| Page Range | 17285-17475 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 17285 - National Volunteer Week, 2018 | |
| 83 FR 17411 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17410 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17370 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 17293 - Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines | |
| 83 FR 17390 - Applications for New Awards; Education Innovation and Research Program-Early-Phase Grants | |
| 83 FR 17396 - Applications for New Awards; Education Innovation and Research Program-Mid-Phase Grants | |
| 83 FR 17381 - Applications for New Awards; Education Innovation and Research Program-Expansion Grants | |
| 83 FR 17447 - Blasting and the Use of Explosives; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork Requirements) | |
| 83 FR 17423 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Program | |
| 83 FR 17424 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Energy and Performance Information Center (EPIC) | |
| 83 FR 17419 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 17447 - Biodiesel From Argentina and Indonesia | |
| 83 FR 17295 - Security Zone; Presidential Security Zone, Palm Beach, FL | |
| 83 FR 17341 - Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone | |
| 83 FR 17412 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 17411 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 83 FR 17368 - Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 17369 - Recruitment of First Responder Network Authority Board Members | |
| 83 FR 17388 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Formula Grant EASIE Annual Performance Report | |
| 83 FR 17449 - Reports of Injuries to Employees Operating Mechanical Power Presses; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of an Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
| 83 FR 17445 - Honey From China | |
| 83 FR 17430 - HEARTH Act Approval of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin's Regulation | |
| 83 FR 17376 - Arms Sales Notification | |
| 83 FR 17474 - Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation, Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17472 - Pipeline Safety: Meeting of the Voluntary Information-Sharing System Working Group | |
| 83 FR 17379 - Arms Sales Notification | |
| 83 FR 17410 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate Receiverships | |
| 83 FR 17389 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application for the U.S. Presidential Scholars Program | |
| 83 FR 17406 - Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 17372 - Arms Sales Notification | |
| 83 FR 17405 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension Grants Funding Opportunity for FY 2011 and FY 2012 Promise Neighborhoods Implementation Grantees (84.215N) | |
| 83 FR 17314 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Scup Fishery; Framework Adjustment 12 | |
| 83 FR 17336 - Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone. | |
| 83 FR 17371 - Environmental Impact Statement for Area Development Plan, Davison Army Airfield, Fort Belvoir, VA | |
| 83 FR 17294 - The Freedom of Information Act Program | |
| 83 FR 17446 - Utility Scale Wind Towers From China and Vietnam; Notice of Commission Determination To Conduct Full Five-Year Reviews | |
| 83 FR 17404 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Fiscal Operations Report for 2017-2018 and Application To Participate 2019-2020 (FISAP) and Reallocation Form | |
| 83 FR 17474 - Credit for Renewable Electricity Production and Refined Coal Production, and Publication of Inflation Adjustment Factor and Reference Prices for Calendar Year 2018 | |
| 83 FR 17420 - Metered Dose Inhaler and Dry Powder Inhaler Drug Products-Quality Considerations; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 17371 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Tinian Divert Infrastructure Improvements, Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands | |
| 83 FR 17364 - Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Intent To Revoke Antidumping Duty Orders in Part | |
| 83 FR 17425 - U.S. Endangered Species; Recovery Permit Applications | |
| 83 FR 17367 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Coastal Ocean Program Grants Proposal Application Package | |
| 83 FR 17366 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Marine Technology and Services Enterprise Impact and Utilization Survey Sponsored by the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System | |
| 83 FR 17368 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; West Coast Limited Entry Groundfish Fixed Gear Economic Data Collection | |
| 83 FR 17333 - Special Local Regulation; Monongahela, Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers, Pittsburgh PA | |
| 83 FR 17450 - Program-Specific Guidance About Irradiator Licenses and Program-Specific Guidance About Academic, Research and Development, and Other Licenses of Limited Scope, Including Electron Capture Devices and X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzers | |
| 83 FR 17429 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey | |
| 83 FR 17428 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Hunting and Fishing Application Forms and Activity Reports for National Wildlife Refuges | |
| 83 FR 17411 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 83 FR 17426 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Horseshoe Crab and Cooperative Fish Tagging Programs | |
| 83 FR 17440 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman, OK | |
| 83 FR 17442 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA | |
| 83 FR 17436 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
| 83 FR 17439 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
| 83 FR 17438 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
| 83 FR 17432 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
| 83 FR 17443 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
| 83 FR 17444 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
| 83 FR 17441 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
| 83 FR 17433 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
| 83 FR 17435 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
| 83 FR 17431 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI | |
| 83 FR 17421 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17421 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17409 - Notice of Staff Attendance at The Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Regional Entity Trustee, Regional State Committee, Members Committee, and Board of Directors Meetings | |
| 83 FR 17408 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 17408 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 83 FR 17412 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 83 FR 17414 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 83 FR 17417 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 83 FR 17418 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 83 FR 17422 - Revision of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Crew Member Self-Defense Training-Registration and Evaluation | |
| 83 FR 17422 - Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Law Enforcement Officers Flying Armed Training | |
| 83 FR 17446 - Clad Steel Plate From Japan; Notice of Commission Determination To Conduct a Full Five-Year Review | |
| 83 FR 17359 - Wayne National Forest: Athens, Gallia, Hocking, Jackson, Lawrence, Monroe, Morgan, Noble, Perry, Scioto, Vinton and Washington Counties; Ohio; Assessment Report of Ecological, Social and Economic Conditions, Trends and Sustainability for the Wayne National Forest | |
| 83 FR 17451 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Codify Within Rule 718 the Data Feeds on ISE | |
| 83 FR 17457 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Codify Within Rule 718 the Data Feeds on GEMX | |
| 83 FR 17459 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Data Feeds Offered to MRX Members | |
| 83 FR 17467 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.190(g) To Incrementally Optimize and Enhance the Effectiveness of the Quote Instability Calculation in Determining Whether a Crumbling Quote Exists | |
| 83 FR 17461 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Correct a Typographical Error Within Chapter VI, Section 9 of the BX Rules | |
| 83 FR 17462 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade, Under Nasdaq Rule 5705, the Shares of the Horizons Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF | |
| 83 FR 17454 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Transaction Fees at Rule 7018 | |
| 83 FR 17300 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Framework Adjustment 29 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan | |
| 83 FR 17406 - Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P.: Application To Amend Long-Term, Conditional Authorization To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Nations and To Amend Application for Long-Term Authorization To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Nations | |
| 83 FR 17451 - New Postal Product | |
| 83 FR 17415 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 83 FR 17473 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment; Qualified Severance of a Trust for Generation-Skipping Transfer (GST) Tax Purposes | |
| 83 FR 17287 - Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act: Maximum and Minimum Compensation Rates | |
| 83 FR 17360 - Certain Aluminum Foil From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order | |
| 83 FR 17362 - Certain Aluminum Foil From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 83 FR 17329 - Controlled Substances Quotas | |
| 83 FR 17349 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Attainment Demonstration for the St. Bernard Parish 2010 SO2 | |
| 83 FR 17317 - Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory Capital, Enhanced Supplementary Leverage Ratio Standards for U.S. Global Systemically Important Bank Holding Companies and Certain of Their Subsidiary Insured Depository Institutions; Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity Requirements for U.S. Global Systemically Important Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 17327 - Proposed Amendment of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes in the Vicinity of Chicago, IL | |
| 83 FR 17299 - Updating the Code of Federal Regulations |
Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Air Force Department
Army Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Labor.
Final rule.
This final rule contains regulations implementing the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act's provisions on maximum and minimum amounts of compensation payable. These regulations clarify how the Department interprets and applies these provisions in accordance with several court decisions to ensure injured workers are compensated properly and insurers and employers are aware of their responsibilities. In addition, the rule implements the Act's annual compensation-adjustment mechanism for permanent total disability compensation and death benefits.
This rule is effective May 21, 2018.
Douglas Fitzgerald, Director, Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 202-354-9620 (this is not a toll-free number),
On August 26, 2016, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901
As explained in the NPRM, 81 FR 58878-79, the LHWCA establishes a federal workers' compensation system for an employee's disability or death arising in the course of covered maritime employment. 33 U.S.C. 903(a), 908, 909. LHWCA compensation is generally based on the employee's average weekly wages at the time of his or her disabling injury or death. 33 U.S.C. 910. Section 6 of the Act caps compensation at a maximum of twice the applicable fiscal year's national average weekly wage (NAWW). 33 U.S.C. 906(b)(1). Section 6 also establishes a minimum below which compensation may not fall. The minimum rate is the lower of fifty percent of the NAWW or the employee's actual average weekly wages. 33 U.S.C. 906(b)(2). The Secretary of Labor determines the NAWW for each fiscal year, and that determination applies to employees or survivors “currently receiving” compensation for permanent total disability or death, as well as those “newly awarded” compensation of any type, including for partial and temporary disability. 33 U.S.C. 906(b)(3), (c).
In addition to the provisions in section 6 that allow for adjustments to the maximum and minimum compensation rates based on the NAWW, section 10(f) of the Act provides another mechanism for adjusting compensation amounts so that their value is not eroded over time. Benefits payable for permanent total disability or death are increased at the beginning of each fiscal year by the same percentage as any increase in the NAWW, but no more than five percent per year. 33 U.S.C. 910(f). Section 10(f) applies to all claimants receiving compensation for permanent total disability or death, while section 6 applies only to those whose compensation is affected by the maximum or minimum rates.
The Department proposed rules to implement the minimum and maximum compensation rate provisions of section 6(c), specifically clarifying which maximum compensation rates apply to any particular injury under the section's “newly awarded” and “currently receiving” clauses, and relatedly, how the Act's minimum compensation provisions apply. Additionally, the proposed rules implement section 10(f)'s annual adjustment provision generally and address how section 10(f) integrates with section 6's maximum and minimum compensation rates.
As the NPRM discussed, these rules are primarily based on the Supreme Court's controlling decision in
The Department received only six written comments in response to the NPRM from a variety of entities in the longshore industry. The commenters included longshore employer associations, insurance-industry members, and longshore claims administrators associations. These comments are addressed in Section III below.
This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Section 39(a) of the LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. 939(a), authorizes the Secretary of Labor to prescribe rules and regulations necessary for the administration of the Act.
Most commenters provided general remarks about the rulemaking rather than comments on specific proposed regulations. Thus, rather than including a full section-by-section analysis in the discussion below, the Department's response is organized by the broader issues raised. The Department
Several commenters stated that the proposed rules addressing the application of section 6(c)'s “newly awarded” clause were unnecessary because the Supreme Court had already clearly addressed how to apply the clause in
Several commenters objected generally to the proposed rules clarifying the application of the “currently receiving” clause of section 6(c). These commenters argued that the rule is premature because the Supreme Court declined to address the application of that clause in
The Department is not required to wait for an issue to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court or any other court before it can promulgate regulations to administer the LHWCA. Indeed, litigation often demonstrates the need for an agency regulation.
Furthermore, as explained in the NPRM, the rule does not mark a change in the Director's longstanding interpretation and application of the maximum and minimum compensation provisions. 81 FR 58887. The Department has been following the Ninth Circuit's construction of the statute in its entirety since 2012, and aside from one small exception, had been following this construction since the Board's 2006 decision in
One commenter contended that the rule is inconsistent with the Benefit Review Board's approach in
The rule is also consistent with the Board's decision in
Two commenters stated that Congress did not intend the “currently receiving” clause to have any effect beyond the four-fiscal-year period after the 1972 amendments to the LHWCA, which annually increased the maximum compensation rate until it reached 200 percent of the national average weekly wage in 1975. They contended that Congress intended section 6(c) to apply only to claimants who were “currently receiving compensation for permanent total disability or death” during the four-year phase-in period.
Later statutory enactments, however, demonstrate that Congress intended to apply the “currently receiving” clause beyond the phase-in period. In 1984, Congress amended section 6 again to remove the phase-in provisions yet retained the “currently receiving” clause and reenacted it as section 6(c). If Congress had intended the outcome urged by the commenters—to have section 6(c)'s “currently receiving clause” apply only to the phase-in years—it could have drafted section 6(c) to say exactly that. Instead, Congress removed the phase-in provisions, making reference to them impossible. It nonetheless retained section 6(c) and
Several commenters stated that section 6 does not allow for the maximum compensation rate applicable to a claimant to change each year,
A few commenters expressed concern that the rule could adversely affect how an individual's average weekly wage is calculated under section 10, 33 U.S.C. 910. The Department does not intend this rule to govern the basic average weekly wage calculation necessary to determine the amount of compensation payable. As explained in the NPRM, “[t]he proposed regulations do not govern general compensation calculations.” 81 FR 58881. Instead, the maximum and minimum regulations apply only once that calculation (called the “calculated compensation rate” in the rule) is made.
Two commenters stated that the Department should limit the proposed rule's applicability to future injuries. They contended applying the new rules to currently existing matters could lead to large additional liabilities (which are not fully secured) if claimants with pending cases seek increased compensation under the new standards.
In general, an agency may apply a new regulation to existing matters when it does not change the legal landscape. Thus, a rule that “is substantively consistent with prior regulations or prior agency practices, and has been accepted by all Courts of Appeals to consider the issue,” may be applied to matters pending at the time the regulation is promulgated.
Under these principles, the Department believes it could choose to apply the rule to all matters, including those injuries, disabilities, and deaths occurring before the rule's effective date. The Department's interpretation of the “newly awarded” and “currently receiving” clauses is longstanding (since at least 1979 for the former and 2012 for the latter) and fully consistent with all Court of Appeals and Supreme Court precedent.
But given the commenters' expressed concern, the Department has decided to apply the rule only to injuries and deaths occurring after the rule's effective date and has added a clause to § 702.802(a) to make this clear. Because the current case law interpreting these provisions and the rule reach the same conclusions, the Department sees little difference in applying the rule retroactively and applying it only prospectively. The Department makes this change, however, to emphasize its intent not to upset any settled expectations the regulated parties may hold.
Despite the Department's decision on this issue, parties should be aware that existing case law construing section 6(c) still governs injuries, disabilities and deaths occurring before the rule's effective date. The Department will continue to administer claims in accordance with those precedents.
Finally, the examples in the regulations continue to use maximum and minimum compensation rates for injuries or deaths that occurred in fiscal years prior to the effective date of this rule. This is done out of necessity; the Department cannot calculate with any certainty future maximum and minimum compensation amounts because they are based on the NAWW, which is determined anew each year. The Department believes using concrete numbers from past fiscal years will better inform the regulated parties about how the regulations should be applied. Of course, because the examples apply the current state of the law, they may be instructive in calculating compensation for disabilities and deaths occurring before the rule's effective date even though not explicitly governed by the rule.
This rulemaking imposes no new collections of information.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Department has considered this rule with these principles in mind and has concluded that the regulated community will benefit from this regulation.
This rule will provide the parties with greater guidance on applying the Act's maximum and minimum compensation provisions and section 10(f) adjustments in determining the amount of disability compensation or death benefits payable. By clarifying how these provisions apply, the rule will also promote consistency so that similarly situated claimants receive similar compensation or death benefits. In addition, the rule will benefit the regulated community by forestalling further litigation over the “currently receiving” clause in cases governed by this rule. The Department also sees no countervailing burden—economic or otherwise—other than those imposed by the statute itself that would counsel against promulgating this rule.
One commenter generally stated that the Department had not fully addressed the proposed rule's financial impact on the industry or compensation claimants, noting the importance of predictability for reserving funds to cover compensation payments. The final rule sets out clear standards for applying the LHWCA's maximum and minimum compensation provisions and will thus provide the predictability the commenter seeks.
Finally, because this is not a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget waived its review.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601
For the reasons set forth in the NPRM, the Department determined that a complete regulatory flexibility analysis was not necessary, and certified that the proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 81 FR 58887. The Department invited public comment on the certification and delivered a copy of the certification to the chief counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
The Chief Counsel for Advocacy has not filed comments on the certification. Although one commenter generally stated that the Department had not quantified the economic impact on industry or the benefit to Longshore employees, the commenter provided no additional information regarding the rule's potential impact on small entities. Because the comments provide no basis for departing from its prior conclusion, the Department again certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531
The Department has reviewed this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” The rule 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 rule meets the applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Longshore and harbor workers, Maximum compensation rates, Minimum compensation rates, Workers' compensation.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Labor amends 20 CFR part 702 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, and 8171
(a) Claimants receiving compensation for permanent total disability or death benefits are entitled to section 10(f) adjustments each fiscal year. A section 10(f) adjustment cannot decrease the compensation or death benefits payable to any claimant.
(b) The section 10(f) adjustment for a given fiscal year is the lower of:
(1) The percentage by which the new fiscal year's national average weekly wage exceeds the prior fiscal year's national average weekly wage as determined by the Department (
(2) 5 percent.
(c) Section 10(f) percentage increases are applied each October 1 to the amount of compensation or death benefits payable in the prior fiscal year.
(d) In applying section 10(f) adjustments—
(1) Calculations are rounded to the nearest dollar; and
(2) No adjustment is made if the calculated amount is less than one dollar.
(e) A section 10(f) adjustment must not increase a claimant's weekly compensation or death benefits beyond the applicable fiscal year's maximum rate.
(f) Section 10(f) adjustments do not apply to compensation for temporary or partial disability.
(a) This subpart implements the Act's provisions that affect the maximum and minimum rates of compensation and death benefits payable to employees and survivors. These statutory provisions include sections 6(b) and (c), and 9(e). 33 U.S.C. 906(b), (c); 909(e). It is intended that these statutory provisions be construed as provided in this subpart.
(b) These regulations implement section 6(c), 33 U.S.C. 906(c), based on the following concepts:
(1) An employee is “newly awarded compensation” when he or she first becomes disabled due to an injury;
(2) A survivor is “newly awarded compensation” on the date the employee died; and
(3) An employee or survivor is “currently receiving compensation” when compensation for permanent total disability or death benefits is payable, regardless of when payment is actually made.
(a) This subpart applies to all compensation and death benefits paid under the Act as a result of injuries or deaths occurring on or after May 21, 2018 with the following exceptions:
(1) Amounts payable under an approved settlement (
(2) Amounts paid for an employee's death to the Special Fund (
(3) Any payments for medical expenses (
(4) Any other lump sum payment of compensation or death benefits, including aggregate death benefits paid when a survivor remarries (
(b) The rules in this subpart governing minimum disability compensation and death benefits do not apply to claims arising under the Defense Base Act, 42 U.S.C. 1651 (
The following definitions apply to this subpart:
(2) Exceptions:
(i) For scheduled permanent partial disability benefits under 33 U.S.C. 908(c)(1)-(20) that are not preceded by a permanent total, temporary total, or temporary partial disability resulting from the same injury, the date of disability is the date on which the employee first becomes permanently impaired by the injury to the scheduled member.
(ii) For an occupational disease that does not immediately result in disability, the date of disability is the date on which the employee becomes aware, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence or by reason of medical advice should have been aware, of the relationship between his or her employment, the disease, and the disability.
(iii) For any disability lasting 14 or fewer days, the date of disability is 4 days after the date on which the employee first became incapable, because of an injury, of earning the same wages the employee was receiving at the time of the injury.
(a) For each fiscal year, the Department must determine a weekly maximum and minimum compensation rate. These amounts are called the maximum and minimum rates in this subchapter. In combination with other factors, these rates are used to determine compensation payments under the Act.
(b) The maximum compensation rate in effect for a given fiscal year is 200% of the national average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private, nonagricultural payrolls, as calculated by the Department, for the first three quarters of the preceding fiscal year.
(c) The minimum compensation rate in effect for a given fiscal year is 50% of the national average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private, nonagricultural payrolls, as calculated by the Department, for the first three quarters of the preceding fiscal year.
(a) The maximum rate in effect on the date of disability applies to all compensation payable for permanent partial disability, temporary partial disability, and temporary total disability.
(b) Examples:
(1) Employee
(2) Employee
(3) Employee
(a) The maximum rate in effect on the date that the employee became totally and permanently disabled applies to all compensation payable for permanent total disability during that fiscal year.
(b) For all periods the employee is permanently and totally disabled in subsequent fiscal years, the weekly compensation payable is subject to each subsequent year's maximum rate.
(c) If a claimant is receiving compensation for permanent total disability at the maximum rate for the current fiscal year, but the next fiscal year's maximum rate will be higher than the claimant's calculated compensation rate, the claimant's compensation for the next fiscal year will increase by the amount of the 10(f) adjustment, subject to the maximum rate for the next fiscal year.
(d) Examples:
(1) Employee
(2) Employee
(3) Employee
(a) The maximum rate in effect on the date that the employee died applies to all death benefits payable during that fiscal year.
(b) Aggregate weekly death benefits paid to all eligible survivors during the fiscal year in which the employee died must not exceed the lower of—
(1) The maximum rate for that fiscal year; or
(2) The employee's average weekly wages.
(c) For subsequent fiscal years—
(1) Aggregate weekly death benefits paid during each subsequent fiscal year are subject to each subsequent year's maximum rate.
(2) If death benefits were paid in the first year at the employee's full average weekly wage under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the aggregate weekly death benefits paid for each subsequent year may not exceed the current benefit rate plus the subsequent year's section 10(f) adjustment (
(d) Post-retirement occupational diseases: Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, if an employee's death results from an occupational disease where the date of disability occurred after the employee voluntarily retired—
(1) Aggregate weekly death benefits paid to all eligible survivors during the fiscal year in which the employee died must not exceed the lower of:
(i) The maximum rate for that fiscal year; or
(ii) One fifty-second part of the employee's average annual earnings during the 52-week period preceding retirement.
(2) For subsequent fiscal years—
(i) Aggregate weekly death benefits paid during each subsequent fiscal year are subject to each subsequent year's maximum rate.
(ii) If death benefits were paid in the first year at 1/52 part of the employee's average annual earnings prior to retirement under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, the aggregate weekly death benefits paid for each subsequent year may not exceed the current benefit rate plus the subsequent year's section 10(f) adjustment (
(e) Examples:
(1) Employee
(2) Employee
(3) Employee
There is no minimum rate for compensation paid for partial disability, whether temporary or permanent.
(a) The minimum compensation payable for temporary total disability is the lower of:
(1) The minimum rate in effect on the date of disability, or
(2) The employee's average weekly wage on the date of disability.
