5)
(6)
(d) * * *
(1) If you must meet the HAP metal emission limitations in § 63.1564, you elect the option in paragraph (a)(1)(v) in § 63.1564 (Ni lb/hr), and you use continuous parameter monitoring systems, you must establish an operating limit for the equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration based on the laboratory analysis of the equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration from the initial performance test. Section 63.1564(b)(2) allows you to adjust the laboratory measurements of the equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration to the maximum level. You must make this adjustment using Equation 1 of this section as follows: * * *
(2) If you must meet the HAP metal emission limitations in § 63.1564, you elect the option in paragraph (a)(1)(vi) in § 63.1564 (Ni per coke burn-off), and you use continuous parameter monitoring systems, you must establish an operating limit for the equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration based on the laboratory analysis of the equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration from the initial performance test. Section 63.1564(b)(2) allows you to adjust the laboratory measurements of the equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration to the maximum level. You must make this adjustment using Equation 2 of this section as follows: * * *
(c) * * *
(1) You must install, operate, and maintain each continuous parameter monitoring system according to the requirements in Table 41 of this subpart. You must also meet the equipment specifications in Table 41 of this subpart if pH strips or colormetric tube sampling systems are used. You must meet the requirements in Table 41 of this subpart for BLD systems. Alternatively, before August 1, 2017, you may install, operate, and maintain each continuous parameter monitoring system in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's specifications or other written procedures that provide adequate assurance that the equipment will monitor accurately.
(d) * * *
(1) Except for monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including as applicable, calibration checks and required zero
(a)
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) For each initial compliance demonstration that includes a performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance status no later than 150 calendar days after the compliance date specified for your affected source in § 63.1563. For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website (
(f) * * *
(1) A copy of any performance test or performance evaluation of a CMS done during the reporting period on any affected unit, if applicable. The report must be included in the next semiannual compliance report. The copy must include a complete report for each test method used for a particular kind of emission point tested. For additional tests performed for a similar emission point using the same method, you must submit the results and any other information required, but a complete test report is not required. A complete test report contains a brief process description; a simplified flow diagram showing affected processes, control equipment, and sampling point locations; sampling site data; description of sampling and analysis procedures and any modifications to standard procedures; quality assurance procedures; record of operating conditions during the test; record of preparation of standards; record of calibrations; raw data sheets for field sampling; raw data sheets for field and laboratory analyses; documentation of calculations; and any other information required by the test method. For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website (
(k) * * *
(1) Unless otherwise specified by this subpart, within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test as required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance tests following the procedure specified in either paragraph (k)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(2) Unless otherwise specified by this subpart, within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS performance evaluation required by § 63.1571(a) and (b), you must submit the results of the performance evaluation following the procedure specified in either paragraph (k)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(l)
(2) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Record the date, time, and duration of each startup and/or shutdown period for which the facility elected to comply with the alternative standards in § 63.1564(a)(5)(ii) or § 63.1565(a)(5)(ii) or § 63.1568(a)(4)(ii) or (iii).
| 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 |