(b) Example: Employee
(a) The weekly minimum compensation payable for the fiscal year in which the employee became permanently and totally disabled is the lower of:
(1) The minimum rate in effect on the date of disability, or
(2) The employee's average weekly wage on the date of disability.
(b) For all periods the employee is permanently and totally disabled in subsequent fiscal years, the weekly minimum compensation payable is the lower of:
(1) Each subsequent fiscal year's minimum rate, or
(2) The employee's average weekly wage on the date of disability.
(c) Example: Employee
(a) The average weekly wage used to compute death benefits is the greater of—
(1) The deceased employee's average weekly wages; or
(2) The national average weekly wage in effect at the time of the employee's death.
(b) The weekly minimum rate does not apply to death benefits.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Announcement of public meetings.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is announcing the dates and locations of additional public stakeholder meetings on the Agency's standards for Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines.
The meeting dates and locations are listed in the
Sheila A. McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
On April 9, 2018, MSHA published a document (83 FR 15055) announcing six stakeholder meetings. To expand stakeholder outreach, MSHA has scheduled another meeting in Seattle, Washington and two video teleconference (VTC) meetings to be broadcast to seven local offices from MSHA headquarters in Arlington, VA. For the convenience of the public, the complete list of stakeholder meetings is included in this document.
Interested participants may attend these meetings in-person at MSHA's Headquarters in Arlington, VA or by participating by VTC at one of our seven local offices around the country (See table below).
(1) To participate in Arlington, VA:
• Send an email to
• Address—201 12th Street South, 4th Floor Conference Space in Room 4C304, in Arlington, VA 22202.
• When you enter the building, take the elevators to your right up to the 4th floor East reception area to check in. You will then be escorted to room 4C304.
• Nearest metro stations: Pentagon, Pentagon City, Crystal City. Parking is available on the street and in the building.
(2) To participate by VTC at one of the seven local offices, send an email to
On January 23, 2017, MSHA published a final rule (January 2017 rule) amending the standards then in effect on examinations of working places in metal and nonmetal mines, 30 CFR 56.18002 and 57.18002 (82 FR 7680). The January 2017 final rule, which was scheduled to become effective on May 23, 2017, was stayed until June 2, 2018 (82 FR 46411). On September 12, 2017, MSHA published a proposed rule that would make limited changes to the January 2017 final rule (82 FR 42765). The final rule, published April 9, 2018 (83 FR 15055), is effective on June 2, 2018.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Final rule.
This final rule removes the Department of the Army's regulation concerning the Freedom of Information Act program. On February 6, 2018, the
This rule is effective on April 19, 2018.
Alecia Bolling at 703-428-6081.
It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing Army's internal policies and procedures that are publically available on the Army's website.
The Department of the Army's internal guidance concerning the implementation of the FOIA within the Department of the Army will continue to be published in Army Regulation 25-55 (available at
This rule is one of 14 separate DoD FOIA rules. With the finalization of the DoD-level FOIA rule at 32 CFR part 286, the Department is eliminating the need for this separate FOIA rule and reducing costs to the public as explained in the preamble of the DoD-level FOIA rule published at 83 FR 5196-5197.
This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” therefore, E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” does not apply.
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a security zone that encompasses certain waters of the Lake Worth Lagoon, Intracoastal Waterway, and Atlantic Ocean near the Mar-A-Lago Club and the Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach, Florida (FL). The Coast Guard will only enforce this rule when the President of the United States, members of the First Family, or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service are present or expected to be present. This action is necessary to protect the official party, public, and surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature.
This rule is effective May 21, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble go to:
If you have questions on this rule, call or email, Petty Officer Mara Brown, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-535-4317, email
Through this final rule, the United States Coast Guard is establishing a security zone that encompasses certain waters of the Lake Worth Lagoon, the Intracoastal Waterway, and the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of the Mar-a-Lago Club and the Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach, FL. The security zone is necessary to protect the official party, the public, and the surrounding waterway from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature. The Coast Guard will only enforce the security zone when the President of the United States, members of the First Family, or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service are present or expected to be present. On June 20, 2017, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, “Security Zone; Presidential Security Zone, Palm Beach, FL” in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP Miami has determined the security zone is necessary to protect the official party, public, and surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the security of vessels and navigable waters during visits to the Mar-a-Lago Club by the President, the First Family, and other persons under the protection of the Secret Service.
The Coast Guard received sixteen submissions from the public consisting of twenty-two separate comments in response to the proposed rule. The total number of comments exceeds the number of submissions because many commenters expressed their views about more than one aspect of the proposed rule. All the comments we received were from private citizens and are discussed below.
Six commenters endorsed the Coast Guard's proposal, but some of these commenters had questions or concerns that we will discuss individually below.
Three commenters expressed opposition to the proposed rule. One of these commenters expressed opposition to any waterway restrictions. We note this opposition. The two other commenters expressed concern that the restrictions on boaters would be
Three commenters had regulatory-related questions. Two questions were of a similar nature, involving public notification. One of these commenters suggested the Coast Guard notify each affected property owner prior to activating the security zone. The other commenter asked if signs advising the public of the security zone would be placed on a nearby bridge and surrounding area. The Coast Guard considered these comments and will amend the final rule's regulatory text in section 165.785(d) to advise the public that it will rely on our notification methods described in 33 CFR 165.7 to notify the local community prior to activating the security zone.
Four submissions were related to the restrictions being placed on boater activities, including non-motorized boats such as kayaks, canoes, and paddleboards. These comments ranged from concerns the security zone would affect the pleasure of boating to concerns that residents would not be allowed to use their boats at all. They also expressed concerns that they would not be able to return to their waterfront homes when the security zone was activated. The east or west security zones do not prohibit boaters from travelling through these zones; they merely regulate how boaters may transit through these areas. The west zone requires persons and vessels seeking to travel through this zone to be escorted by an on-scene designated representative, maintain a steady speed, and not slow down or stop except in the case of unforeseen mechanical failure or other emergency. The east zone does not require an escort, but requires persons and vessels seeking to travel through this zone to travel at a steady speed, and not slow down or stop except in the case of unforeseen mechanical failure or other emergency. The center zone is the only zone that prohibits any vessel or person from entering, transiting, anchoring in, or remaining within the zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Miami or a designated representative, while the security zone is in effect. Boaters wishing to return home through the center zone when this zone is in effect will have to notify on-scene law enforcement units who will then escort them back to their dock.
In addition, the commenters advocated for allowing non-motorized boats to come within 50 feet of the Mar-a-Lago Club, which is adjacent to the center zone. As stated above, boats are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring in, or remaining in the center zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Miami or a designated representative. Allowing pleasure boats to enter this zone for recreational purposes while the security zone is in effect would reduce the effectiveness of this zone as a protective measure.
One commenter expressed concerns that the rule would affect businesses in the area, which heavily rely on tourist dollars, especially during the peak autumn months. The commenter added one of the primary attractions to Florida is the boating and fishing industries and the creation of the security zone would discourage tourists from visiting the area, and as a result, local businesses would lose revenue. We believe businesses that rely on tourism will not be affected by this rule because these businesses will be allowed to continue to conduct their business practices as they normally would even when the security zone is in effect.
Another commenter sought clarification on why the proposed rule would not adversely affect the economy, and why making this a permanent rule that would be enforced using government resources is required or provides a cost benefit to the public in lieu of the “temporary security zones” referenced in the NPRM at Section II, “Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis.” The rule will not have an adverse effect on the economy because this rule will not 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. For further information on the economic analysis of this rule, see sections V.A. and V.B. of this final rule below. The security zone established by this rule would not be in effect all the time, but only during visits by the President, the First Family, and other persons under the protection of the Secret Service to the Mar-a-Lago Club. The Coast Guard conducted a cost-benefit analysis of this regulatory action, and determined creating a permanent security zone was the best approach to achieve our regulatory objectives because of the recurring need for the zone for an extended period of time. Establishing a permanent security zone allows the public and potentially affected persons to establish certainty about expected protection measures during such visits.
One comment addressed concerns with the public's ability to protest from their boats. The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Any persons wishing to protest in a location affected by this rule should contact the person listed in the
Another commenter stated the way in which armed on-scene Coast Guard personnel speed toward boaters is unnecessary and intimidating. The commenter added that approaching boaters in this manner tends to make the boater stop, but the proposed rule states that boaters should not stop or they will be considered a threat. The purpose of the security zone is to protect the official party, the public, and the surrounding waterway from terroristic acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature. As such, the Coast Guard must adhere to certain protocols in the course of enforcing the security zone. On-scene Coast Guard units are following established protocols that include
One commenter requested the Coast Guard establish a safety zone, in addition to a security zone, in the waters around the Mar-a-Lago Club, and suggested this could easily be done by placing floating buoys in the safety zone area advising boaters that the area is inaccessible. The commenter is concerned that dredging would occur around the Mar-a-Lago Club, which would allow boaters to anchor their vessels unattended within the area covered by the security zone, and then when the security zone goes into effect there would be no place to put these vessels. The waters around the Mar-a-Lago Club are not deep enough for boaters to anchor their vessels nor has there been an issue with boaters attempting to anchor their vessels in the waters around the Mar-a-Lago Club. The Coast Guard has determined a security zone is sufficient to mitigate any potential security threats presented while protected persons are in the residence at the Mar-a-Lago Club.
We received one comment suggesting that the Coast Guard's protection of the waters near the Mar-A-Lago Club should be tied to the Coast Guard's budget. This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
This rule contains changes in the regulatory text from the NPRM. We found the coordinates defining the east security zone (section 165.785(a)(3)) to be incorrect. The incorrect coordinates extended the east security zone further offshore than intended. The regulatory text in this rule contains the corrected coordinates. The revised coordinates for the east zone are: All waters of the Atlantic Ocean within the following points: Beginning at Point 1 in position 26°41′21″ N, 80°02′01″ W; thence south following the shoreline to Point 2 in position 26°39′57″ N, 80°2′09″ W; thence east to Point 3 in position 26°39′57″ N, 80°01′36″ W; thence north to Point 4 in position 26°41′22″ N, 80°01′29″ W, thence back to the origin at Point 1.
In 33 CFR 165.785(a)(1)-(a)(3), the words “surface to bottom” are added to clarify the extent of the intended coverage of the security zone.
In response to public comments we have revised the regulatory text in section 165.785(d) to provide for additional public outreach information not listed in the NPRM. The Coast Guard will notify the local community of the security zone in several ways consistent with our notification regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.7. Prior to activating the security zone, the Coast Guard will send a MSIB that contains a map of the security zone and description of the regulation to a local marine industry group who will circulate the MSIB among local marinas and local boating clubs. In addition, on-scene Coast Guard units will distribute MSIBs to approaching boaters. The Coast Guard will also issue a press release to local news outlets, and post the information on social media and on its news website at:
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss the First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The security zone will only be enforced when the President of the United States, members of the First Family, or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service are present or expected to be present; (2) The center zone will only affect a relatively small area of the Intracoastal Waterway in Palm Beach, FL and vessels will be able to transit the zone if granted permission to do so by the COTP Miami or a designated representative; (3) The west zone is located in an area of the Intracoastal Waterway where vessel traffic is low, approximately 152 vessels per day, and vessels will be allowed to transit the zone when escorted by an on-scene designated representative; (4) Vessels may transit the east zone at a steady speed as long as they do not slow down or stop except in case of unforeseen mechanical failure or other emergency; and (5) The Coast Guard will notify the local community of the security zone in several ways consistent with our notification regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.7. Prior to activating the security zone, the Coast Guard will send a Maritime Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB) that contains a map of the security zone and description of the regulation to a local marine industry group who will circulate the MSIB among local marinas and local boating clubs. In addition, on-scene Coast Guard units will distribute MSIBs to approaching boaters. The Coast Guard will also issue a press release to local news outlets, and post the information on social media and on its news website at:
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the security zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule does not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a security zone lasting only a few days at a time that will restrict entry within certain waters of the Intracoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean in Palm Beach, FL. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01, and under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(d)
Surface Transportation Board.
Final rules.
The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is updating its regulations to replace certain obsolete or incorrect references in the regulations.
This rule is effective May 19, 2018.
Sarah Fancher: (202) 245-0355. Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: (800) 877-8339.
In this decision, the Board is revising, correcting, and updating its regulations in 49 CFR ch. X.
This decision makes the following changes to the Board's regulations:
• Eliminates or changes obsolete agency and/or office titles (
• corrects obsolete contact information (
• corrects references to United States Code or Code of Federal Regulations sections that have been moved or are otherwise incorrect (
• provides that appeals under 49 CFR 1244.9 must be filed with the Board (49 CFR 1244.9(d)(4)(iii)); and
• eliminates other obsolete or unnecessary material (
Because these revisions are not substantive and/or relate to rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice, the Board finds good cause that notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) are unnecessary. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) & (B).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the Board has determined that notice and comment are not required under the APA for this rulemaking, the requirements of the RFA do not apply.
These final rules do not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Environmental impact statements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Freight forwarders, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Railroads, Uniform System of Accounts.
Railroads, Uniform System of Accounts.
Freight, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Freight, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.
Archives and records.
1. The rule modifications set forth below are adopted as final rules.
2. This decision is effective May 19, 2018.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman and Miller.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 1321, title 49, chapter X, parts 1011, 1105, 1200, 1201, 1244, 1248, and 1260 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 49 U.S.C. 1301, 1321, 11123, 11124, 11144, 14122, and 15722.
16 U.S.C. 1456 and 1536; 42 U.S.C. 4332 and 6362(b); 49 U.S.C. 1301 note (1995) (Savings Provisions), 1321(a), 10502, and 10903-10905; 54 U.S.C. 306108.
The revision reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(9) The Natural Resources Conservation Service;
49 U.S.C. 1321, 11142, 11143, 11144, 11145.
49 U.S.C. 11142 and 11164.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 10707, 11144, 11145.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 11144 and 11145.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS approves and implements measures included in Framework Adjustment 29 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan that establish fishing year 2018 and 2019 scallop specifications and other measures. The measures in this rule are in addition to the Northern Gulf of Maine management measures of Framework 29 that were published in a separate final rule on March 26, 2018. This action is necessary to prevent overfishing and improve both yield-per-recruit and the overall management of the Atlantic sea scallop resource. The intended effect of this rule is to implement these measures for the 2018 fishing year.
Effective April 19, 2018.
The New England Fishery Management Council developed an environmental assessment (EA) for this action that describes the measures, other considered alternatives, and analyzes the impacts of the measures and alternatives. Copies of Framework Adjustment 29, the EA, and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available upon request from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. The EA/IRFA is also accessible via the internet at:
With regard to new access areas that will become available to scallop fishing through the Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2 (see the final rule for the Omnibus Habitat Amendment published on April 9, 2018 (83 FR 15240)), additional documents are available via the internet at:
Copies of the small entity compliance guide are available from Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298, or available on the internet at:
Travis Ford, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9233.
The New England Fishery Management Council adopted Framework Adjustment 29 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery
On March 26, 2018, NMFS published a separate final rule to approve and implement the measures in Framework 29 that address the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) management program measures in Framework 29 (83 FR 12857); the NGOM measures were addressed separately to ensure that they were in place prior to April 1, 2018. Additional information on the NGOM measures is provided in the March 26, 2018, final rule and is not repeated here. This action addresses only the remaining portions of Framework 29.
This action approves and implements the portion of Framework 29 that establishes scallop specifications and other measures for fishing year 2018. This includes default fishing year 2019 measures that would go into place should the next specifications-setting action be delayed beyond the April 1 start of fishing year 2019.
This action includes catch, effort, and quota allocation adjustments for fishing year 2018 and default specifications for fishing year 2019. The Council submitted a final EA to NMFS on March 14, 2018, for approval. NMFS published a proposed rule for the non-NGOM measures in Framework 29 on March 15, 2018 (83 FR 11474). The proposed rule included a 15-day public comment period that closed on March 30, 2018. NMFS has approved all of the measures in Framework 29 recommended by the Council, as described below. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) allows NMFS to approve, partially approve, or disapprove measures proposed by the Council based on whether the measures are consistent with the fishery management plan, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. We defer to the Council's policy choices unless there is a clear inconsistency with the law or the FMP. Details concerning the development of these measures were contained in the preamble of the proposed rule and are not repeated here.
Table 1 outlines the scallop fishery catch limits derived from the ABC values and the projected landings of the fleet.
This action deducts 1.25 million lb (567 mt) of scallops annually for 2018 and 2019 from the ABC for use as the Scallop RSA to fund scallop research. Participating vessels are compensated through the sale of scallops harvested under RSA projects. Of the 1.25 million lb (567 mt) allocation, NMFS has already allocated 133,037 lb (60.3 mt) to previously funded multi-year projects as part of the 2017 RSA awards process. NMFS is reviewing proposals submitted for consideration of 2018 RSA awards and will be selecting projects for funding in the near future.
This action also deducts 1 percent of the ABC for the industry-funded observer program to help defray the cost to scallop vessels that carry an observer. The observer set-aside is 460 mt for 2018 and 458 mt for 2019. In fishing year 2018, the compensation rates for limited access vessels in open areas fishing under days-at-sea (DAS) is 0.12 DAS per DAS fished. For access area trips, the compensation rate is 225 lb (102 kg), in addition to the vessel's possession limit for the trip for each day or part of a day an observer is onboard. LAGC IFQ vessels may possess an additional 225 lb (102 kg) per trip in open areas when carrying an observer. NMFS may adjust the compensation rate throughout the fishing year, depending on how quickly the fleets are using the set aside. The Council may adjust the 2019 observer set-aside when it develops specific, non-default measures for 2019.
This action implements vessel-specific DAS allocations for each of the three limited access scallop DAS permit categories (
For fishing year 2018 and the start of 2019, Framework 29 keeps the Mid-Atlantic Access Area (MAAA) open as an access area and includes what is now the Elephant Trunk Flex Rotational Area as part of the MAAA. Framework 29 also reverts some areas previously managed in scallop rotational management program back to open areas. These areas include the Delmarva portion of the MAAA, the Nantucket Lightship Extension, and the Closed Area 2 Extension. Vessels will still be able to access these areas while fishing in the open area. In addition, this action closes the northern portion of Nantucket Lightship, but it allocates trips into the southern portion of Nantucket Lightship in an area referred to as Nantucket Lightship—South (NLS-S). Further, this action allocates effort into new access areas (Closed Area I (CA1) and Nantucket Lightship—West (NLS-W)) that became available to scallop fishing through the Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2 (Omnibus Habitat Amendment). We published a final rule for the Omnibus Habitat Amendment on April 9, 2018 (83 FR 15240). This rule made areas that are now contained in CA1 and NLS-W available to scallop fishing.
Table 3 provides the limited access full-time allocations for all of the access areas, which could be taken in as many trips as needed, so long as the vessels do not exceed the possession limit (also in Table 3) on each trip.
Table 4 provides the limited access part-time allocations for three of the access areas, which could be taken in as many trips as needed, so long as the vessels do not exceed the possession limit (also in Table 4) on each trip. There is no part-time allocation in NLS-S.
For the 2018 fishing year, an occasional limited access vessel is allocated 9,000 lb (4,082 kg) of scallops with a trip possession limit of 9,000 lb of scallops per trip (4,082 kg per trip). Occasional vessels are able to harvest the 9,000-lb (4,082-kg) allocation from only one of three available access areas (CA1, NLS-W, or MAAA). There is no occasional vessel allocation for NLS-S. For the 2019 fishing year, occasional limited access vessels are allocated 9,000 lb (4,082 kg) in the MAAA only with a trip possession limit of 9,000 lb per trip (4,082 kg per trip).
The owner of a vessel issued a limited access scallop permit may exchange unharvested scallop pounds allocated into one access area for another vessel's unharvested scallop pounds allocated into another access area. These exchanges may only be made for the amount of the current trip possession limit (
Framework Adjustment 25 to the Scallop FMP (79 FR 34251; June 16, 2014) allowed unharvested pounds associated with fishing years 2012 and 2013 CA1 trips to be harvested by those vessels in CA1 when it reopens in the future. 1,638,604 lb (743,258 kg) of CA1 allocation went unharvested from fishing years 2012 and 2013, distributed across 130 permits. Using the dealer records and broken trip data, Framework 29 allocates this unharvested allocation to those permits in fishing year 2018. All amounts of outstanding limited access unharvested CA1 allocation will be made available in addition to fishing year 2018 allocations to that access area. For example, if a full-time limited access vessel has 2,000 lb (907 kg) of unharvested 2012/2013 CA1 allocation, and the CA1 trip limit is 18,000 lbs (8,165 kg), the vessel would be able to land a total of 20,000 lb (9,072 kg) from CA1 in fishing year 2018. There will be no change to specified trip limits through Framework 29,
The Omnibus Habitat Amendment makes available to scallop vessels several areas that were previously closed to the scallop fishery. However, these areas remain closed to scallop fishing until they are opened by a scallop action. The bulk of these areas are encompassed in the NLS-W and CA1 Rotational Areas, which Framework 29 opens to scallop fishing. Framework 29 does not open the area west and north of NLS-W (Table 5). We are calling this area the “Nantucket Lightship Hatchet Scallop Rotational Area,” and it remains closed to help minimize flounder bycatch due to uncertainty about catch rates in the area.
This action adjusts the scallop fleet's accountability measures for two different flatfish stocks (Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder and Georges Bank yellowtail flounder) and develops an accountability measure for northern windowpane flounder. This action changes the existing Georges Bank yellowtail flounder and the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder accountability measures from closed areas to gear restricted areas, and it develops a gear restricted area accountability measure for northern windowpane flounder.
For SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, this action adopts the same gear restricted area that is already in place for southern windowpane flounder,
When the fleet is subject to any of the flatfish accountability measures in a gear restricted area, vessels will be required to fish with scallop dredge gear that conforms to the following restrictions already in place for the southern windowpane flounder accountability measure:
(1) No more than 5 rows of rings in the apron of the dredge;
(2) A maximum hanging ratio of 1.5 meshes per 1 ring overall; and
(3) A prohibition on the use of trawl gear.
For Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, this action changes the existing accountability measure to a requirement to use the accountability measure gear in the Georges Bank Accountability Measure Area. The requirement to use this gear in the area would remain in effect for the period of time based on the corresponding percent overage of the Georges Bank yellowtail flounder sub-ACL, as follows:
For northern windowpane flounder, this action creates an accountability measure that requires the use of the accountability measure gear in the Georges Bank Accountability Measure Area. The requirement to use this gear in the area would remain in effect for the period of time based on the corresponding percent overage of the northern windowpane flounder sub-ACL, as follows:
For SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, this action changes the existing accountability measure to a requirement to use the accountability measure gear in the Mid-Atlantic Accountability Measure Area. The requirement to use this gear in the area would remain in effect for the period of time based on the corresponding percent overage of the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder sub-ACL, as follows:
This action allows all vessels participating in RSA projects to harvest RSA compensation from all available access areas and the open area. A vessel is prohibited from fishing for RSA compensation in the NGOM unless the vessel is fishing an RSA compensation trip using NGOM RSA allocation that was awarded to an RSA project, as described in the separate rule for the NGOM portions of Framework 29. In addition, Framework 29 prohibits the harvest of RSA from any access areas under default 2019 measures. At the start of 2019, RSA compensation can only be harvested from open areas. The Council will re-evaluate this measure in the action that would set final 2019 specifications.
This final rule includes three revisions to address regulatory text that is unnecessary, outdated, or unclear. These revisions are being implemented consistent with section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which provides authority to the Secretary of Commerce to promulgate regulations necessary to ensure that amendments to an FMP are carried out in accordance with the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The first revision, at § 648.10(f)(4), clarifies that scallop vessels no longer need to send in daily catch reports through their vessel monitoring system for trips less than 24 hours because these reports are no longer useful for monitoring purposes. The second revision, at § 648.11(g)(2)(ii), removes the limitation that an LAGC IFQ could be selected for observer coverage no more than twice in a given week. This revision is necessary because, due to an update to our pre-trip notification system, we will no longer be able to accommodate the limit of two trips per week. Because of the change, vessels may be selected more than twice in a given week, but we expect that this would be a very rare occurrence. The final revision, at § 648.14(i)(4)(ii)(A) and (B), is a correction to the regulations that should have been made as part of Framework Adjustment 28 to the Scallop FMP (82 FR 15155; March 27, 2017). This correction clarifies that owners of IFQ vessels cannot have an ownership interest in vessels that collectively are allocated more than 5 percent of the total IFQ scallop APL, and that they may not have an IFQ allocation on an IFQ scallop vessel of more than 2.5 percent of the total IFQ scallop APL.
We added prohibitions at § 648.14(i)(4)(v) and (vi) to clarify that the flatfish accountability measures also apply to the LAGC IFQ fleet. We changed § 648.53(d) and (h)(2)(v) to update the carryover provisions and clarify that the scallop fishing year ends in March. We included changes to the regulatory text in the § 648.64(b) to describe the area west of 71° W Long. as the Mid-Atlantic Accountability Measure Area. We more formally described this area for consistency between the accountability measure areas. This led to citation changes throughout § 648.64 and in § 648. 14(i)(2)(ix) and (x). We changed § 648.64(c)(3) to clarify that vessels may not use trawl gear in any of the accountability measure gear restricted areas. We included changes to § 648.14(i)(3)(v)(E) to remove unnecessary references to the Elephant Trunk Flex and Closed Area 2 Extension Scallop Rotational Areas, which are now part of the open area. Finally, we included changes to the Closed Area 1 boundary at § 648.60(c) to correct an error in the proposed rule.
This rule also includes three minor revisions to address errors in the published regulatory text for the Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment (83 FR 15240; April 9, 2016). Regulatory text in § 648.58 was issued in error; that section should have been removed in the final rule because we did not approve measures in Closed Area II on Georges Bank. Therefore, § 648.58 is removed and reserved in this final rule. The coordinates for the Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area (§ 648.81(a)(4)) and the Restricted Gear Area II (§ 648.81(f)(4)) were incorrect and this final rule issues the correct coordinates for these two areas.
We received two comments on the proposed rule during the public comment period: one that was unrelated to the proposed measures, as it was focused on worldwide air pollution; and one comment letter from the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) in support of the action. We are not addressing the unrelated comment in this final rule. FSF represents a majority of the limited access scallop fleet. The FSF comment letter is generally supportive of Framework 29, but raises three issues regarding implementation, as described and discussed below.
Framework 29 contains other measures that are beyond the scope of a simple specifications setting action. Specifically, Framework 29 adjusts the scallop fleet's accountability measures for two different flatfish stocks and develops an accountability measure for a third stock. In addition, to accommodate the industry's preference for adopting measures for this framework that would be dependent on NMFS' approval of the Omnibus Habitat Amendment, the Council developed four different specifications scenarios in Framework 29 accounting for all the possible approval outcomes of the Omnibus Habitat Amendment. This considerably increased the complexity of Framework 29. Further, because the final preferred alternatives were dependent on NMFS' decision on the Omnibus Habitat Amendment, the Council and NMFS had to delay the development of the EA and the proposed rule, respectively, to incorporate the relevant analyses and regulations into the final documents for this action. Because the fishing season has already opened, we intend to waive the 30-day delay in the date of effectiveness required under the Administrative Procedures Act, so that this final rule will be effective upon the date of publication (see the Classification section below). This should help ease any burden on business planning activities in the industry resulting from implementation of this action after the opening of the fishing season.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined
OMB has determined that this rule is not significant pursuant to E.O. 12866.
This final rule does not contain policies with federalism or “takings” implications, as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.
This action does not contain any collection-of-information requirements subject the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that the need to implement the measures of this rule in an expedited manner are necessary to achieve conservation objectives for the scallop fishery and certain fish stocks, and to relieve other restrictions on the scallop fleet. This final rule relieves restriction and constitutes good cause, under authority contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3), to waive the 30-day delay in the date of effectiveness and to make the Framework 29 measures in this final rule effective on the date of publication in the
Framework 29 could not have been put into place any sooner. The information and data necessary for the Council to develop the framework and forward it to NMFS was not available in time for this action to be implemented by either April 1, 2018, the beginning of the scallop fishing year, or by 30 days prior to April 1. NMFS published the proposed rule as quickly as possible after receiving Framework 29 from the Council. We received the final submission of the EA from the Council on March 14, 2018, and published the proposed rule on March 15, 2018, with a comment period closing on March 30, 2018. We are publishing this final rule as quickly as possible after the close of the comment period.
Because Framework 29 had not yet been approved and implemented on April 1, 2018, certain default measures, including access area designations, DAS, IFQ, RSA, and observer set-aside allocations that were developed in Framework Adjustment 28 to the Scallop FMP (82 FR 15155; March 27, 2017) have already been put into place automatically. These default allocations were purposely set to be more conservative than what would eventually be implemented under Framework 29. Under the default measures, each full-time vessel has 21.75 DAS and one access area trip for 18,000 lb (8,165 kg) in the MAAA. In contrast, this final action provides full-time vessels with an additional 2.25 DAS (24 DAS total) and 90,000 lb (40,823 kg) in access area allocation (108,000 lb (48,988 kg) total). Further, LAGC IFQ vessels will receive an additional 554 mt (1,400 mt total) of allocation and 2,855 access area trips spread out across 4 access areas (3,426 trips total). Accordingly, this action relieves the more restrictive aspects of the default measures already in place. Thus, we have cause to waive the 30-day delay in the date of effectiveness under 553(d)(1), because this final rule effectively relieves the restrictions of the more conservative default allocations. Delaying the implementation of this action for 30 days would delay positive economic benefits to the scallop fleet and could negatively impact the access area rotation program by delaying fishing in access areas that will become available under this final rule. This final rule contains no new measures that implement additional burdens on the fleet, and we do not expect that any members of the scallop industry will be aggrieved by waiving this delay. Therefore, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has concluded that we have good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and has waived the 30-day delay in the date of effectiveness requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
Pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), NMFS has completed a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) in support of Framework 29. The FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS responses to those comments, a summary of the analyses completed in the Framework 29 EA, and the preamble to this final rule. A summary of the IRFA was published in the proposed rule for this action and is not repeated here. A description of why this action was considered, the objectives of, and the legal basis for this rule is contained in Framework 29 and in the preambles to the proposed rule and this final rule, and is not repeated here. All of the documents that constitute the FRFA are available from NMFS and/or the Council, and a copy of the IRFA, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the EA are available upon request (see
There were no specific comments on the IRFA.
These regulations affect all vessels with limited access and LAGC scallop permits, but there is no differential effect based on whether the affected entities are small or large. Framework 29 provides extensive information on the number and size of vessels and small businesses that are affected by the regulations, by port and state (see
For RFA purposes, NMFS defines a small business in shellfish fishery as a firm that is independently owned and operated with receipts of less than $11 million annually (see 50 CFR 200.2). Individually-permitted vessels may hold permits for several fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are regulated by several different fishery management plans, even beyond those impacted by this proposed rule. Furthermore, multiple permitted vessels and/or permits may be owned by entities with various personal and business affiliations. For the purposes of this analysis, “ownership entities” are defined as those entities with common ownership as listed on the permit application. Only permits with identical ownership are categorized as an “ownership entity.” For example, if five permits have the same seven persons listed as co-owners on their permit applications, those seven persons would form one “ownership entity,” that holds those five permits. If two of those seven owners also co-own additional vessels, that ownership arrangement would be considered a separate “ownership entity” for the purpose of this analysis.
On June 1 of each year, ownership entities are identified based on a list of all permits for the most recent complete calendar year. The current ownership dataset is based on the calendar year 2016 permits and contains average gross
This action contains no new collection-of-information, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.
During the development of Framework 29, NMFS and the Council considered ways to reduce the regulatory burden on, and provide flexibility for, the regulated entities in this action. For instance, Framework 29 contains consistent gear restricted areas for three of the scallop fleet's flatfish accountability measures. This provides flexibility to the fleet compared to a closed area because it allows vessels to continue fishing with the accountability measure gear when an accountability measure is in effect. In addition, this action develops consistent gear restricted areas for each region (
Overall, this rule minimizes adverse long-term impacts by ensuring that management measures and catch limits result in sustainable fishing mortality rates that promote stock rebuilding, and as a result, maximize optimal yield. The measures implemented by this final rule also provide additional flexibility for fishing operations in the short-term.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency will publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and will designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency will explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as a small entity compliance guide was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, and the guide (
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(i) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) * * *
(A)
(
(2) * * *
(vi) * * *
(B) Transit the Closed Area II Scallop Rotational Area, as defined in § 648.60(d), unless there is a compelling safety reason for transiting the area and the vessel's fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2.
(C) Fish for, possess, or land scallops in or from an access area in excess of the vessel's remaining specific allocation for that area as specified in § 648.59(b)(3) or the amount permitted to be landed from that area.
(ix) Fish for scallops in the Mid-Atlantic Accountability Measure Area, described in § 648.64(b)(2) with gear that does not meet the specifications described in § 648.64(c) during the period specified in the notice announcing the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Yellowtail Flounder or the Southern Windowpane Flounder Gear Restricted Area described in § 648.64(e) and (g), respectively.
(x) Fish for scallops in the Georges Bank Accountability Measure Area described in § 648.64(b)(1), with gear that does not meet the specifications described in § 648.64(c) during the period specified in the notice announcing the Georges Bank Yellowtail Flounder or the Northern Windowpane Flounder Gear Restricted Area described in § 648.64(d) and (f), respectively.
(3) * * *
(v) * * *
(E) Transit the Closed Area II Scallop Rotational Area, as defined in § 648.60 (d), unless there is a compelling safety reason for transiting the area and the vessel's fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2.
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Have an ownership interest in vessels that collectively are allocated more than 5 percent of the total IFQ scallop APL as specified in § 648.53(a)(8).
(B) Have an IFQ allocation on an IFQ scallop vessel of more than 2.5 percent of the total IFQ scallop APL as specified in § 648.53(a)(8).
(v) Fish for scallops in the Mid-Atlantic Accountability Measure Area, described in § 648.64(b)(2) with gear that does not meet the specifications described in § 648.64(c) during the period specified in the notice announcing the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Yellowtail Flounder or the Southern Windowpane Flounder Gear Restricted Area described in § 648.64(e) and (g), respectively.
(vi) Fish for scallops in the Georges Bank Accountability Measure Area described in § 648.64(b)(1), with gear that does not meet the specifications described in § 648.64(c) during the period specified in the notice announcing the Georges Bank Yellowtail Flounder or the Northern Windowpane Flounder Gear Restricted Area described in § 648.64(d) and (f), respectively.
(a) * * *
(8) The following catch limits will be effective for the 2018 and 2019 fishing years:
(b) * * *
(3) The DAS allocations for limited access scallop vessels for fishing years 2018 and 2019 are as follows:
(c)
(d)
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(v)
(a) The Sea Scallop Rotational Area Management Program consists of Scallop Rotational Areas, as defined in § 648.2. Guidelines for this area rotation program (
(2)
(3)
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) The following access area allocations and possession limits for limited access vessels shall be effective for the 2018 and 2019 fishing years:
(
(
(
(
(ii)
(c)
(e)
(1) 2018: Closed Area 1, Nantucket Lightship-West, Nantucket Lightship-South, and Mid-Atlantic.
(2) 2019: No access areas.
(g) * * *
(3) * * *
(v) The following LAGC IFQ access area allocations will be effective for the 2018 and 2019 fishing years:
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(3)
(c)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(a) As specified in § 648.55(d), and pursuant to the biennial framework adjustment process specified in § 648.90, the scallop fishery shall be allocated a sub-ACL for the Georges Bank and Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic stocks of yellowtail flounder and the northern and southern stocks of windowpane flounder. The sub-ACLs for the yellowtail flounder stocks and the windowpane flounder stocks are specified in § 648.90(a)(4)(iii)(C) and (E) of the NE multispecies regulations, respectively.
(b)
(2)
(c)
(1) No more than 5 rows of rings shall be used in the apron of the dredge. The apron is on the top side of the dredge, extends the full width of the dredge, and is the rows of dredge rings that extend from the back edge of the twine top (
(2) The maximum hanging ratio for a net, net material, or any other material on the top of a scallop dredge (twine top) possessed or used by vessels fishing with scallop dredge gear does not exceed 1.5 meshes per 1 ring overall. This means that the twine top is attached to the rings in a pattern of alternating 2 meshes per ring and 1 mesh per ring (counted at the bottom where the twine top connects to the apron), for an overall average of 1.5 meshes per ring for the entire width of the twine top. For example, an apron that is 40 rings wide subtracting 5 rings one each side of the side pieces, yielding 30 rings, would only be able to use a twine top with 45 or fewer meshes so that the overall ratio of meshes to rings did not exceed 1.5 (45 meshes/30 rings = 1.5).
(3) Vessels may not fish for scallops with trawl gear when the gear restricted area accountability measure is in effect.
(d)
(2)
(e)
(2)
(f)
(2)
(g)
(2)
(h)
(2)
(a) * * *
(4)
(f) * * *
(4)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS is modifying the commercial scup quota periods, as recommended by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. This action moves the month of October from the Summer Period to the Winter II Period. This rule is intended to increase fishing opportunities by extending the Winter II Period when possession limits are higher.
Effective May 21, 2018.
Copies of the Scup Commercial Quota Period Modification Framework, including the environmental assessment (EA), are available on request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. These documents are also accessible via the internet at
Emily Gilbert, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9244.
Scup (
Currently, the scup commercial quota is broken into three periods: Winter I (January 1 through April 30) receives 45.11 percent of the annual quota; Summer (May 1 through October 31) receives 38.95 percent; and Winter II (November 1 through December 31) receives an initial 15.94 percent with any unused Winter I quota rolled over into Winter II. Federal trip limits are imposed during the two Winter Periods; individual states impose landing restrictions during the Summer Period. The Council established these quota periods in 1997 to recognize that there are two commercial fishing fleets (62 FR 27978; May 22, 1997). Larger vessels harvest scup offshore during the winter months, and smaller vessels harvest scup inshore during the summer. Without the quota periods and Federal trip limits, the larger vessels would be able to fish the full annual quota early in the year, leaving no quota for the smaller inshore fleet.
The scup stock was declared rebuilt in 2009 based on the findings of a stock assessment. The commercial scup quota nearly doubled between 2010 and 2011. From 2011 to 2016, commercial scup landings have been 20 to 47 percent below the annual commercial quota. Stakeholders have stated that the more restrictive state-imposed possession limits during the Summer Period, compared to the Winter I and II Periods, have prevented fishermen from landing high volumes of scup when they are available. This limits the ability of the fishery to achieve the annual commercial quota and results in forgone yield.
To address these limits on the ability of the fishery to achieve the annual
On February 26, 2018, NMFS published the proposed rule (83 FR 8236) for this action for public notice and comment. NMFS received two relevant comments on the proposed rule. Both offered support of this modification. One suggested that we also consider including the month of May in the Winter I Period. The Council did consider moving the first two weeks of May to the Winter I period but ultimately voted not to include it. No public support for this option was offered when the Council took final action. The other commenter mentioned the Council should adjust the quota allocated to each period. This was beyond the scope of this action, but it could be considered in a future amendment, should the Council desire to revise the quota period allocations. No changes are made to this action based on these comments.
NMFS is correcting the title of this action to be Framework Adjustment 12, rather than Framework Adjustment 10.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification, and the initial certification remains unchanged. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(c) * * *
(1) The annual commercial quota will be allocated into three periods, based on the following percentages:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) For the Winter I and Summer quota periods, landings in excess of the allocation will be deducted from the appropriate quota period for the following year in the final rule that establishes the annual quota. The overage deduction will be based on landings for the current year through September 30 and on landings for the previous calendar year that were not included when the overage deduction was made in the final rule that established the period quotas for the current year. If the Regional Administrator determines during the fishing year that any part of an overage deduction was based on erroneous landings data that were in excess of actual landings for the period concerned, he/she will restore the overage that was deducted in error to the appropriate quota allocation. The Regional Administrator will publish notification in the
(a) * * *
(1)
(5)
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Joint notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) are seeking comment on a proposal that would modify the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards for U.S. top-tier bank holding companies identified as global systemically important bank holding companies, or GSIBs, and certain of their insured depository institution subsidiaries. Specifically, the proposal would modify the current 2 percent leverage buffer, which applies to each GSIB, to equal 50 percent of the firm's GSIB risk-based capital surcharge. The proposal also would require a Board- or OCC-regulated insured depository institution subsidiary of a GSIB to maintain a supplementary leverage ratio of at least 3 percent plus 50 percent of the GSIB risk-based surcharge applicable to its top-tier holding company in order to be deemed “well capitalized” under the Board's and the OCC's prompt corrective action rules. Consistent with this approach to establishing enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards for insured depository institutions, the OCC is proposing to revise the methodology it uses to identify which national banks and Federal savings associations are subject to the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards to ensure that they apply only to those national banks and Federal savings associations that are subsidiaries of a Board-identified GSIB. The Board also is seeking comment on a proposal to make conforming modifications to the GSIB leverage buffer of the Board's total loss-absorbing capacity and long-term debt requirements and other minor amendments to the buffer levels, covered intermediate holding company conformance period, methodology for calculating the covered intermediate holding company long-term debt amount, and external total loss-absorbing capacity risk-weighted buffer.
Comments must be received by May 21, 2018.
Comments should be directed to:
•
• Click on the “Help” tab on the
•
•
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this rulemaking action by any of the following methods:
•
• Click on the “Help” tab on the
•
•
•
•
•
In 2013, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (together, the agencies) adopted a revised regulatory capital rule (capital rule) to address weaknesses that became apparent during the financial crisis of 2007-08.
In 2014, the agencies adopted a final rule that established enhanced supplementary leverage ratio (eSLR) standards for the largest, most interconnected U.S. bank holding companies (eSLR rule) in order to strengthen the overall regulatory capital framework in the United States.
The eSLR rule requires the largest, most interconnected U.S. top-tier bank holding companies to maintain a supplementary leverage ratio greater than 3 percent plus a leverage buffer of 2 percent to avoid limitations on the firm's distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments.
Subsequently, in 2015, the Board adopted a final rule establishing a methodology for identifying a firm as a global systemically important bank holding company (GSIB) and applying a risk-based capital surcharge on such an institution (GSIB surcharge rule).
The OCC's current eSLR rule applies to national banks and Federal savings associations that are subsidiaries of U.S. top-tier bank holding companies with more than $700 billion in total consolidated assets or more than $10 trillion total in assets under custody.
Post-crisis regulatory reforms, including the capital rule, the eSLR rule, and the Board's GSIB surcharge rule, were designed to improve the safety and soundness and reduce the probability of failure of banking organizations, as well as to reduce the consequences to the financial system if such a failure were to occur. For large banking organizations in particular, the Board's and the OCC's objective has been to establish capital and other prudential requirements at a level that not only promotes resilience at the banking organization and protects financial stability, but also maximizes long-term through-the-cycle credit availability and economic growth. In reviewing the post-crisis reforms both individually and collectively, the Board and the OCC have sought comment on ways to streamline and tailor the regulatory framework, while ensuring that such firms have adequate capital to continue to act as financial intermediaries during times of stress.
The 2007-08 financial crisis demonstrated that robust regulatory capital standards are necessary for the safety and soundness of individual banking organizations, as well as for the financial system as a whole. Within the regulatory capital framework, leverage and risk-based capital requirements play complementary roles, with each offsetting potential risks not addressed by the other. Research shows that risk-based and leverage capital measures contain complementary information about a bank's condition.
In contrast, a leverage ratio does not differentiate the amount of capital required by exposure type. Rather, a leverage ratio puts a simple and transparent lower bound on banking organization leverage. A leverage ratio protects against underestimation of risk both by banking organizations and by risk-based capital requirements. It also counteracts the inherent tendency of banking organization leverage to increase in a boom and fall in a recession.
Leverage capital requirements should generally act as a backstop to the risk-based requirements. If a leverage ratio is calibrated at a level that makes it generally a binding constraint through the economic and credit cycle, it can create incentives for firms to reduce participation in or increase costs for low-risk, low-return businesses. At the same time, a leverage ratio that is calibrated at too low of a level will not serve as an effective complement to a risk-based capital requirement.
In 2014, consistent with these goals, the agencies adopted a final eSLR rule that increased leverage capital requirements. The standards in the final eSLR rule were designed and calibrated to strengthen the largest and most interconnected banking organizations' capital base and to preserve the complementary relationship between risk-based and leverage capital requirements in recognition that risk-based capital requirements had increased in stringency and amount. As the agencies observed in the preamble to the proposed eSLR rule, approximately half of the bank holding companies subject to the eSLR rule that were bank holding companies in 2006 would have met or exceeded a 3 percent supplementary leverage ratio, suggesting that the minimum leverage standard in the eSLR rule should be greater than 3 percent to constrain pre-crisis buildup of leverage at the largest banking organizations.
Over the past few years, banking organizations have raised concerns that in certain cases, the standards in the eSLR rule have generally become a binding constraint rather than a backstop to the risk-based standards. Thus, the current calibration of the eSLR rule may create incentives for banking organizations bound by the eSLR standards to reduce participation in or increase costs for lower-risk, lower-return businesses, such as secured repo financing, central clearing services for market participants, and
The GSIB surcharge rule is designed both to ensure that a GSIB holds capital commensurate with its systemic risk and to provide a GSIB with an incentive to adjust its systemic footprint.
The PCA framework establishes levels of capitalization at which an IDI will become subject to limits on activities or to closure.
Under the current eSLR rule, all GSIBs are required to maintain a supplementary leverage ratio greater than 3 percent plus a leverage buffer of 2 percent to avoid limitations on distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments. The proposal would replace each GSIB's 2 percent leverage buffer with a leverage buffer set equal to 50 percent of the firm's GSIB surcharge, as determined according to the Board's GSIB surcharge rule.
Under the current rule, IDI subsidiaries of the largest and most complex banking organizations are required to maintain a 6 percent supplementary leverage ratio to be considered “well capitalized” under the PCA framework. As discussed above, the Board and the OCC believe that the leverage requirements should be calibrated such that they are generally the backstop to risk-based capital requirements. Consistent with that view and with the treatment of GSIBs, the proposal would replace the 6 percent supplementary leverage ratio threshold for a Board- or OCC-regulated IDI subsidiary subject to the eSLR standards (covered IDI) to be considered “well capitalized” under the PCA framework with a supplementary leverage ratio threshold of 3 percent plus 50 percent of the GSIB surcharge applicable to the covered IDI's GSIB holding company. Thus, for a covered IDI, the “well capitalized” threshold would depend on the GSIB surcharge applicable at the holding company. These modifications to the PCA framework would help to maintain the complementarity of the risk-based and leverage standards at the covered IDI in a manner consistent with the proposed changes to the leverage buffer at the GSIB holding company.
The “well capitalized” threshold is used to determine eligibility for a variety of regulatory purposes, such as streamlined application procedures, status as a financial holding company, the ability to control or hold a financial interest in a financial subsidiary, and in interstate applications.
Therefore, as an alternative to revising the eSLR threshold for a covered IDI to be considered “well capitalized,” the Board and the OCC are considering applying the eSLR standard as a capital buffer requirement. Under this approach, the PCA framework would retain the 3 percent supplementary leverage ratio requirement to be considered “adequately capitalized,” but there would no longer be a supplementary leverage ratio threshold for a covered IDI to be considered “well capitalized.” Instead, the eSLR standard would be applied to a covered IDI alongside the existing capital conservation buffer
The proposed recalibration of the eSLR standards for GSIBs and covered IDIs would continue to provide a meaningful constraint on leverage while ensuring a more appropriate complementary relationship between these firms' risk-based and leverage capital requirements. Specifically, the proposal would help ensure that the leverage capital requirements generally serve as a backstop to risk-based capital requirements. In addition, the proposed calibration would reinforce incentives created by the GSIB surcharge for GSIBs to reduce their systemic footprint by providing less systemic firms with a lower GSIB surcharge and a parallel lower “well capitalized” threshold in the PCA framework. Setting the leverage buffer in the eSLR rule to 50 percent of the GSIB surcharge also would mirror the relationship between the minimum tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6 percent and the minimum supplementary leverage ratio of 3 percent.
Based on third quarter 2017 data, and assuming fully phased-in GSIB surcharges were in effect, one of the eight GSIBs would currently have its most binding capital requirement under the capital rule set by the proposed eSLR, compared with four of eight GSIBs that are bound by the eSLR under the current eSLR rule.
The Board's capital plan rule also requires certain large bank holding companies, including the GSIBs, to hold capital in excess of the minimum capital ratios by requiring them to demonstrate the ability to satisfy the capital requirements under stressful conditions.
Analysis therefore indicates that the proposed eSLR recalibration would reduce the capital required to be held by the GSIBs for purposes of meeting the eSLR standards, but the more firm-specific and risk-sensitive approach to the eSLR buffer in the proposal would more appropriately align each GSIB's leverage buffer with its systemic footprint. Importantly, under the proposal, to the extent a firm's systemic footprint and GSIB surcharge increases, the amount of tier 1 capital required to meet its applicable eSLR standard also would increase. Further, and notwithstanding the proposed recalibration, GSIBs remain subject to the most stringent regulatory standards, including in particular the risk-based GSIB surcharge and total loss-absorbing capacity standards.
For covered IDIs, the proposed rule would replace the current 6 percent eSLR standard in the “well capitalized” threshold with a new standard equal to 3 percent plus 50 percent of the GSIB's surcharge. The current eSLR standard tends to be more binding than risk-based capital requirements at the IDI level than at the holding company level because the eSLR standard is calibrated higher and the agencies have not imposed a GSIB surcharge at the IDI level. Based on data as of third quarter 2017, the eSLR standard is the most binding tier 1 capital requirement for all eight lead IDI subsidiaries of the GSIBs. Under the proposal, the eSLR standard would be the most binding tier 1 capital requirement for three of these covered IDIs.
The Board's final rule regarding total loss-absorbing capacity, long-term debt, and clean holding company requirements for GSIBs and intermediate holding companies of systemically important foreign banking organizations
The Board's TLAC rule also establishes a minimum leverage-based external long-term debt (LTD) requirement for a GSIB equal to the GSIB's total leverage exposure multiplied by 4.5 percent. As described in the preamble to the final TLAC rule, this component of the LTD requirement was calibrated by subtracting a 0.5 percent balance sheet depletion allowance from the amount required to satisfy the combined supplementary leverage ratio requirement and eSLR (
In addition, the Board is proposing to make certain minor amendments to the TLAC rule, including amendments to ensure that LTD is calculated the same way for all TLAC requirements. Specifically, the proposal provides that the external TLAC risk-weighted buffer level, TLAC leverage buffer level, and the TLAC buffer level for U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign GSIBs (covered IHCs) would be amended to use the same haircuts applicable to LTD that are currently used to calculate outstanding minimum required TLAC amounts, which do not include a 50 percent haircut on LTD instruments with a remaining maturity of between one and two years. These minor amendments also include changes such that the term “External TLAC risk-weighted buffer” is used consistently in the TLAC rule, to provide that a new covered IHC will in all cases have three years to conform to most of the requirements of the TLAC rule, and to align the articulation of the methodology for calculating the covered IHC LTD amount with the same methodology used for GSIBs.
In responding to this question, commenters are invited to describe the rationale for any suggested modifications to the 7.5 percent requirement and how such rationale relates to the Board's overall rationale for the proposal, the rationale for the capital refill framework described in the preamble to the final TLAC rule,
The Board and the OCC seek comment on all aspects of the proposed modifications to the eSLR standards for GSIBs and covered IDIs, as well as on amendments made to the calculation of the external TLAC leverage buffer, and other minor changes to the TLAC rule. Comments are requested about the potential advantages of the proposal in ensuring the individual safety and soundness of these banking organizations as well as on the stability of the financial system. Comments are also requested about the calibration and capital impact of the proposal, including whether the proposal appropriately maintains a complementary relationship between the risk-based and leverage capital requirements, and the nature and extent of costs and benefits to the affected institutions or the broader economy.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (PRA), the Board and the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Board and the OCC reviewed the proposed rule and determined that it does not create any new or revise any existing collection of information under section 3504(h) of title 44.
The OCC currently supervises 956 small entities.
As described in the
The Board has considered the potential impact of the proposed rule on small entities in accordance with the RFA. Based on its analysis and for the reasons stated below, the Board believes that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Nevertheless, the Board is publishing and inviting comment on this initial regulatory flexibility analysis. A final regulatory flexibility analysis will be conducted after comments received during the public comment period have been considered.
As discussed in detail above, the Board and the OCC are proposing to recalibrate the eSLR requirements to provide improved incentives and to better ensure that the eSLR serves as a backstop to risk-based capital requirements rather than the binding constraint. Consistent with these objectives, the proposal would make corresponding changes the Board's TLAC requirements, along with other technical and minor changes to the Board's TLAC rule.
The Board has broad authority under the International Lending Supervision Act (ILSA)
The proposed changes to the eSLR rule would apply only to entities that are GSIBs, as identified by the GSIB surcharge rule, and any IDI subsidiary of a GSIB that is regulated by the Board. Currently, no small top-tier bank holding company would meet the threshold criteria for application of the eSLR standards provided in this proposal. Accordingly, the proposed changes to the eSLR rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, one bank holding company covered under the proposal has a state member bank subsidiary with assets of $550 million or less. The Board does not expect, however, that this entity would bear any additional costs as it would rely on its parent banking organization for compliance.
Under the proposal, the TLAC rule would continue to apply only to a top-tier bank holding company domiciled in the United States with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets and that has been identified as a GSIB, and to covered IHCs. Bank holding companies and covered IHCs that are subject to the proposed rule therefore substantially exceed the $550 million asset threshold at which a banking entity would qualify as a small banking organization. Accordingly, the proposed changes to the TLAC rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed changes to the eSLR rule and TLAC rule would not alter existing reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. In addition, the Board is aware of no other Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed changes to the eSLR rule and the TLAC rule. The Board believes that the proposed changes to the eSLR rule and TLAC rule will not have a significant economic impact on small banking organizations supervised by the Board and therefore believes that there are no significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would reduce the economic impact on small banking organizations supervised by the Board.
The Board welcomes comment on all aspects of its analysis. In particular, the Board requests that commenters describe the nature of any impact on small entities and provide empirical data to illustrate and support the extent of the impact.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Board and the OCC have sought to present the proposed rule in a simple and straightforward manner, and invite comment on the use of plain language. For example:
• Have the Board and the OCC organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could they 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 Board and the OCC 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 IDIs, consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the benefits of such regulations. In addition, new regulations and amendments to regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on IDIs 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.
Because the proposal would not impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on IDIs, section 302 of the RCDRIA therefore does not apply. Nevertheless, the requirements of RCDRIA will be considered as part of the overall rulemaking process. In addition, the Board and the OCC also invite any other comments that further will inform the Board's and the OCC's consideration of RCDRIA.
The OCC analyzed the proposed rule under the factors set forth in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532). Under this analysis, the OCC considered whether the proposal includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted for inflation). The OCC has determined that this proposed rule would not result in expenditures by state, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
Federal Reserve System, Federal savings associations, National banks.
Accounting, Agriculture, Banks, banking, Confidential business information, Consumer protection, Crime, Currency, Global systemically
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking. Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Federal Reserve System, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For the reasons set out in the joint preamble, the OCC proposes to amend 12 CFR part 6 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 93a, 1831o, 5412(b)(2)(B).
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Leverage Measure:
(A) The national bank or Federal savings association has a leverage ratio of 5.0 percent or greater; and
(B) With respect to a national bank or Federal savings association that is controlled by a bank holding company designated as a global systemically important bank holding company pursuant to subpart H of Regulation Q (12 CFR part 217, subpart H), the national bank or Federal savings association has a supplementary leverage ratio greater than or equal to:
(
(
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System proposes to amend chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 24, 36, 92a, 93a, 248(a), 248(c), 321-338a, 371d, 461, 481-486, 601, 611, 1814, 1816, 1818, 1820(d)(9), 1833(j), 1828(o), 1831, 1831o, 1831p-1, 1831r-1, 1831w, 1831x, 1835a, 1882, 2901-2907, 3105, 3310, 3331-3351, 3905-3909, and 5371; 15 U.S.C. 78b, 78I(b), 78l(i), 780-4(c)(5), 78q, 78q-1, and 78w, 1681s, 1681w, 6801, and 6805; 31 U.S.C. 5318; 42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4104a, 4104b, 4106 and 4128.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Leverage Measure:
(A) The bank has a leverage ratio of 5.0 percent or greater; and
(B) With respect to any bank that is a subsidiary of a global systemically important BHC under the definition of “subsidiary” in section 217.2 of Regulation Q (12 CFR 217.2), the bank has a supplementary leverage ratio greater than or equal to:
(
(
12 U.S.C. 248(a), 321-338a, 481-486, 1462a, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 1831n, 1831o, 1831p-l, 1831w, 1835, 1844(b), 1851, 3904, 3906-3909, 4808, 5365, 5368, 5371.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) A Board-regulated institution with a capital conservation buffer that is greater than 2.5 percent plus 100 percent of its applicable countercyclical capital buffer in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, and 100 percent of its applicable GSIB surcharge, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, and, if applicable, that has a leverage buffer that is greater than 50 percent of its applicable GSIB surcharge, is not subject to a maximum payout amount under this section.
(iii) * * *
(B) Capital conservation buffer was less than 2.5 percent, or, if applicable, leverage buffer was less than 50 percent of its applicable GSIB surcharge, as of the end of the previous calendar quarter.
12 U.S.C. 321-338a, 481-486, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 1831n, 1831o, 1831p-l, 1831w, 1835, 1844(b), 1844(c), 3101
(a) * * *
(2) The global systemically important BHC's total leverage exposure multiplied by the sum of 2.5 percent plus 50 percent of the global systemically important BHC's applicable GSIB surcharge (expressed as a percentage).
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) The ratio (expressed as a percentage) of the global systemically important BHC's outstanding eligible external long-term debt amount plus 50 percent of the amount of unpaid principal of outstanding eligible debt securities issued by the global systemically important BHC due to be paid in, as calculated in § 252.62(b)(2), greater than or equal to 365 days (one year) but less than 730 days (two years) to total risk-weighted assets.
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) A global systemically important BHC with an external TLAC risk-weighted buffer level that is greater than the external TLAC risk-weighted buffer and an external TLAC leverage buffer level that is greater than 50 percent of the global systemically important BHC's applicable GSIB surcharge, in accordance with paragraph (c)(5) of this section, is not subject to a maximum external TLAC risk-weighted payout amount or a maximum external TLAC leverage payout amount.
(iii) * * *
(B) External TLAC risk-weighted buffer level was less than the external TLAC risk-weighted buffer as of the end of the previous calendar quarter or external TLAC leverage buffer level was less than 50 percent of the global systemically important BHC's applicable GSIB surcharge as of the end of the previous calendar quarter.
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(b) * * *
(2) 1095 days (three years) after the later of the date on which:
(i) The U.S. non-branch assets of the global systemically important foreign banking organization that controls the Covered IHC equaled or exceeded $50 billion; and
(ii) The foreign banking organization that controls the Covered IHC became a global systemically important foreign banking organization
(b) * * *
(1) A Covered IHC's outstanding eligible Covered IHC long-term debt amount is the sum of:
(i) One hundred (100) percent of the amount due to be paid of unpaid principal of the outstanding eligible Covered IHC debt securities issued by the Covered IHC in greater than or equal to 730 days (two years); and
(ii) Fifty (50) percent of the amount due to be paid of unpaid principal of the outstanding eligible Covered IHC debt securities issued by the Covered IHC in greater than or equal to 365 days (one
(iii) Zero (0) percent of the amount due to be paid of unpaid principal of the outstanding eligible Covered IHC debt securities issued by the Covered IHC in less than 365 days (one year).
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) The ratio (expressed as a percentage) of the Covered IHC's outstanding eligible Covered IHC long-term debt amount plus 50 percent of the amount of unpaid principal of outstanding eligible Covered IHC debt securities issued by the Covered IHC due to be paid in, as calculated in § 252.162(b)(2), greater than or equal to 365 days (one year) but less than 730 days (two years) to total risk-weighted assets.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify two VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways (V-217 and V-228) in the vicinity of the Chicago O'Hare International Airport, IL. The FAA is proposing this action due to the planned decommissioning of the Chicago O'Hare, IL (ORD), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid (NAVAID), which provides navigation guidance for portions of the affected ATS routes. The Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME is being decommissioned to facilitate the construction of a new runway at Chicago O'Hare International Airport.
Comments must be received on or before June 4, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1(800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0230; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-26 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the route structure in the Chicago, IL, area as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0230; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-26) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0230; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-26.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is planning to decommission the Chicago O'Hare, IL, VOR/DME in January 2019 in support of construction activities for a new runway at Chicago O'Hare International Airport.
With the planned decommissioning of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME, the remaining ground-based NAVAIDs in the area do not support the continuity of V-217 and V-228. As such, proposed modifications to V-217 and V-228 would result in a gap in the airways between the BESIE and FARMM fixes located northwest of the Chicago O'Hare International Airport, IL. To overcome the gaps in the airways and enroute structure, instrument flight rules traffic could use adjacent VOR Federal airways (including V-2, V-9, V-24, V-97, V-177, and V-191) to circumnavigate the affected area, file point to point through the affected area using fixes that will remain in place, or receive air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors through the area. Visual flight rules pilots who elect to navigate via the airways through the affected area could also take advantage of the adjacent VOR Federal airways, fixes, or ATC services previously listed.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the descriptions of VOR Federal airways V-217 and V-228. The planned decommissioning of the Chicago O'Hare, IL, VOR/DME has made these actions necessary. The proposed VOR Federal airway changes are described below.
All radials in the route descriptions below that are unchanged are stated in True degrees. Radials that are stated in True and Magnetic degrees are new computations based on available NAVAIDS.
VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From INT Madison, WI, 138°(T)/135°(M) and Badger, WI, 193° radials; Badger; Green Bay, WI; Rhinelander, WI; Duluth, MN; Hibbing, MN; Baudette, MN; INT Baudette 313° and Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 117° radials; to Winnipeg. The airspace within Canada is excluded. In addition, the portion of this airway that lies within the Beaver MOA is excluded when the Beaver MOA is active.
From Dells, WI; Madison, WI;to INT Madison 138° and Badger, WI, 193°(T)/191°(M) radials. From INT DuPage, IL, 359°(T)/357°(M) and Northbrook, IL, 291° radials; Northbrook; INT Northbrook 110° and Gipper, MI, 290° radials; to Gipper.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is publishing this proposed rule to strengthen controls over diversion of controlled substances and make other improvements in the quota management regulatory system for the production, manufacturing, and procurement of controlled substances.
Written comments must be postmarked, and electronic comments must be sent, on or before May 4, 2018. Comments received by mail will be considered timely if they are postmarked on or before the last day of the comment period. The electronic Federal Docket Management System will accept electronic comments until Midnight Eastern Time at the end of that day.
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-480” on all correspondence, including any attachment. The Drug Enforcement Administration encourages that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or to attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-8953.
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for public inspection online at
If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online or made available in the public docket in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted online or made available in the public docket.
Personal identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be redacted and the comment, in redacted form, will be posted online and placed in DEA's public docket file. Please note that the Freedom of Information Act applies to all comments received. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the
Provisions of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801
The current regulations, issued initially in 1971, need to be updated to reflect changes in the manufacture of controlled substances, changing patterns of substance abuse and markets in illicit drugs, and the challenges presented by the current national crisis of controlled substance abuse. This proposed rule modifies the regulations to strengthen controls over diversion—that is, the redirection of controlled substances which may have lawful uses into illicit channels—and makes other improvements in the controlled substance regulatory quota system.
The quota process, in general terms, is a critical element of the Controlled Substances Act's regulatory system that seeks to prevent or limit diversion by preventing the accumulation of controlled substances in amounts exceeding legitimate need. The measures the proposed rule adopts to strengthen the system include authorizing the requisition from quota applicants of additional information helpful in detecting and preventing diversion, and ensuring that DEA's determinations regarding the appropriate quotas are adequately informed by input from other federal agencies, from the states, and from quota applicants.
Section 1303.11 in the existing regulations directs the Administrator of DEA to determine the total quantity of each basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule I or II needed in the calendar year for the medical, scientific, research and industrial needs of the United States, for lawful export, and for the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks. Section 1303.11(b)(1)-(4) identifies a number of factors that are categorically to be considered in determining aggregate production quotas—relating to total net disposal, net disposal trends, inventories and inventory trends, and demand—followed by a final catchall factor, (5), regarding factors to be considered as the Administrator finds relevant. The proposed rule would make two additions to the list of factors that must regularly be considered in setting the aggregate production quotas because of their importance.
First, it would add to the list the extent of any diversion of the controlled substance in the class. This is relevant to ensure that the allowed aggregate production quota is limited to that needed to provide adequate supplies for the United States' legitimate needs.
Second, the proposed rule would amend the list of factors to be considered in establishing these quotas to include relevant information from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its components, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), as well as relevant information obtained from the states. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 242(a), HHS studies the use and misuse of controlled substances and provides, through the FDA, an annual report to the Attorney General concerning the quantities of controlled substances necessary to support the medicinal needs of the United States. The CDC and the CMS may also have relevant information, including information about the prevalence and patterns of drug abuse and the diversion of controlled substances to illicit use. The amendment would ensure that information will be requested from the relevant HHS components and will be considered in setting the aggregate production quotas.
Regarding the states, the proposed rule would provide that the Administrator will consider information from the states in setting the aggregate production quotas and make additional changes enhancing their role in § 1303.11(c). The states are critically situated to provide information about the extent of legitimate and illegitimate use of controlled substances because of their responsibilities for drug enforcement within their jurisdictions, including through the Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs, their responsibilities for administration of their health care systems, and their responsibilities for dealing with the human and social costs of drug abuse and diversion. States may have relevant information indicating that individual procurement quota requests reflect quantities which will in fact be diverted to illicit use, which may in turn yield an exaggerated picture of the aggregate production quotas needed for legitimate purposes. The proposed rule accordingly includes amendments to § 1303.11(c) which provide for (i) transmitting notices of proposed aggregate production quotas, and final aggregate production quota orders, to the state attorney general, and (ii) holding a hearing if necessary to resolve an issue of material fact raised by a state's objection to a proposed aggregate production quota as excessive in relation to legitimate United States need.
Section 1303.12 in the regulations directs the Administrator to issue procurement quotas for manufacturers that use controlled substances to put them into dosage form or to make other substances. The section requires applicants for procurement quotas to state what basic class of controlled substance is needed, the purpose or purposes for which the class is desired, the quantity desired for each purpose during the next calendar year, and the quantities used and estimated to be used for each purpose during the current and preceding two calendar years. If the applicant's purpose is to manufacture another basic class of controlled substance, the applicant also must state the quantity of the other basic class that the applicant has applied to manufacture, and the quantity of the first basic class necessary to manufacture a specified quantity of the second basic class.
The proposed rule would amend § 1303.12(b) to clarify that the Administrator may require additional comparable information from applicants that may help to detect or prevent diversion, including customer identities and amounts of the controlled substance sold to each customer.
Section 1303.13 authorizes the Administrator, at any time, to increase or reduce the aggregate production quotas for basic classes of controlled substances that were previously fixed pursuant to § 1303.11. The proposed rule would make amendments to § 1303.13 that parallel some of the amendments made to § 1303.11. Specifically, it includes changes in the extent of any diversion of the controlled substance among the factors to be considered in adjusting the aggregate production quota, requires transmission of adjustment notices and final adjustment orders to the state attorney general, and provides for a hearing if necessary to resolve an issue of material fact raised by a state's objection to a proposed adjusted quota as excessive for legitimate United States need.
The proposed rule would amend § 1303.22 to clarify that the Administrator may require additional information from individual manufacturing quota applicants that may help to detect or prevent diversion, including customer identities and amounts of the controlled substance sold to each customer.
The proposed rule would amend § 1303.23 to provide that the factors the Administrator may deem relevant in fixing individual manufacturing quotas include the extent and risk of diversion of controlled substances.
The proposed rule includes an amendment relating to hearings in § 1303.32(a), conforming to the amendments to §§ 1303.11(c) and 1303.13(c) concerning hearings based on state objections.
In addition to the significant changes discussed above, the proposed rule would correct a number of typographic errors in the current regulations.
Some of the proposed rule's provisions, including those relating to seeking information from other federal agencies and the states, and those relating to the holding of hearings based on state objections, are exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act as “rules
Insofar as soliciting public comment is necessary or useful, DEA publishes this proposed rule with a 15-day public comment period. This shortened period for public comment is necessary as an element in addressing the largest drug crisis in the nation's history. HHS and DEA have developed extensive information concerning the nature and magnitude of the crisis. See
Drug overdoses are now the leading cause of injury-related death in the United States, eclipsing deaths from motor vehicle accidents, firearms, homicide, or suicide. There were more than 63,600 overdose deaths in 2016, with opioids as the main driver of such deaths. Overdoses involving opioids killed more than 42,000 people in 2016, with prescription opioids accounting for 40% of the total. Opioid overdose deaths were more than five times higher in 2016 than 1999. 2017 DEA Data at v, 25; CDC Overdose Data; CDC Epidemic Data.
The misuse of controlled prescription drugs, and particularly prescription opioids, has been central to this deadly epidemic. In 2016, of Americans aged 12 or older, an estimated 3.3 million had misused prescription pain relievers during the preceding month and approximately 11.8 million had misused opioids in the past year. Prescription opioid misuse is more common than use of any category of illicit drug in the United States except for marijuana. SAMHSA Data at 14, 16, 20-21.
Users may be initiated into a life of substance abuse and dependency after first obtaining these drugs from their health care providers or without cost from the family medicine cabinet or from friends. Once ensnared, dependency on potent and dangerous street drugs may ensue. About 80% of heroin users first misused prescription opioids. Thus, it may be inferred that current users of heroin and fentanyl largely entered the gateway as part of the populations who previously misused prescription opioids. See NIDA Data.
Street prices for controlled prescription opioids are typically 5 to 10 times their retail value, with steady increases with the relative strength of the drug, fueling the market for prescription medications diverted into illegal channels. For example, hydrocodone combination products—a schedule II prescription drug and also the most prescribed controlled prescription drug in the country—can be purchased for $5 to $7 per tablet on the street. Slightly stronger drugs like oxycodone combined with acetaminophen (
The economic impact of prescription drug abuse was estimated to be $78.5 billion in 2013. Specific costs included increased health care and substance abuse treatment costs, criminal justice costs, and employment-related costs including lost earnings from premature death, reduced compensation, and lost employment. These costs, largely reflecting prescription opioid abuse, represent a substantial and growing economic burden on society. 2017 DEA Data at 40.
This proposed rule's reforms, which will help to control the diversion of controlled substances feeding the crisis described above, must be implemented without delay to permit timely action by the Drug Enforcement Administration, informed by adequate input from manufacturers, other federal agencies, and the states. The affected determinations include the following:
Section 1303.11 in the regulations requires the DEA Administrator to publish notice of the proposed aggregate production quotas for 2019 well in advance in 2018. The proposed rule's amendments to § 1303.11 would expand the factors to be considered by the Administrator to include the extent of diversion and enhance the input and role of other federal agencies and the states in the quota-setting process. Having these reforms in place expeditiously will facilitate the sound proposal and determination of aggregate production quotas for 2019.
Section 1303.12 requires the Administrator to set manufacturers' procurement quotas for 2019 well in advance in 2018; manufacturers' applications were due by April 1, 2018. The proposed rule would amend § 1303.12 to allow the Administrator to require procurement quota applicants to provide additional information that may help to detect or prevent the diversion of controlled substances ostensibly obtained for legitimate dosage form manufacturing. Having this reform in place expeditiously will facilitate the sound determination of procurement quotas for 2019 and help to ensure that controlled substances sought for dosage form manufacturing will not be diverted.
Section 1303.13 allows the Administrator to increase or reduce aggregate production quotas at any time. The proposed amendments would expand the factors to be considered by the Administrator in adjusting aggregate production quotas to include changes in the extent of diversion and make other changes to enhance the input and role of the states in the aggregate production quota adjustment process. Having these reforms in place expeditiously, as well as the amendments to other sections authorizing the requisition of more information from manufacturers bearing on the extent of diversion, will facilitate the sound determination of aggregate production quota adjustments by the Administrator, which may be undertaken at any time.
Sections 1303.22 and 1303.23 require the Administrator to set individual manufacturing quotas for 2019 well in advance in 2018, based on applications the manufacturers must submit by May 1, 2018. The proposed rule's amendments to these sections would authorize the Administrator to require applicants to provide additional information that may help to detect or prevent diversion, and add the extent and risk of diversion to the factors the Administrator may deem relevant in fixing individual manufacturing quotas. Having these reforms in place expeditiously will facilitate the sound determination of the individual manufacturing quotas for 2019.
In sum, the death of over 63,600 Americans from drug overdoses in 2016, and the other human, social, and
The Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), has reviewed this proposed rule and by approving it certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The DEA estimates that 325 manufacturers may be affected by the proposed rule, of which 301 manufacturers (92.6% of the total) are small entities. There will not be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of these small entities or any others because, as the ensuing certifications discuss, any overall cost of the rule is not significant.
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” DEA has determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f). The DEA analyzed the economic impact of each provision of this proposed rule. Section 1303.11 would be amended to make two additions to the list of factors to be considered by the Administrator in setting the aggregate production quotas. First, it would add the extent of any diversion of the controlled substance in the class. Second, it would add relevant information from HHS and its components, as well as from the states. The DEA has always considered any information obtained from other federal and state government agencies when fixing the aggregate production quotas for a controlled substance. While the DEA may receive additional information that is valuable in detecting and preventing diversion, the DEA has no reason to believe that there will be adverse economic impact or other consequences sufficient to implicate Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
Additionally, sections 1303.11 and 1303.13 would be amended to require the DEA to transmit copies of aggregate production quotas and any adjustments to those quotas published in the
Additionally, sections 1303.11, 1303.13, and 1303.32 would be amended to explicitly state that the DEA Administrator shall hold a hearing if he or she determines it is necessary to resolve an issue of material fact raised by a state objecting to the proposed quantity for the class as excessive for legitimate United States need. The estimated yearly cost of this revision will be dependent on the amount of hearings the DEA Administrator determines to be necessary to resolve an issue of material fact raised by a state regarding the aggregate production quota. Hearings regarding aggregate production quotas are infrequent and the DEA estimates that hearings of this type will continue to be infrequent under this proposed rule. For these reasons, the DEA does not expect a material increase in the number of hearings or in the associated costs to DEA or the states.
Sections 1303.12 and 1303.22 would be amended to explicitly state that the Administrator may require additional information from an individual manufacturing or procurement quota applicant, including customer identities and amounts of controlled substances sold to each of their customers. Currently, the DEA can and does request additional information of this nature from quota applicants if deemed necessary. While affording the Administrator express regulatory authority to require such information may result in the receipt of additional information that is valuable in detecting and preventing diversion, it is not expected that the difference will have adverse economic impact or other consequences sufficient to implicate E.O. 12866.
Sections 1303.11, 1303.13, and 1303.23 would be amended to add the requirement that DEA consider diversion of a controlled substance when fixing aggregate production quotas, adjusting aggregate production quotas, and fixing individual manufacturing quotas. When fixing and adjusting the aggregate production quota, or fixing an individual manufacturing quota for a controlled substance, the DEA has always considered all available information regarding the diversion of that controlled substance. While the proposed rule's amendments, as discussed above, may result in the receipt and consideration of additional information relating to diversion, it is not expected that the difference will have adverse economic impact or other consequences sufficient to implicate E.O. 12866.
This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
This regulation 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
This proposed rule codifies current agency practice under existing approved information collections, and does not impose new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rulemaking is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 804. This proposed rule will not result in an
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, part 1303 of title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 821, 826, 871(b).
The additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(5) The extent of any diversion of the controlled substance in the class;
(6) Relevant information obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services, including from the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and relevant information obtained from the states; and
(b) * * * The Administrator may require additional information from an applicant which, in the Administrator's judgment, may be helpful in detecting or preventing diversion, including customer identities and amounts of the controlled substance sold to each customer. * * *
The revision reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) Changes in the demand for that class, changes in the national rate of net disposal of the class, changes in the rate of net disposal of the class by registrants holding individual manufacturing quotas for that class, and changes in the extent of any diversion in the class;
The addition reads as follows:
(d) The Administrator may require additional information from an applicant which, in the Administrator's judgment, may be helpful in detecting or preventing diversion, including customer identities and amounts of the controlled substance sold to each customer.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local regulation for parts of the navigable waters of the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters during the weekend of the Kenny Chesney concert at Heinz Field. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from loitering, anchoring, stopping, mooring, remaining, or drifting in any manner that impedes safe passage of another vessel to any launching ramp, marina, or fleeting area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh or a designated representative. In addition, this proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from loitering, anchoring, stopping, or drifting more than 100 feet from any riverbank unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 4, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email
Heinz Field notified the Coast Guard that it would be holding a concert from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. on June 2, 2018. Heinz Field is located in close proximity to the banks of the Ohio and Allegheny Rivers, which is a high vessel traffic area used by both commercial and recreational vessels. Due to the proximity of Heinz Field to these waterways, it will be a destination for many recreational vessels to anchor and loiter throughout the concert weekend from June 1, 2018 through June 3, 2018. The Coast Guard is concerned about possible collisions that could occur in this area and the impact of vessel congestion on maritime commerce due to transit delays. The Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that this special local regulation is necessary to maintain an open navigation channel and ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters during the concert weekend.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters adjacent to Heinz Field on the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers before, during, and after the Kenny Chesney concert weekend. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233.
The Coast Guard is issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with a 15-day prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to section (b)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). This provision authorizes an agency to publish a rule in less than 30 days before its effective date for “good cause found and published with the rule.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for publishing this NPRM with a 15-day comment period because it is impractical to provide a 30-day comment period. This proposed special local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and persons during the concert weekend. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM with a 30-day comment period because we must establish this special local regulation by June 1, 2018. A 15-day comment period would allow the Coast Guard to provide for public notice and comment, but also publish a rule, if adopted, soon enough that the length of the notice and comment period does not compromise public safety.
The COTP proposes to establish a temporary special local regulation for all navigable waters of the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers between the Ninth Street Highway Bridge at mile marker (MM) 0.8, Allegheny River, Fort Pitt Highway Bridge at MM 0.22, Monongahela River, and West End-North Side Highway Bridge at MM 0.8, Ohio River. The duration of the temporary special local regulation is intended to ensure the safety of vessels on these navigable waters before, during, and after the concert weekend. This proposed rule would apply to any vessel operating within the area, including a naval or public vessel, except a vessel engaged in law enforcement, servicing aids to navigation, or surveying, maintaining, or improving waters within the regulated area. No vessel would be permitted to loiter, anchor, stop, moor, remain or drift in any manner that impedes safe passage of another vessel to any launching ramp, marina, or fleeting area unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. In addition, no vessel or person would be permitted to loiter, anchor, stop, remain, or drift more than 100 feet from any riverbank unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels seeking entry into the regulated area must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this regulated area must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size and location of the special local regulation. The special local regulation will impact a small section of the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers, less than three total miles. Moreover, the special local regulation will not stop vessels from transiting the area, it will only establish certain areas where vessels are prohibited from loitering, anchoring, stopping, or drifting more than 100 feet from any river bank.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year.
Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special local regulation that prohibits vessels from loitering, anchoring, stopping, remaining or drifting more than 100 feet from any bank. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, Department of Homeland Security Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR1.05-1.
(a)
(b)
(1) Law enforcement;
(2) Servicing aids to navigation; or
(3) Surveying, maintaining, or improving waters within the regulated area.
(c)
(2) No vessel shall loiter, anchor, stop, moor, remain or drift at any time more than 100 feet from any riverbank within the regulated area unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.
(3) Persons and vessels seeking entry into the regulated area must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16.
(4) Persons and vessels permitted to enter the regulated area must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
(d)
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend its safety zones regulation for Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone. This proposed amendment updates 12 permanent safety zones and adds 12 new permanent safety zones. These amendments and additions are necessary to protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the hazards associated with annual maritime events, including fireworks displays, boat races, and air shows. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 21, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-1112 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email
On June 18, 2008, the Coast Guard published a final rule entitled Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone in the
The legal basis for this proposed rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to update the safety zones in § 165.939 to ensure accuracy of times, dates, and dimensions for various triggering and marine events that are expected to be conducted within the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone throughout the year. The purpose of the rulemaking is also to ensure vessels and persons are protected from the specific hazards related to the aforementioned events. These specific hazards include obstructions in the waterway that may cause marine casualties; collisions among vessels maneuvering at a high speed within a channel; the explosive dangers involved in pyrotechnics and hazardous cargo; and flaming/falling debris into the water that may cause injuries. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
This proposed rule amends 12 permanent safety zones found within table 165.939 of 33 CFR 165.939. These 12 amendments involve updating the location, size, and/or enforcement times.
Additionally, this proposed rule adds 12 new safety zones to table 165.939 within § 165.939 for annually-reoccurring events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone. These 12 zones were approved and published in the
The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that the safety zones in this proposed rule are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during annual marine or triggering events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo zone. Although this proposed rule will be effective year-round, the safety zones in this proposed rule will be enforced only immediately before, during, and after events that pose a hazard to the public and only upon notice by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.
The Captain of the Port Buffalo will notify the public that the zones in this proposal are or will be enforced by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public, including publication in the
All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Buffalo or his or her designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zones. The safety zones created by this rule will be relatively small and effective during the time to ensure safety of spectator and participants for the listed triggering or marine events. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment yearly triggering and marine events on and around Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and the Saint Lawrence Seaway. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[61] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(2) These safety zones are closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
(5) The enforcement dates and times for each of the safety zones listed in Table 165.939 are subject to change, but the duration of enforcement would remain the same or nearly the same total number of hours as stated in the table. In the event of a change, the Captain of the Port Buffalo will provide notice to the public by publishing a Notice of Enforcement in the
(b)
(1) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officers designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to monitor a safety zone, permit entry into a safety zone, give legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels within a safety zone, and take other actions authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.
(2) Public vessel means a vessel that is owned, chartered, or operated by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof.
(3) Rain date refers to an alternate date and/or time in which the safety zone would be enforced in the event of inclement weather.
(c)
(d)
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend its safety zones regulation for Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This amendment updates two permanent safety zones, adds three new permanent safety zones, and removes one old permanent safety zone. These amendments, additions, and removals are necessary to protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the hazards associated with annual maritime events, including sailing races, boat parades, swim events and air shows. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 21, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0082 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this rule, call or email LT John Ramos, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (630) 986-2155, email
On May 9, 2016, the Coast Guard published a Final Rule entitled Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone in the
The legal basis for this proposed rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to update the safety zones in 33 CFR 165.929 to ensure that they match the times, dates, and dimensions for various marine and triggering events that are expected to be conducted with the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone throughout the year. The purpose of the rulemaking is also to ensure vessels and persons are protected from the specific hazards related to the aforementioned events.
These specific hazards include obstructions to the waterway that may cause marine casualties; collisions among vessels and collisions between vessels and people.
This amendment updates two permanent safety zones, adds three new permanent safety zones, and removes one old permanent safety zone. This proposed rule amends two permanent safety zones found within Table 165.929 in 33 CFR 165.929. These two amendments involve updating the location, size, and/or enforcement times for: one air show in Milwaukee, WI and one sailing race in Chicago, Illinois.
Additionally, this proposed rule adds three new safety zones to Table 165.929 within 33 CFR 165.929 for annually- reoccurring events in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone. These three zones were added in order to protect the public from the safety hazards previously described. The three additions include two safety zones for boat parades in Milwaukee, WI, and one safety zone for a swim event in Milwaukee, WI. A list of specific changes and additions are available in the attachments within this Docket.
This proposed rule also removes one permanent safety zone found within Table 165.929 in 33 CFR 165.929. The safety zone being removed is the Lubbers Cup Regatta listed as item (b)(2) in Table 165.929. This safety zone is being removed because the Lubbers Cup Regatta marine event was determined to no longer need a safety zone.
The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that the safety zones in this proposed rule are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during annual marine or triggering events in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. Although this proposed rule will be effective year- round, the safety zones in this proposed rule will be enforced only immediately before, during, and after events that pose a hazard to the public and only upon notice by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will notify the public that the zones in this proposal are or will be enforced by all appropriate means to the
All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his or her designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative. The Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative may be contacted via VHF-FM Channel 16 or at (414) 747-7182.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the facts that the safety zones created by this rule will be relatively small and effective during the time necessary to ensure safety of spectator and participants for the listed triggering or marine events. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF- FM marine channel 16 about the zones, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zones.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zones created this rule may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of safety zones for yearly triggering and marine events on and around Lake Michigan. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 (a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) Regulations. The following regulations apply to the safety zones listed in Table 165.929 of this section.
(1) The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23.
(2) All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his or her designated representative to enter, move within, or exit a safety zone established in this section when the safety zone is enforced. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter one of the safety zones listed in this section must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his or her designated representative. Upon being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel must proceed as directed.
(3) The enforcement dates and times for each of the safety zones listed in Table 165.929 are subject to change, but the duration of enforcement would remain the same or nearly the same total number of hours as stated in the table. In the event of a change, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will provide notice to the public by publishing a Notice of Enforcement in the
(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
(1) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to monitor a safety zone, permit entry into a safety zone, give legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels within a safety zone, and take other actions authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
(2) Public vessel means a vessel that is owned, chartered, or operated by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof.
(3) Rain date refers to an alternate date and/or time in which the safety zone would be enforced in the event of inclement weather.
(c) Suspension of enforcement. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan may suspend enforcement of any of these zones earlier than listed in this section. Should the Captain of the Port suspend any of these zones earlier than the listed duration in this section, he or she may make the public aware of this suspension by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or on-scene notice by his or her designated representative.
(d) Exemption. Public vessels, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, are exempt from the requirements in this section.
(e) Waiver. For any vessel, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his or her designated representative may waive any of the requirements of this section upon finding that operational conditions or other circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary or impractical for the purposes of safety or security.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, as supplemented, for the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO
Written comments must be received on or before May 21, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0558, at
Robert Imhoff, 214-665-7262,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
On June 22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary SO
For a number of areas, including the St. Bernard Parish, the EPA published a final “Findings of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plans Required for Attainment of the 2010 1-Hour Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)”
On November 9, 2017, LDEQ submitted a 2010 SO
Nonattainment area SIPs must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA, and specifically CAA sections 110, 172, 191 and 192. The EPA's regulations governing nonattainment area SIPs are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific procedural requirements and control strategy requirements residing at subparts F and G, respectively. Soon after Congress enacted the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, the EPA issued comprehensive guidance on SIPs, in a document entitled the “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” published at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). Among other things, the General Preamble addressed SO
In order for the EPA to fully approve a SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110, 172 and 191-192 and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51, the SIP for the affected area needs to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that each of the aforementioned requirements have been met. Under CAA sections 110(l) and 193, the EPA may not approve a SIP that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement under the Act. Furthermore, no requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order, settlement, agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990, in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant, may be modified in any manner unless it insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.
The CAA section 172(c)(1) directs states with areas designated as nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted plan provides for attainment of the NAAQS. 40 CFR part 51, subpart G further delineates the control strategy requirements that SIPs must meet, and the EPA has long required that all SIPs and control strategies reflect four fundamental principles of quantification, enforceability, replicability, and accountability.
Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are described in Appendix A of the EPA's
As stated previously, attainment demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour primary SO
The meteorological data used in the analysis should generally be processed with the most recent version of AERMOD. Estimated concentrations should include ambient background concentrations, should follow the form of the standard, and should be calculated as described in section 2.6.1.2 of the August 23, 2010 clarification memo on “Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hr SO
The following discussion evaluates various features of the modeling that Louisiana used in the attainment demonstration, as well as a discussion of the EPA's additional modeling that was conducted as part of the review of the State's SIP. LDEQ submitted modeling at the time of the SIP submittal. However, the state's modeling did not include modeling for all operating scenarios at Rain. In addition, subsequent to the State's modeling, Rain provided updated estimates for stack parameters for the hot stack. LDEQ submitted additional modeling, as noted in the February 8, 2018 letter, that incorporated the updated stack parameters for the hot stack. The 1-hour SO
Louisiana's attainment demonstration modeling used the Guideline preferred model, AERMOD (version 15181 of AERMOD) with default options (
LDEQ used building information (height, width, and length) to analyze potential building downwash in their modeling, and also chose to use rural characterization instead of urban characterization for vertical mixing and boundary layer calculations. The EPA reviewed the building downwash analysis and concurs with the choice of rural setting for the dispersion. Our review indicates that the modeling options and settings are acceptable and appropriate in the modeling submitted and EPA's modeling (see the TSD for more detail).
The modeling utilized surface meteorological data obtained from the New Orleans International Airport and upper air data from the Slidell National Weather Station from 2011-2015. The New Orleans International Airport is the closest National Weather Service site, 27 km distant from the Vista monitor, and is representative of the meteorology in the St. Bernard Parish due to the proximity and the similarity of the terrain. The data was processed using the meteorological processing tools, AERMINUTE (14347) and AERMET (14134). Newer versions of the processing programs are available, but based on the changes that the EPA made in AERMINUTE and AERMET (discussed above) we would not expect to see any significant changes even if the data was processed with the latest version of AERMINUTE (v15272) and AERMET (v16216). Therefore, the EPA finds the selection and processing of this data to be acceptable.
There are three major sources of SO
LDEQ used site specific building and stack data and modeled all stacks at the lesser of their actual stack height, or Good Engineering Practice (GEP) stack height as determined by the BPIP PRIME preprocessor. Building downwash influences obtained from the BPIP PRIME output were included in the modeling. For a more detailed analysis and conclusions on what sources were included in the modeling, and how they were modeled see the TSD.
As discussed in the TSD, Rain was identified as the primary contributor to exceedances at the Vista monitor. Louisiana and EPA modeling support the establishment of additional emission limits for Rain. Rain is a coke calcining operation that includes a waste heat recovery boiler. During normal operations, the exhaust from the calining operation is routed through the recovery boiler and then through a scrubber and finally to the atmosphere through what is termed the “cold stack.” During start up and times when the recovery boiler is down, emissions are routed to the atmosphere through what is known as the “hot stack.” The modeling covers three operation scenarios: Cold stack operation, hot stack operation, and a transitional period with emissions through both stacks. This third operation scenario was further divided into four stages based on flow and temperatures through the cold stack. Because of the wide range of emission rates and plume buoyancy during the startup this approach enabled the determination of emission rates for each stage that were shown through the modeling to be consistent with attainment of the NAAQS. The modeling includes current conditions reflecting the operation of the scrubber and the new cold stack for estimating the impacts of emissions through the cold stack. The 1-hour SO
Except for the emission points addressed in the February 2, 2018 AOC, the emission limits for the other relevant sources inside St. Bernard Parish, as outlined in Louisiana's attainment demonstration and supplement to the SIP, correspond to the sulfur limitations on a 1-hour basis found in their permits. The emission limits for Rain are all on a 1-hour average basis; and equal the modeled emissions rates. The EPA finds Louisiana's choice of included sources to be appropriate. However, EPA found that the modeled emission rates utilized by LDEQ in their modeling for several sources reflected permit limits that have been modified. For EPA's modeling, we used the updated emission rates. The State reviewed the emission
Within AERMOD, air quality concentration results are calculated at discrete locations identified by the user; these locations are called receptors. LDEQ placed receptors within St. Bernard Parish with 100 meter (m) spacing extending 2 km from the fence line of the three major facilities in St. Bernard Parish; spacing is 250 m from 2-7 km; 500 m interval from 7-11 km; and 1,000 m interval from 11-50 km and beyond. In addition, receptors were placed along facility fence lines for the three major facilities, which define the ambient air boundary for a particular source. A receptor grid extends approximately 50 km to the east of the Valero refinery (easternmost large source of SO
An important prerequisite for approval of an attainment plan is that the emission limits that provide for attainment be quantifiable, fully enforceable, replicable, and accountable.
Louisiana entered an AOC with Rain on November 9, 2017, and a new AOC on February 2, 2018, pursuant to the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act (La. R.S. 30:2001,
The emissions limits relied upon in the modeling for the other two major sources within the area that could contribute to nonattainment in the area already are federally enforceable because they are reside in NSR SIP permits Valero No. 1500-00001-V16 and Chalmette has 11 permits.
The two other facilities that are located outside of St. Bernard Parish that were included in the modeling are not located in a direction such that they can contribute to the maximum concentrations in St. Bernard Parish (not upwind) so would have a negligable impact on maximum modeled concentrations within St. Bernard Parish. Therefore, LDEQ did not require new SO
To develop background concentrations for the nonattainment area, Louisiana relied on 2012-2014 SO
These background values are representative of the contribution due to other sources within the St. Bernard Parish and surrounding areas that were not explicitly modeled. See the TSD for additional information. Using this approach, the EPA finds the State's treatment of SO
The modeling analysis including the February 2, 2018 AOC emission limits for the Rain facility resulted in concentrations below the level of the 1-hour primary SO
We therefore propose to determine that Louisiana's plan provides for attainment of the 2010 primary SO
The emissions inventory and source emission rate data for an area serve as the foundation for air quality modeling and other analyses that enable states to: (1) Estimate the degree to which different sources within a nonattainment area contribute to violations within the affected area; and (2) assess the expected improvement in air quality within the nonattainment area due to the adoption and implementation of control measures. As noted above, the state must develop and submit to the EPA a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of SO
In its submittal, Louisiana included a current emissions inventory for the St. Bernard Parish nonattainment area based on the 2011-2015 period. Two other sources outside St. Bernard Parish were also included in the modeling, but were not critical to the modeling and thus further emission reductions (or including existing limits in this SIP) were not necessary for these two sources (ConocoPhillips and New Orleans Sewer Treatment).
The State principally relied on 2011 as the most complete and representative record of annual SO
The state of Louisiana compiles a statewide EI in accordance with the CAA Amendments of 1990, LAC 33:III.918 and 919 (Recordkeeping and Annual Reporting and Emissions Inventory). Louisiana supplemented the 2011 NEI data with their 2013 point source EI in the SIP submittal as shown in the following table:
In addition, the State further supplemented the emissions inventory information and SIP submittal with newer, more specific emissions information for Rain in the February 2, 2018 AOC, which included revised emission limits and operating parameters utilized in the attainment demonstration modeling.
Louisiana also developed SO
Because St. Bernard Parish is currently an SO
The EPA agrees that the State's emissions inventories for point, nonpoint and mobile sources are appropriate because they rely on well-established and vetted estimates of emissions for the current period and attainment year, respectively.
To be approved by the EPA, the SIP must provide for attainment of the standard based on SO
The plan relies on ambient SO
Further improvements will be achieved through the implementation of the February 2, 2018 AOC that sets operating parameters and emission limits for all three operating states: 1) Emit through Hot Stack; 2) Emit through Cold Stack; and 3) Transition between the two states during which emissions are through both stacks. It also further reduced the emission limits for the cold stack providing for an additional 57-78% reduction in cold stack emissions.
The final emission limitations as included in the February 2, 2018 AOC are provided in Section IV.E. Emission Limitations above.
Valero Refining completed SO
Motor Vehicles in the general area have reduced SO
Louisiana has determined that these measures for Rain in addition to the permitted limits at Valero Refining, and Chalmette Refining, provide for timely attainment and meet the RACT requirements.
The EPA has approved both Louisiana's NNSR and Emission Reduction Credits (ERC) banking programs. (LAC 33:111.504 was approved on September 30, 2002 (67 FR 61270); LAC 33:III.Chapter 6 was approved on September 27, 2002 (67 FR 60877)). Note that per a rule revision promulgated November 20, 2012 (AQ 327), (See App. D to SIP), revisions to LDEQ's ERC banking program (LAC 33:III.Chapter 6) were made such that creditable SO
Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by part D or may reasonably be required by EPA for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.” This definition is most appropriate for pollutants that are emitted by numerous and diverse sources, where the relationship between any individual source and the overall air quality is not explicitly quantified, and where the emission reductions necessary to attain the NAAQS are inventory-wide. See April 2014 SO
In its submittal and supplement, the LDEQ provided its rationale for concluding that the plan met the requirement for RFP in accordance with EPA guidance. Specifically, LDEQ's rationale is based on the General Preamble and EPA 2014 SO
As discussed in our 2014 SO
For its contingency program, Louisiana proposed to operate a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of the SO
As noted above, EPA guidance describes special features of SO
Generally, as set forth in section 176(c) of the CAA, conformity requires that actions by federal agencies do not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS. General conformity applies to federal actions, other than certain highway and transportation projects, if the action takes place in a nonattainment area or maintenance area (
Transportation conformity determinations are not required in SO
The EPA is proposing to approve Louisiana's SIP submission, which the State submitted to EPA on November 9, 2017, and supplemented on February 8, 2018, as meeting the requirements for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than October 4,
The EPA has determined that Louisiana's SO
In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the Louisiana source-specific requirements as described in the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve 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 Order 12866 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, 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.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Wayne National Forest (Wayne), located in the Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau of southeast Ohio, is initiating the forest planning process pursuant to the 2012 Planning Rule. This process will result in a revised and updated Natural Resource Land Management Plan for the Wayne, often referred to as the Forest Plan, which will guide all resource management activities on the Wayne for approximately the next fifteen years. The current Wayne Forest Plan was completed in 2006.
The plan revision process encompasses three stages: Assessment, plan development, and implementation and monitoring. This notice announces the initiation of the assessment phase, the first stage of the plan revision process. The assessment shall rapidly identify and consider relevant and readily accessible information about ecological, social and economic conditions and trends in the planning area. Findings will be documented in an assessment report that will be available for public comment.
In the spring and summer of 2018, the public is invited to participate in the assessment phase of the revision process, for which public engagement opportunities will be posted on the Wayne Forest Plan Revision website located at:
Information will also be sent to electronic mailing lists, social media, and media outlets. If members of the public are interested in learning more, please visit the Forest Plan Revision website and select the link to subscribe to updates on the Wayne Forest Plan Revision. Information can also be obtained by sending an email to
The draft assessment report for the Wayne National Forest is expected to be completed by August 2018 and will be posted on the Wayne Forest Plan Revision website listed above for review. The final assessment report is expected to be completed by October 2018. The assessment will inform the need for changes required in the existing forest plan. Wayne National Forest will then initiate procedures pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and prepare and evaluate a revised Forest Plan.
Send written comments to: Wayne National Forest, Attn: Plan Revision, 13700 US HWY 33, Nelsonville, OH 45764. Written comments may also be sent via email to
Lori Swiderski, Revision Project Director, 740-753-0859,
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires that every National Forest System (NFS) unit develop a Land and Resource Management Plan, often called a Forest Plan. On April 9, 2012, the Forest Service finalized its land management planning rule, referred to as the 2012 Planning Rule (26 CFR 219), which describes requirements for the planning process and provides programmatic direction to National Forests and National Grasslands for developing and implementing their forest plans. Forest Plans describe the strategic direction for management of forest resources, and are adaptive and amendable as conditions change over time, in order to remain relevant for their intended application period of 10-15 years.
Similar to the 2008 Planning Rule, the 2012 Planning Rule requires each national forest to outline desired conditions for each management area, specify objectives to achieve those conditions, and engage the public extensively throughout the plan revision process. However, the 2012 Planning Rule diverges from previous iterations in several guiding concepts and substantive components, particularly in relying on the concept of ecological integrity to frame plan assessment, develop plan components, and fulfill monitoring requirements. Based on current estimates, it is expected to take two years to produce a revised Forest Plan.
Pursuant to the 2012 Planning Rule, the revision process encompasses three stages: Assessment, plan revision and monitoring.
For the first phase, the Wayne has posted helpful resources, including the current Forest Plan, the 15 required assessment topics, and the Citizen's Guide to National Forest Planning, on the Wayne Forest Plan website listed in the
During this assessment phase, the Wayne invites other government agencies, non-governmental parties, and the public to share relevant information that will help develop an understanding of conditions and trends of the assessment topics that are useful to making decisions about the revised plan content. This will include governmental or non-governmental assessments, plans, monitoring reports, studies, and other sources of relevant information about existing and changed conditions, trends, and perceptions of social, economic and ecological systems in the planning area. The Wayne will host a variety of public outreach forums in the spring and summer of 2018 to facilitate this effort, and the public is encouraged to participate and provide meaningful contributions. The Wayne is seeking local knowledge of social values, available data resources, areas of use, and activities, goods and services produced by lands within the Wayne that will help identify gaps in the current management plan, inform the need for change, and highlight priority issues that should be addressed in this revision. This will then lead to the next step of the revision process and inform desired conditions, standards and guidelines, land suitability determinations, and other components that will become part of the revised plan. Public participation is an essential step toward understanding current conditions, available data, and feedback needed to support an overall strategic, efficient and effective revision process.
Several guiding principles, developed to overcome stakeholder-identified challenges, will drive public engagement throughout the plan revision process. These guiding principles include providing direct and transparent communication through a variety of methods, maintaining focused public involvement, building relationships, and promoting sharing, learning and understanding between the agency, partners and the public. These guiding principles will help the Wayne ensure that public engagement in the current assessment phase and throughout the plan revision process will be functional, accessible, and representative.
To identify as much relevant information as possible, the Wayne is encouraging contributors to share their concerns and perceptions of the conditions and trends in social, economic and environmental systems within the Wayne planning area. Meetings, review and comment periods, and other opportunities for public engagement throughout the plan revision process will be publicized, with announcements posted on the Wayne's planning website at
The Responsible Official for the revision of the Forest Plan for Wayne National Forest is Anthony V. Scardina, Forest Supervisor, Wayne National Forest, 13700 US HWY 33, Nelsonville, OH 45764.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), Commerce is issuing a countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain aluminum foil (aluminum foil) from the People's Republic of China (China). In addition, Commerce is amending its final CVD determination with respect to aluminum foil from China, to correct ministerial errors.
Applicable April 19, 2018.
Yasmin Bordas, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3813.
In accordance with sections 705(a), 705(d), and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on March 5, 2018, Commerce published in the
On April 9, 2018, the ITC notified Commerce of its affirmative determination pursuant to section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and section 705(d) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of aluminum foil from China.
The merchandise covered by this order is aluminum foil from China. For a complete description of the scope of this order,
On March 5, 2018, the petitioners
Commerce reviewed the record and, on April 3, 2018, agreed that the errors referenced in the petitioners' and Dingsheng HK's allegations constitute ministerial errors within the meaning of 705(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f).
In accordance with section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act, the ITC has notified Commerce of its final determination in this investigation, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of aluminum foil from China. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act, we are issuing this CVD order. Because the ITC determined that imports of aluminum foil from China are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from China, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of countervailing duties.
As a result of the ITC's final determination, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce will direct United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties equal to the net countervailable subsidy rates, for all relevant entries of aluminum foil from China. Upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of aluminum foil from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 14, 2017, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of aluminum foil from China, as further described below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. Commerce will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the subsidy rates listed below.
Section
This notice constitutes the CVD order with respect to aluminum foil from China pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of CVD orders currently in effect at
This order and amended final determination are published in accordance with section 706(a) and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The merchandise covered by this order is aluminum foil having a thickness of 0.2 mm or less, in reels exceeding 25 pounds, regardless of width. Aluminum foil is made from an aluminum alloy that contains more than 92 percent aluminum. Aluminum foil may be made to ASTM specification ASTM B479, but can also be made to other specifications. Regardless of specification, however, all aluminum foil meeting the scope description is included in the scope, including aluminum foil to which lubricant has been applied to one or both sides of the foil.
Excluded from the scope of this order is aluminum foil that is backed with paper, paperboard, plastics, or similar backing materials on one side or both sides of the aluminum foil, as well as etched capacitor foil and aluminum foil that is cut to shape.
Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above. The products under the order are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7607.11.3000, 7607.11.6000, 7607.11.9030, 7607.11.9060, 7607.11.9090, and 7607.19.6000. Further, merchandise that falls within the scope of this proceeding may also be entered into the United States under HTSUS subheadings 7606.11.3060, 7606.11.6000, 7606.12.3045, 7606.12.3055, 7606.12.3090, 7606.12.6000, 7606.91.3090, 7606.91.6080, 7606.92.3090, and 7606.92.6080.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), Commerce is issuing an antidumping duty (AD) order on certain aluminum foil from the People's Republic of China (China). In addition, Commerce is amending its final determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) from China as a result of a ministerial error.
Applicable April 19, 2018.
Tom Bellhouse or Michael J. Heaney, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2057 or (202) 482-4475, respectively.
On March 5, 2018, Commerce published in the
The merchandise covered by this order is aluminum foil from China. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
After considering parties' comments and reviewing the record, pursuant to section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (f), Commerce is amending the
As a result of this amended final determination, we have revised the estimated weighted average dumping margins as follows:
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC has notified Commerce of its final determination in this investigation, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are publishing this AD order.
Because the ITC determined that imports of aluminum foil from China are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from China entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties. In accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of aluminum foil from China. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of aluminum foil from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 2, 2017, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of aluminum foil from China. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value (NV) exceeds U.S. price as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the exporter/producer combination listed in the table above will be the rate identified for that combination in the table; (2) for all combinations of Chinese exporters/producers of subject merchandise that have not received their own separate rate above, the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the China-wide entity; and (3) for all non-Chinese exporters of the subject merchandise which have not received their own separate rate above, the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate applicable to the Chinese exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-Chinese exporter.
We normally adjust AD cash deposit rates by the amount of export subsidies, where appropriate. In the companion countervailing duty (CVD) investigation, we have found that both Dingsheng and Zhongji received export subsidies.
Pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act, we normally adjust AD cash deposit rates for estimated domestic subsidy pass-through, where appropriate. However, in this case there is no basis to grant a domestic subsidy pass-through adjustment.
Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request Commerce to extend that four-month period to no more than six months.
At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of aluminum foil from China, we extended the four-month period to no more than six months in this case.
Therefore, because the publication of the ITC's final injury determination occurred before the expiration of the extended provisional measures, suspension of liquidation continues through the issuance of the AD order.
This notice constitutes the AD order with respect to aluminum foil from China pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD orders currently in effect at
This order and amended final determination are published in accordance with sections 736(a) and 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211 and 351.224(e).
The merchandise covered by this order is aluminum foil having a thickness of 0.2 mm or less, in reels exceeding 25 pounds, regardless of width. Aluminum foil is made from an aluminum alloy that contains more than 92 percent aluminum. Aluminum foil may be made to ASTM specification ASTM B479, but can also be made to other specifications. Regardless of specification, however, all aluminum foil meeting the scope description is included in the scope, including aluminum foil to which lubricant has been applied to one or both sides of the foil.
Excluded from the scope of this order is aluminum foil that is backed with paper, paperboard, plastics, or similar backing materials on one side or both sides of the aluminum foil, as well as etched capacitor foil and aluminum foil that is cut to shape.
Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above. The products under the order are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7607.11.3000, 7607.11.6000, 7607.11.9030, 7607.11.9060, 7607.11.9090, and 7607.19.6000. Further, merchandise that falls within the scope of this proceeding may also be entered into the United States under HTSUS subheadings 7606.11.3060, 7606.11.6000, 7606.12.3045, 7606.12.3055, 7606.12.3090, 7606.12.6000, 7606.91.3090, 7606.91.6080, 7606.92.3090, and 7606.92.6080.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 8, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a request for revocation, in part, of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on polyester staple fiber (PSF) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) and Taiwan with respect to low-melt PSF. We preliminarily determine that the
Effective April 19, 2018.
Emily Halle or Nicholas Czajkowski, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0176 or (202) 482-1395, respectively.
On May 25, 2000, Commerce published the AD orders on PSF from Korea and Taiwan.
On March 16, 2018, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the requested changed circumstances reviews.
The product covered by the orders is certain polyester staple fiber (PSF). PSF is defined as synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise subject to these orders may be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture. Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 5503.20.00.25 is specifically excluded from these orders. Also specifically excluded from these orders are polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture of carpeting). In addition, low-melt PSF is excluded from these orders. Low-melt PSF is defined as a bi-component fiber with an outer sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner core.
The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and 5503.20.00.65.
Pursuant to section 751(d)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(g), Commerce may revoke an AD or countervailing duty order, in whole or in part, based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act (
Commerce's regulations do not specify a deadline for the issuance of the preliminary results of a changed circumstances review, but provide that Commerce will issue the final results of review within 270 days after the date on which the changed circumstances review is initiated.
As noted in the
Accordingly, we are notifying the public of our intent to revoke the
If we make a final determination to revoke the
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of reviews in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Case briefs may be submitted no later than ten days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice. Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 in a room to be determined.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of these changed circumstances reviews, which will include its analysis of any written comments received, no later than 270 days after the date on which these reviews were initiated, or within 45 days if all parties to the proceeding agree to the outcome of the review.
If, in the final results of these reviews, Commerce continues to determine that changed circumstances warrant the revocation of the
The current requirement for cash deposits of estimated AD duties on all entries of subject merchandise will continue unless they are modified pursuant to the final results of these changed circumstances reviews. If, in the final results of these reviews, Commerce continues to determine that changed circumstances warrant the revocation of the
These preliminary results of reviews and notice are in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221 and 19 CFR 351.222.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of 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 18, 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 Carl Gouldman, (240) 533-9454 or
This request is for reinstatement with changes of an information collection supported by Section 12302 (3) of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act (ICOOS Act) part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11). The survey is voluntary.
NOAA's National Ocean Service is requesting approval to repeat a web-based survey of employers who provide either services or infrastructure to the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) or organizations that add value to the IOOS data and other outputs by tailoring them for specific end uses. The purpose of the survey and overall project is to gather data to articulate the collective and derived value of the IOOS enterprise, and to create a profile of businesses and organizations who are involved with providing services or utilizing the data for other specific end uses. This will be the second survey of its kind on a national scale following
The marine technology industry is an important partner and stakeholder within IOOS: This follow up study will build upon the previous baseline study conducted in FY2015 and will identify trends in this important industry cluster. This information can be used to understand the changing value of export sales and the identification of potential growth and/or new international markets which would further the Department of Commerce (DOC) strategic goal for better environment intelligence (
The method of data collection is through a web (internet) delivered survey.
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.
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 18, 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 Laurie Golden, 240-533-0285 or
This request is for a revision and extension of a currently approved information collection. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Ocean Program (COP), now known as the Competitive Research Program (CRP) under the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, provides direct financial assistance through grants and cooperative agreements for research supporting the management of coastal ecosystems and the NOAA Restore Science Program. The statutory authority for COP is P.L. 102-567 Section 201 (Coastal Ocean Program). NOAA was authorized to establish and administer the Restore Science Program, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies (RESTORE) of the Gulf States Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-141, Section 1604). Identified in the RESTORE Act as the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Science, Observation, Monitoring, and Technology Program, the Program is commonly known as the NOAA RESTORE Science Program. In addition to standard government application requirements, applicants for financial assistance are required to submit a project summary form, current and pending form and a key contacts form for both programs. CRP recipients are required to file annual progress reports and a project final report using CRP formats. The RSP are required to file semi annual progress reports, a final report and a Gantt chart showing project milestones using RSP formats. All of these requirements are needed for better evaluation of proposals and monitoring of awards.
Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms.
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.
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 18, 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 is conducting a cost and earnings survey of active vessels operating with a limited entry groundfish permit that has a fixed gear (longline and/or pot) endorsement. Commercial fisheries economic data collections implemented by the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) have contributed 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).
This survey will collect data for the 2016 and 2017 fiscal years through in-person interviews, telephone interviews, mail responses, and on-line responses. Based on previous economic data collection from this population, the NWFSC expects most survey respondents to respond through an in-person interview.
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.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Call for applications to serve on Advisory Committee.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is seeking applications from persons interested in serving on the Department of Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC or committee) for two-year terms. The CSMAC provides advice to the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator on spectrum policy matters.
Applications must be postmarked or electronically transmitted on or before May 18, 2018.
Persons may submit applications, with the information specified below, to David J. Reed, Designated Federal Officer, by email to
David J. Reed at (202) 482-5955 or
The Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee is chartered by the Department of Commerce under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
Under the terms of the committee's charter, it will have no fewer than five (5) members and no more than thirty (30) members. The members serve on the CSMAC in the capacity of Special Government Employee (SGE). As SGEs, members must comply with certain federal conflict of interest statutes and ethics regulations, including some financial disclosure requirements. Members will not receive compensation or reimbursement for travel or for per diem expenses. No member may be a registered federal lobbyist pursuant to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (
The Secretary of Commerce appoints members of the committee who serve at the Secretary's pleasure and discretion for up to a two-year term and may be reappointed for additional terms. NTIA currently seeks applicants for new two-year terms that will commence in October 2018 and continue through September 2020, subject to the anticipated timely renewal of the committee's charter or its termination by proper authority.
The committee's membership will be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented by members and the functions to be performed. Accordingly, its membership will reflect a cross-section of interests in spectrum management and policy, including non-federal spectrum users; state, regional, and local sectors; technology developers and manufacturers; academia; civil society; and service providers with customers in both domestic and international markets. A description of factors that will be considered to determine each applicant's expertise is contained in the committee's Membership Balance Plan (
In particular, NTIA seeks applicants with strong technical and engineering knowledge and experience, familiarity with commercial or private wireless technologies and associated businesses, or expertise with specific applications of wireless technologies. The Secretary may consider factors including, but not limited to, educational background, past work or academic accomplishments, and the industry sector in which a member is currently or previously employed. All appointments are made without discrimination on the basis of age, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status.
Each application must include the applicant's full name, address, telephone number, and email address, along with a summary of the applicant's qualifications that identifies, with specificity, how his or her education, training, experience, expertise, or other factors would support the CSMAC's work and how his or her participation would help achieve the balance factors described above. Each application must also include a detailed resume or
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) issues this Notice on behalf of the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) to initiate the annual process to seek expressions of interest from individuals who would like to serve on the FirstNet Board. One of the 12 appointments of nonpermanent members to the FirstNet Board, expiring August 2019, is currently vacant. Additionally, four of the 12 appointments of nonpermanent members to the FirstNet Board expire in August 2018, creating a total of five available appointments to the FirstNet Board. NTIA issues this Notice to obtain expressions of interest in being selected by the Secretary to the FirstNet Board.
Expressions of interest must be postmarked or electronically transmitted on or before May 21, 2018.
Persons wishing to submit expressions of interest as described below should send that information to: Marsha MacBride, Associate Administrator of NTIA's Office of Public Safety Communications, by email to
Marsha MacBride, Associate Administrator, Office of Public Safety Communications, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4078, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5802; email:
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Act) created the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) as an independent authority within NTIA and charged it with ensuring the building, deployment, and operation of a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network, based on a single, national network
The FirstNet Board is composed of 15 voting members. The Act names the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Attorney General of the United States, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget as permanent members of the FirstNet Board. The Secretary of Commerce appoints the twelve nonpermanent members of the FirstNet Board.
• Susan Swenson (Chairwoman), Telecommunications/technology executive (Term expires: August 2019)
• Jeffrey Johnson (Vice Chairman), Fire Chief, retired; CEO Western Fire Chiefs Association; Former Chair, State Interoperability Council, State of Oregon (Term expires: August 2019)
• Neil E. Cox, Telecommunications/technology executive (Term Expires: August 2018)
• Edward Horowitz, Venture capital/technology executive (Term Expires: August 2018)
• Kevin McGinnis, Chief/CEO, North East Mobile Health Services (Term Expires: August 2018)
• Robert Tipton Osterthaler (Term Expires: January 2021)
• Annise D. Parker, Former Mayor, Houston, Texas (Term Expires: August 2018)
• Richard Ross, Jr., Police Commissioner, City of Philadelphia (Term Expires: January 2021)
• Richard W. Stanek, Sheriff, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Term expires: January 2021)
• Teri Takai, Government information technology expert; former CIO, states of Michigan and California (Term expires: August 2019)
• David Zolet, CEO, LMI (Term expires: January 2021)
• Vacant (Term expires: August 2019)
More information about the FirstNet Board is available at
FirstNet Board members are appointed as special government employees. FirstNet Board members are compensated at the daily rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule (approximately $161,900 per year).
FirstNet Board members must comply with certain federal conflict of interest statutes and ethics regulations, including some financial disclosure requirements. A FirstNet Board member will generally be prohibited from participating on any particular matter that will have a direct and predictable effect on his or her personal financial interests or on the interests of the appointee's spouse, minor children, or non-federal employer.
At the direction of the Secretary of Commerce, NTIA, in consultation with FirstNet, will conduct outreach to the public safety community, state and local organizations, and industry to solicit nominations for candidates to the Board who satisfy the statutory requirements for membership. In addition, by this Notice, the Secretary of Commerce, through NTIA, will accept expressions of interest until May 21, 2018 from any individual, or any organization that wishes to propose a candidate, who satisfies the statutory requirements for membership on the FirstNet Board.
All parties wishing to be considered should submit their full name, address, telephone number, email address, a current resume, and a statement of qualifications that references how the candidate satisfies the Act's expertise, representational, and geographic requirements for FirstNet Board membership, as described in this Notice, along with a statement describing why they want to serve on the FirstNet Board and affirming their ability and availability to take a regular and active role in the Board's work. The Secretary of Commerce will select FirstNet Board candidates based on the eligibility requirements in the Act and recommendations submitted by NTIA, in consultation with the FirstNet Board's Governance and Personnel Committee. NTIA will recommend candidates based on an assessment of their qualifications as well as their demonstrated ability to work in a collaborative way to achieve the goals and objectives of FirstNet as set forth in the Act. Board candidates will be vetted through the Department of Commerce and are subject to an appropriate background check for security clearance.
83 FR 16060, April 13, 2018.
10:00 a.m., Friday, April 20, 2018.
The time of the meeting has changed. This meeting will now be held at 9:45 a.m. on Friday, April 20, 2018.
Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.
Notice of Intent.
The United States Air Force (USAF) is issuing this notice to advise the public of the intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the proposed Tinian Divert Infrastructure Improvements. The SEIS will assess the potential environmental consequences of the construction of a fuel pipeline and associated support facilities, and improvements to existing roadways, on the island of Tinian in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
USAF invites the public, stakeholders, and other interested parties to attend an open house public scoping meeting from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2018 at the Tinian Elementary School cafeteria. A Chamorro/Carolinian interpreter will be available at the meeting and can assist with translation of meeting materials and written comments.
The project website
The USAF intends to prepare an SEIS to address changes made since the September 2016 completion of the Final EIS for Divert Activities and Exercises and the signature of the Record of Decision (ROD), signed December 7, 2016, announcing the USAF decision to select the Modified Tinian Alternative (Final EIS, Section 2.7, page 2-52) and specifically the North Option (Final EIS, Section 2.5.2, page 2-28), as a future Divert location.
After the ROD was signed in December 2016, the USAF conducted further evaluation of the fuel requirement and associated infrastructure, including the feasibility of different alternatives that were not considered in the original EIS. The USAF now proposes to construct a fuel pipeline to transport fuel from the seaport to the airport, and associated infrastructure at the seaport, rather than using fuel trucks for fuel transfer. In addition, recent reconnaissance surveys of the routes proposed for Divert-related vehicles, and coordination with Tinian leadership, indicate the existing surface road network is inadequate to support heavy vehicle traffic required for Divert activities, and is in need of improvements. Therefore, the USAF also proposes to improve certain existing roads between the seaport and airport that would be used to support Divert-related projects.
If you have comments or would like to become a consulting party in the Section 106 process, please visit the project website or contact Ms. Melissa Markell, AFCEC/CZN at the address above.
Department of the Army, DOD.
Notice of intent.
The Department of the Army (Army) announces its intent to conduct public scoping under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and solicit public comments to gather information to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed Area Development Plan (ADP) for Davison Army Airfield (DAAF), U.S. Army Garrison Fort Belvoir (Fort Belvoir), Virginia. The EIS will analyze the potential environmental impacts that would result from implementing the projects identified in the ADP (Proposed Action). The Proposed Action consists of multiple new construction, replacement, demolition, and renovation projects at DAAF. The Proposed Action does not include, nor would it require, substantial changes in missions, air operations, or the number of aircraft or personnel. The scoping process will help identify reasonable alternatives, potential environmental impacts, and key issues of concern to be analyzed in the EIS. The Army intends to comply with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act in parallel with this NEPA process, and invites federally recognized tribes and the State Historic Preservation Office to participate in the consultation process.
Comments must be sent by May 21, 2018.
Please send written comments to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN. Heather Cisar, Planning Division, 2 Hopkins Plaza, 10th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21201.
Heather Cisar at:
DAAF is located on Fort Belvoir's North Post in Fairfax County, VA. DAAF is home to The Army Aviation Brigade's (TAAB)
Fort Belvoir has a current Real Property Master Plan (RPMP) for the Main Post and Fort Belvoir North Area. Within that plan, DAAF is a district requiring an ADP. Therefore, the Army is preparing an ADP to support and complement the RPMP and guide future development actions at DAAF.
The proposed ADP identifies multiple projects that will address the airfield's deficiencies and accommodate the space and functional needs of DAAF's tenants, consistent with applicable regulations and the airfield's vision to create a safe, secure, sustainable, consolidated aviation complex that allows for mission growth and provides multiple services in a compact campus. The ADP projects include the construction of a consolidated complex for the 12th AVN BN comprising one new aircraft maintenance hangar and two new aircraft storage hangars, along with supporting facilities (including wash rack and paint booth), associated aircraft parking aprons, and privately owned vehicle (POV) parking; consolidation of NVESD to new facilities; renovation and extension of the existing DCARNG facilities; construction of a new aircraft maintenance hangar and a new administrative facility for OSA-A/OSACOM; and renovation and extension of the Airfield Division's building. Up to 25 existing facilities would be demolished, including the buildings currently under temporary waivers. Infrastructure improvements would include construction of a 200-foot runway extension; realignment and extension of existing roadways; construction of an entry gate meeting applicable antiterrorism/force protection (AT/FP) standards; and excavation and grading of a wooded knoll to eliminate airfield clearance violations.
At a minimum, the EIS will analyze the potential impacts of three alternatives: No Action Alternative, Full Implementation Alternative, and Partial Implementation Alternative. Any other reasonable alternatives identified during the scoping process will be considered for evaluation in the EIS. The EIS will assess the impacts of the alternatives on resources and identify mitigation measures. The proposed action could result in significant adverse effects on the 100-year floodplain associated with Accotink Creek, which covers a substantial part of DAAF, and on wetlands. One of the proposed projects would require using part of Anderson Park, a Fort Belvoir recreational resource adjacent to DAAF, to construct a new POV parking lot.
Governmental agencies, federally recognized Indian tribes, interested organizations, and individuals are invited to participate in the scoping process for the preparation of this EIS by attending meetings and/or submitting written comments.
Written comments must be sent within 30 days of publication of this NOI in the
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107,
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 18-10 with attached Policy Justification.
(i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Slovakia
(ii) Total Estimated Value:
(iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:
Major Defense Equipment (MDE):
(iv) Military Department: Air Force (LO-D-SAA); (LO-D-TAA) and Navy (LO-P-LAH)
(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None
(vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None
(vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex
(viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: April 3, 2018
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Slovak Republic has requested to buy fourteen (14) F-16 Block 70/72 V configuration aircraft; up to sixteen (16) F-16 F110 General Electric or F100 Pratt & Whitney engines (MDE); fifteen (15) M61 A1 Vulcan 20mm Guns (MDE); sixteen (16) APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radars (MDE); fourteen (14) Modular Mission Computers (MDE); fourteen (14) LINK-16 (MIDS-JTRS) secure communication systems (MDE); sixteen (16) LN260 EGI Embedded Global Positioning System Inertial Navigation Systems (EGI) (MDE); fourteen (14) Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (MDE); fourteen (14) Improved Programmable Display Generators (iPDGs) (MDE); thirty (30) AIM-120C7 air-to-air missiles, one hundred (100) AIM-9X air-to-air missiles; twelve (12) AIM-9X Captive Air Training Missiles, two (2) AIM-120C7, twenty-four (24) AIM-9X additional guidance units; two hundred twenty-four (224) each Computer Control Groups and Airfoil Groups for GBU-12 Paveway II 5001b Guided Bomb Kits; twenty (20) Enhanced Computer Control Groups for Enhanced Paveway II (GBU-49); one hundred fifty (150) KMU-572F/B Guidance Kits for Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) 5001b Guided Bomb (GBU-38); sixty (60) LAU-129 Guided—Missile Launchers; thirty-six (36) MK-82 or BLU-111 5001b Inert Fill Bomb; four hundred (400) MK-82 or BLU-111 5001b Bomb Bodies; four hundred (400) FMU-152 Joint Programmable Fuzes; and six (6) AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Pods. Also included are fourteen (14) Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System II; fourteen (14) AN/ALQ-213 Electronic Warfare Management Systems; sixteen (16) AN/ALQ-211 Advanced Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare Suites; sixteen (16) AN/ALE-47 Countermeasure Dispensers; Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF), Secure Communications and Cryptographic Appliques; Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS); ground training device (flight simulator); Electronic Combat International Security Assistance Program (ECISAP) support; software and support; facilities and construction support; spares and repair/replace parts; personnel training and training equipment; publications and technical documentation; missile containers; DSU-38A/B Illuminated Target Detector (GBU-54); munition support and test equipment; aircraft and munition integration and test support; studies and surveys; U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering and logistical support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $2.91 billion.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO partner that is an important force for ensuring peace and stability in Europe. The proposed sale will support Slovakia's needs for its own self-defense and support NATO defense goals. Slovakia intends to use these F-16s to modernize its Air Force and strengthen its homeland defense.
Slovakia intends for these aircraft to replace its current fleet of MiG-29s. Slovakia's current fighters are not interoperable with U.S forces or regional allies. Purchase of the F-16V will provide Slovakia with fourth generation fighter aircraft capability that is interoperable with the United States and NATO.
The proposed sale of new F-l 6V's to Slovakia will not impact the regional balance of power.
The prime contractor will be Lockheed Martin, headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. There are no known offset agreements in conjunction with this sale, however, we expect Slovakia to request some amount of industrial participation. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale may require assignment of a small number of U.S. Government representatives (less than 10) and a modest number of contractor representatives (less than 50) to Slovakia. It is likely that no permanent U.S. persons will actually be required in country.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii) Sensitivity of Technology:
1. This sale involves the release of sensitive technology to Slovakia. The F-16 V Block 70/72 weapon system is UNCLASSIFIED, except as noted below. The aircraft uses the F16 airframe, and features advanced avionics and systems. It contains the General Electric F110 engine or Pratt & Whitney Fl00 engine, AN/APG-83 radar, digital flight control system, internal and external electronic warfare (EW) equipment, Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF), LINK-16 datalink, operational flight trainer, and software computer programs.
2. The AN/APG-83 is an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar upgrade for the F-16. It includes higher processor power, higher transmission power, more sensitive receiver electronics, and synthetic aperture radar (SAR), which creates higher-resolution ground maps from a greater distance than existing mechanically scanned array radars (e.g., APG-68). The upgrade features an increase in detection range of air targets, increases in processing speed and memory, as well as significant improvements in all modes. The highest classification of the radar is SECRET.
3. AN/ALQ-211 AIDEWS provides passive radar warning, wide spectrum radio frequency jamming, and control and management of the entire EW system. The commercially developed system software and hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. The system is classified SECRET when loaded with a U.S. derived EW (threat) database.
4. The AN/APX-126 AIFF is a system capable of transmitting and interrogating via Mode 5. It is UNCLASSIFIED unless Mode 4 or Mode 5 operational evaluator parameters are loaded in to the equipment. Classified elements of the AIFF system include software object code, operating characteristics, parameters, and technical data.
5. The Embedded GPS-INS (EGI) LN-260 is a sensor that combines GPS and inertial sensor inputs to provide accurate location information for navigation and targeting. The EGI LN-260 is UNCLASSIFIED. The GPS crypto-variable keys needed for highest GPS accuracy are classified up to SECRET.
6. Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS) is an advanced Link-16 command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) system incorporating high-capacity, jam-resistant, digital communication links for exchange of near real-time tactical information, including both data and voice, among air, ground, and sea elements. The MIDS terminal hardware, publications, performance specifications, operational capability, parameters, vulnerabilities to countermeasures, and software documentation are classified CONFIDENTIAL. The classified information to be provided consists of that which is necessary for the operation, maintenance, and repair (through intermediate level) of the data link terminal, installed systems, and related software.
7. Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS II) is a modified HGU-55/P helmet that incorporates a visor-projected Heads-Up Display (HUD) to cue weapons and aircraft sensors to air and ground targets. This system projects visual targeting and aircraft performance information on the back of the helmet's visor, enabling the pilot to monitor this information without interrupting his field of view through the cockpit canopy. This provides improvement for close combat targeting and engagement. Hardware is UNCLASSIFIED; technical data and documents are classified up to SECRET.
8. The Improved Programmable Display Generator (iPDG) and color multifunction displays utilize ruggedized commercial liquid crystal display technology that is designed to withstand the harsh environment found in modern fighter cockpits. The display generator is the fifth generation graphics processor for the F-16. Through the use of state-of-the-art microprocessors and graphics engines, it provided orders of magnitude increases in throughput, memory, and graphics capabilities. The hardware and software are UNCLASSIFIED.
9. GBU-12 Paveway II (PW II), a Laser Guided Bomb (LGB), is a maneuverable, free-fall weapon that guides to a spot of laser energy reflected off of the target. The LGB is delivered like a normal general purpose (GP) warhead but the weapon guides to the laser spot to the target. Laser designation for the weapon can be provided by a variety of laser target designators. A LGB consists of a Computer Control Group (CCG) with laser detector sensor and a warhead specific Air Foil Group (AFG) that attaches to the nose and tail of a GP bomb body respectively. The GBU-12 is a 500lbs (MK-82 or BLU-111) GP bomb body fitted with the MXU-650 AFG, and MAU-209C/B or MAU-169D CCG to guide to its laser designated target. The hardware is UNCLASSIFIED; technical data and documents are classified up to CONFIDENTIAL.
10. GBU-49 Enhanced Paveway II (EP II), a LGB, is a maneuverable, free-fall weapon that guides to the target using a GPS-aided INS and dual mode laser. The EP II consists of a CCG with laser detector sensor, and a warhead specific AFG that attaches to the nose and tail of a GP bomb body. The GBU-49 is a 5001bs (MK-82 or BLU-111) GP bomb body fitted with the MXU-650 AFG and MAU-210 CCG to guide to its laser designated target. The hardware is UNCLASSIFIED; technical data and documents are classified up to CONFIDENTIAL without a Height of Burst (HOB) capability.
11. GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) consists of a guidance tail kit that converts unguided free-fall general purpose bombs into accurate, adverse weather “smart” munitions. With the addition of a new tail section that contains an inertial navigational system and a global positioning system guidance control unit, JDAM improves the accuracy of unguided, general-purpose bombs in any weather condition. JDAM can be launched from very low to very high altitudes in a dive, toss and loft, or in straight and level flight with an on-axis or off-axis delivery. JDAM enables multiple weapons to be directed against single or multiple targets on a single pass. The GBU-38 consists of a warhead specific air foil group and a MK-82, BLU-111, or BLU-126 GP bomb body. The JDAM as an All Up Round and all of its components are UNCLASSIFIED, technical data and documents for JDAM are classified up to SECRET.
12. The GBU-54 Laser JDAM (LJDAM) is a variant of the JDAM when combined with a DSU-38 A/B Laser Sensor that uses both the BGPS and/or Laser guidance to guide a weapon into a target. The GBU-54 consists of a warhead specific AFG, DSU-38 Laser Sensor, and a MK-82 or BLU-111 bomb body. The LJDAM as an All Up Round and all of its components are UNCLASSIFIED, technical data and documents for LJDAM are classified up to SECRET.
13. FMU-152 is the Joint Programmable Bomb Fuze; a multi-function hard/soft target fuze that is used on for multiple different Mk-series bombs. The fuze can be programmed on the wing or in flight and is used with the JDAM, Paveway, and Enhanced Paveway bombs. The hardware is UNCLASSIFIED; technical data and documents are UNCLASSIFED.
14. AIM-120C7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) is guided missile featuring digital technology and micro-miniature solid-state electronics. AMRAAM capabilities include look-down/shoot-down, multiple launches against multiple targets, resistance to electronic countermeasures, and interception of high- and low-flying and maneuvering targets. The AMRAAM All Up Round is classified CONFIDENTIAL; major components and subsystems range from UNCLASSIFIED to CONFIDENTIAL. Technical data and other documentation are classified up to SECRET.
The AIM-120C7 is launched from the aircraft using a LAU-129 guided missile launcher. The LAU-129 provides mechanical and electrical interface between missile and aircraft. The LAU-129 system is UNCLASSIFIED.
15. AIM-9X 11 SIDEWINDER missile is an air-to-air guided missile that employs a passive infrared (1R) target acquisition system that features digital technology and microminiature solid state electronics. The AIM-9X II All Up Round is CONFIDENTIAL, major components and subsystems range from UNCLASSIFIED to CONFIDENTIAL, and technical data and other documentation are classified up to SECRET. The AIM-9X tactical and Captive Air Training Missile guidance units and Tactical Units are subsets of the overall missile.
16. M61 20mm Vulcan Cannon: The 20 mm Vulcan cannon is a six barreled automatic cannon chambered in 20x 120mm with a cyclic rate of fire from 2,500-6,000 shots per minute. This weapon is a hydraulically powered air cooled gatling gun used to damage/destroy aerial targets, suppress/incapacitate personnel targets and damage or destroy moving and stationary light materiel targets. The M61 and its components are UNCLASSIFIED.
17. The SNIPER (AN/AAQ-33) targeting system is UNCLASSIFIED and contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in in electro-optical clarity and haze, and low light targeting capability. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is classified CONFIDENTIAL. Overall system classification is SECRET.
18. This sale will also involve the release of sensitive and/or classified cryptographic equipment for secure communications radios, precision navigation with anti-jam capability, and cryptographic appliques and keying equipment. The hardware is UNCLASSIFIED, except where systems are loaded with cryptographic software, which may be classified up to SECRET.
19. Software, hardware, and other data or information, which is classified or sensitive, is reviewed prior to release to protect system vulnerabilities, design data, and performance parameters. Some end-item hardware, software, and other data identified above are classified at the CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET level. Potential compromise of these systems is controlled through management of the basic software programs of highly sensitive systems and software-controlled weapon systems on a case-by-case basis.
20. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware or software source code in this proposed sale, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of systems with similar or advance capabilities. The benefits to be derived from this sale in the furtherance of the US foreign policy and national security objectives, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.
21. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. Moreover, the benefits to be derived from this sale, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.
22. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Slovakia.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107,
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-65 with attached Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Spain has requested to buy seventeen (17) CH-47F cargo helicopters with customer-unique modifications, twenty-one (21) Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) AN/AAR-57A(V)8, and forty-two (42) Embedded Global Positioning System (GPS) Inertial Navigation System (INS) (EGI). Also included are mission equipment, hardware and services required to implement customer-unique modifications, communication, Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE), and navigation equipment including AN/ARC-231 Multi-mode radios, AN/ARC-201D SINCGARS radios, AN/ARC-220 High Frequency (HF) Radio, Identification, Friend or Foe (IFF), AN/AAR-57A(V)8, and the Radar Signal Detecting Set (RSDS), AN/APR-39A(V)1, special tools and test equipment, ground support equipment, airframe and engine spare parts, technical data, publications, MWO/ECPs, technical assistance, transportation of aircraft and training, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total case value is $1.3 billion.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a NATO ally that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale of the CH-47F aircraft will improve Spain's heavy lift capability. Spain will use this enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense and deter regional threats. Spain will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Boeing Helicopter Company, Philadelphia, PA. The purchaser typically requests offsets. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Spain.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The CH-47F aircraft has been identified as Major Defense Equipment (MDE). The CH-47F is a medium lift, newly manufactured Aircraft. The CH-47F has the common avionics architecture system (CAAS) cockpit, which provides aircraft system, flight, mission, and communication management systems. The CAAS consist of two dual-redundant MIL-STD-1553B data busses and an Ethernet LAN capable of supporting both IEEE 802.3 and ARINC 664. The CAAS includes five multifunction displays (MFDs), two general purpose processor units (GPPUs), two control display units (CDUs) and two data concentrator units (DCUs). The Navigation System will have two Embedded GPS/INS (EGIs), two Digital Advanced Flight Control System (DAFCS), one ARN-147 (VOR/ILS marker Beacon System), one ARN-153 Tactical Air Navigation System (TACAN), two air data computers, and one AN/APN-209 Radar Altimeter system. The communications suite is as follows: two each AN/ARC-231 Multi-mode radios providing VHF FM, VHF-AM, UHF, HQ II and Demand Assigned Multiple Access (DAMA) Satellite Communications (SATCOM), one each AN/ARC-201D SINCGARS radios with associated IFMs, and one each AN/ARC-220 High Frequency (HF) Radio. The Identifier, Friend or Foe (IFF) will be the APX-123A, which provides the additional functionality of MODE 5. Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) will consist of the Common Missile Warning System (CMWS), AN/AAR-57A(V)8, and the Radar Signal Detecting Set (RSDS), AN/APR-39A(V)1. Support and fielding for the CH-47Fs and installed CAAS would require one copy of technical documentation, along with a Contractor Field Representative. Technical data and documentation for CH-47F systems are classified up to SECRET. The sensitive technologies include:
a. The AN/APX-123A Transponder is classified SECRET if Mode-4 or -5 Communications Security (COMSEC) keying material (KEYMAT) is loaded into the device.
b. The TSEC KY-100 is a radio encryptor that has sensitive technology and is classified SECRET if COMSEC KEYMAT is loaded into the device.
c. The AN/AAR-57A(V)8 CMWS is the detection component of the suite of countermeasures designed to increase survivability of current generation combat aircraft and specialized special operations aircraft against the threat posed by infrared guided missiles.
d. The Radar Signal Detecting Set AN/APR-39A(V)1 provides the pilot with visual and audible warning when a hostile fire-control threat is encountered.
e. The KIV-77, is a Common Crypto Applique for Identification, Friend or Foe (IFF) that provides Mode 4/5 capability. The KIV-77 Applique physical dimensions are 3.5 in. x 4.25 in. x 1 in., 16-oz. The KIV-77 can be removed from the host and stored as an Unclassified Controlled Cryptographic Item (CCI).
f. The AN/PYQ-10 (C) Simple Key Loader (SKL) is a ruggedized, portable, hand-held fill device used for securely receiving, storing, and transferring electronic key material and data between compatible end cryptographic units (ECU) and communications equipment. It supports both the DS-101 and DS-102 interfaces, as well as the Crypto Ignition Key and is compatible with existing ECUs.
2. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of specific hardware, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapons system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
3. A determination has been made that Spain can provide substantially the same degree of protection for sensitive
4. All defense articles and services listed on this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Spain.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107,
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-24 with attached Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Qatar has requested a possible sale of five thousand (5,000) Advanced Precision Kill Weapon Systems (APKWS) II Guidance Sections. Also included are five thousand (5,000) MK66-4 2.75 inch rocket motors, five thousand (5,000) high explosive warheads for airborne 2.75 inch rockets, inert MK66-4 2.75 inch rocket motors, inert high explosive warhead for airborne 2.75 inch rockets, support equipment, spares, training, publications, engineering technical assistance, program management technical assistance, logistics support services, and other related elements of program support. The estimated total program value is $300 million.
This proposed sale supports the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States. Qatar is an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Persian Gulf region. Our mutual defense interests anchor our relationship and the Qatar Emiri Air Force (QEAF) plays a predominant role in Qatar's defense.
Qatar intends to use these defense articles and services to modernize its armed forces. This will contribute to Qatar's military goal by providing additional capability to its new AH-64E aircraft fleet. The APKWS will provide Qatar with a low-cost precision strike capability, decreasing collateral damage and expanding its options for counterterrorism operations. Qatar will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor involved in this program is BAE, Nashua, New Hampshire. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require two U.S. Government or contractor representatives to travel to the State of Qatar for a period of one week to train in assembly and Wing Slot Seal replacement
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The APKWS II All-Up-Round is an air-to-ground weapon that consists of an APKWS II Guidance Section (GS), legacy 2.75 inch MK66 Mod 4 rocket motor and legacy MK152 and MK435/436 warhead/fuse. The APKWS II GS is installed between the rocket motor and warhead and provides a Semi-Active Laser (SAL) precision capability to legacy unguided 2.75-inch rockets. The APKWS II is procured as an independent component to be mated to the appropriate 2.75-inch warhead/fuse; however, for this case the APKWS II will be delivered as an All-up-Round (AUR).
2. The GS is manually set with the appropriate laser code during loading and is launched from any platform configured with a LAU-68F/A, or similar launcher(s). After launch, the GS activates and the seeker detects laser energy reflected from a target designated with a remote or autonomous laser. The control system then guides the rocket to the target.
3. The only interface required with the host platform is a 28V Direct Current (DC) firing pulse.
4. APKWS II increases stowed kills by providing precise engagements at standoff ranges with sufficient accuracy for a high single-shot probability of hit against soft and lightly armored targets, thereby minimizing collateral damage. The APKWS II is capable of day and night operations and performance is many adverse environments.
5. All training for APKWS II is UNCLASSIFIED. The training required is: pilot training to effectively employ the APKWS II, ordnance handler for safe handling and preparation of the APKWS II and AUR, and maintenance training for replacement of the Wing Slot Seal (WSS).
6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the State of Qatar.
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for the Education Innovation and Research Program—Expansion Grants, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.411A (Expansion Grants).
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202-5900. Telephone: (202) 453-7122. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
The central design element of the EIR program is its multi-tier structure that links the amount of funding that an applicant may receive to the quality of the evidence supporting the efficacy of the proposed project, with the expectation that projects that build this evidence will advance through EIR's grant tiers: “Early-phase,” “Mid-phase,” and “Expansion.” Applicants proposing innovative practices that are supported by limited evidence can receive relatively small grants to support the development, implementation, and initial evaluation of the practices; applicants proposing practices supported by evidence from rigorous evaluations, such as an experimental study (as defined in this notice), can receive larger grant awards to support expansion across the country. This structure provides incentives for applicants to: (1) Explore new ways of addressing persistent challenges that other educators can build on and learn from; (2) build evidence of effectiveness of their practices; and (3) replicate and scale successful practices in new schools, districts, and States while addressing the barriers to scale, such as cost structures and implementation fidelity.
All EIR projects are expected to generate information regarding their effectiveness in order to inform EIR grantees' efforts to learn about and improve upon their efforts, and to help similar, non-EIR efforts across the country benefit from EIR grantees' knowledge. By requiring that all grantees conduct independent evaluations of their EIR projects, EIR ensures that its funded projects make a significant contribution to improving the quality and quantity of information available to practitioners and policymakers about which practices improve student achievement, for which types of students, and in what contexts.
The Department awards three types of grants under this program: “Early-phase” grants, “Mid-phase” grants, and “Expansion” grants. These grants differ in terms of the level of prior evidence of effectiveness required for consideration for funding, the expectations regarding the kind of evidence and information funded projects should produce, the level of scale that funded projects should reach, and, consequently, the amount of funding available to support each type of project.
The Department expects that Expansion grants will provide funding for implementation and rigorous evaluation of a program that has been found to produce sizable, significant impacts under a Mid-phase grant or other effort meeting similar criteria, for the purposes of: (a) Determining whether such impacts can be successfully reproduced and sustained over time; and (b) identifying the conditions in which the program is most effective.
Expansion grants are supported by strong evidence (as defined in this notice) for at least one population and setting, and grantees are encouraged to implement at the national level (as defined in this notice).
This notice invites applications for Expansion grants only. The notices inviting applications for Early-phase and Mid-phase grants are published elsewhere in this issue of the
Evaluations of Expansion grants are expected to be conducted in a variety of contexts and for a variety of students in order to determine the context(s) and population(s) for which the EIR-supported practice is most effective and how to effectively adapt the practice for these contexts and populations. An Expansion grantee is encouraged to design an EIR-supported evaluation that examines the cost effectiveness of its practices, identifies potential obstacles and success factors to scaling that would be relevant to other organizations, and has the potential to meet the strong evidence threshold. We expect that Expansion grantees will work toward sustaining their projects and continuing to scale successful practices after the EIR grant period ends; EIR grantees can use their evaluations to assess how their EIR-funded practices could be successfully reproduced and sustained. The Department intends to provide grantees and their independent evaluators with evaluation technical assistance. This evaluation technical assistance could include grantees and their independent evaluators providing to the Department or its contractor updated comprehensive evaluation plans in a format as requested by the technical assistance provider and using such tools as the Department may request. Grantees will be encouraged to update this evaluation plan at least annually to reflect any changes to the evaluation, with updates consistent with the scope and objectives of the approved application.
The FY 2018 Expansion competition includes three absolute priorities and two invitational priorities. All Expansion applicants must address Absolute Priority 1. Expansion applicants are also required to address one of the other two absolute priorities. Applicants have the option of addressing one or more of the invitational priorities.
The absolute priorities and invitational priorities align with the purpose of the program and the Administration's priorities. Absolute Priority 1 establishes the evidence requirement for this tier of grants. Absolute Priority 2 aligns with the EIR program as it is intended to take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and attainment. In addition to incorporating the focus on field-initiated innovations in Absolute Priority 2, Absolute Priority 3 aligns with the Administration's efforts to invest in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education in order to ensure our Nation's economic competitiveness by improving and expanding STEM learning and engagement. Invitational Priority 1 is intended to encourage applicants to focus on the needs of each child, with customized learning opportunities tailored to the needs of individual students. Invitational Priority 2 is intended to encourage applicants to improve early learning and cognitive development outcomes. Through these priorities, the Department intends to advance innovation and the use and building of evidence and address the learning and achievement of high-need students.
These priorities are:
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects supported by strong evidence.
An applicant must identify up to four study citations to be reviewed against the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Handbook (as defined in this notice) for the purposes of meeting strong evidence. The studies may have been conducted by the applicant or by a third party. An applicant should clearly identify these citations in the Evidence form. The Department may not review a study citation that an applicant fails to clearly identify for review. In addition to including up to four study citations, applicants must include in the form a description of: (1) The positive student outcomes they intend to replicate under their Expansion grant and how the characteristics of students and the positive student outcomes in the study citations correspond with the high-need students to be served under the Expansion grant; (2) the correspondence of practice(s) the applicant plans to implement with the practice(s) cited in the studies; and (3) the intended student outcomes that the proposed practice(s) attempts to impact.
An applicant must ensure that all evidence is available to the Department from publicly available sources and provide links or other guidance indicating where it is available. If the Department determines that an applicant has provided insufficient information, the applicant will not have an opportunity to provide additional information at a later time. However, if the WWC determines that a study does not provide enough information on key aspects of the study design, such as sample attrition or equivalence of intervention and comparison groups, the WWC will submit a query to the study author(s) to gather information for use in determining a study rating. Authors are asked to respond to queries within 10 business days. Should the author query remain incomplete within 14 days of the initial contact to the study author(s), the study will be deemed ineligible under the grant competition. After the grant competition closes, the WWC will continue to include responses to author queries and will make updates to study reviews as necessary, but no additional information will be taken into account after the competition closes and the initial timeline established for response to an author query passes.
Under the priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students.
Under the priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to:
(1) Create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students, and;
(2) Improve student achievement or other educational outcomes in one or more of the following areas: Science, technology, engineering, math, or computer science (as defined in this notice). These projects must address the following priority area:
Identifying and implementing instructional strategies in STEM fields, including computer science, that are supported by strong evidence (as defined in this notice).
These priorities are:
Projects that support educators in personalizing learning for all students so that learning opportunities may be tailored to fit the needs of individual students. In personalized learning environments, the pace, location, and delivery method of education may vary based on individual student interests and needs. Personalized learning approaches recognize that there are multiple pathways through which students can develop and demonstrate academic competencies and social-emotional skills aligned to college- and career-ready standards and that students may attain these competencies and skills in different amounts of time. Examples of personalized learning instructional approaches include dynamic student groupings, student-driven projects, and the use of adaptive technologies such as digital curricula to both accelerate, and to target gaps in, student learning. Personalized data approaches use data to provide ongoing feedback about student progress to educators, students, and their families, and to adjust learning strategies in real time.
The Department is especially interested in projects that improve early learning and cognitive development outcomes through neuroscience-based and scientifically validated interventions.
Computer science often includes computer programming or coding as a tool to create software, including applications, games, websites, and tools to manage or manipulate data; or development and management of computer hardware and the other electronics related to sharing, securing, and using digital information.
In addition to coding, the expanding field of computer science emphasizes computational thinking and interdisciplinary problem-solving to equip students with the skills and abilities necessary to apply computation in our digital world.
Computer science does not include using a computer for everyday activities, such as browsing the internet; use of tools like word processing, spreadsheets, or presentation software; or using computers in the study and exploration of unrelated subjects.
(i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).
(ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable (
(iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case (
(a) In General. A public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or of or for a combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools.
(b) Administrative Control and Direction. The term includes any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary school or secondary school.
(c) Bureau of Indian Education Schools. The term includes an elementary school or secondary school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education but only to the extent that including the school makes the school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility is not provided to the school in another provision of law and the school does not have a student population that is smaller than the student population of the local educational agency receiving assistance under the ESEA with the smallest student population, except that the school shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any State educational agency (as defined in this notice) other than the Bureau of Indian Education.
(d) Educational Service Agencies. The term includes educational service agencies and consortia of those agencies.
(e) State Educational Agency. The term includes the State educational agency in a State in which the State educational agency is the sole educational agency for all public schools.
(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “strong evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or
(iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that—
(A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (
(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and
(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (
Section 4611 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7261.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
These estimated available funds are the total available for all three types of grants under the EIR program (Early-phase, Mid-phase, and Expansion grants). Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Under section 4611(c) of the ESEA, the Department must use at least 25 percent of EIR funds for a fiscal year to make awards to applicants serving rural areas, contingent on receipt of a sufficient number of applications of sufficient quality. For purposes of this competition, we will consider an applicant as rural if the applicant meets the qualifications for rural applicants as described in the eligible applicants section and the applicant certifies that it meets those qualifications through the application.
In implementing this statutory provision, the Department may fund high-quality applications from rural applicants out of rank order in one or more of the EIR competitions.
1.
(a) An LEA;
(b) An SEA;
(c) The Bureau of Indian Education;
(d) A consortium of SEAs or LEAs;
(e) A nonprofit organization; and
(f) An SEA, an LEA, a consortium described in (d), or the Bureau of Indian Education, in partnership with—
(1) A nonprofit organization;
(2) A business;
(3) An educational service agency; or
(4) An institution of higher education.
To qualify as a rural applicant under the EIR program, an applicant must meet both of the following requirements:
(a) The applicant is—
(1) An LEA with an urban-centric district locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary;
(2) A consortium of such LEAs;
(3) An educational service agency or a nonprofit organization in partnership with such an LEA; or
(4) A grantee described in clause (1) or (2) in partnership with an SEA; and
(b) A majority of the schools to be served by the program are designated with a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, or a combination of such codes, as determined by the Secretary.
Applicants are encouraged to retrieve locale codes from the National Center for Education Statistics School District search tool (
2.
(a) The difficulty of raising matching funds for a program to serve a rural area;
(b) The difficulty of raising matching funds in areas with a concentration of LEAs or schools with a high percentage of students aged 5 through 17—
(1) Who are in poverty, as counted in the most recent census data approved by the Secretary;
(2) Who are eligible for a free or reduced price lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751
(3) Whose families receive assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601
(4) Who are eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program; and
(c) The difficulty of raising funds on Tribal land.
Applicants that wish to apply for a waiver must include a request in their application that describes why the matching requirement would cause serious hardship or an inability to carry out project activities. Further information about applying for waivers can be found in the application package. However, given the importance of matching funds to the long-term success of the project, the Secretary expects eligible entities to identify appropriate matching funds.
3.
4.
Each application will be reviewed under the competition it was submitted under in the
b.
c.
1.
2.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
4.
5.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
6.
1.
In determining the significance of the project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed by the proposed project.
(2) The national significance of the proposed project.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the competition.
In determining the applicant's capacity to scale the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates there is unmet demand for the process, product, strategy, or practice that will enable the applicant to reach the level of scale that is proposed in the application.
(2) The extent to which the applicant identifies a specific strategy or strategies that address a particular barrier or barriers that prevented the applicant, in the past, from reaching the level of scale that is proposed in the application.
(3) The extent to which the results of the proposed project are to be disseminated in ways that will enable others to use the information or strategies.
In determining the quality of the proposed project design, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(2) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(3) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(4) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the resources to operate the project beyond the length of the grant, including a multi-year financial and operating model and accompanying plan; the demonstrated commitment of any partners; evidence of broad support from stakeholders (
In determining the quality of the project evaluation to be conducted, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards without reservations as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (as defined in this notice).
(2) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other settings.
(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes.
(4) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key project components, mediators, and outcomes, as well as a measurable threshold for acceptable implementation.
Applicants may wish to review the following technical assistance resources on evaluation: (1) WWC Procedures and Standards Handbooks:
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Before making awards, we will screen applications submitted in accordance with the requirements in this notice to determine whether applications have met eligibility and other requirements. This screening process may occur at various stages of the process; applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a grant, regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments.
Peer reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation of, and score the assigned applications, using the selection criteria provided in this notice. For Expansion grant applications we intend to conduct a single-tier review.
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
A specific deliverable under an Expansion grant that grantees must openly license to the public is the evaluation report. Additionally, EIR grantees are encouraged to submit final studies resulting from research supported in whole or in part by EIR to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC,
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
5.
(1) Performance measures. How each proposed performance measure would accurately measure the performance of the project and how the proposed performance measure would be consistent with the performance measures established for the program funding the competition.
(2) Baseline (as defined in this notice) data. (i) Why each proposed baseline is valid; or (ii) if the applicant has determined that there are no established baseline data for a particular performance measure, an explanation of why there is no established baseline and of how and when, during the project period, the applicant would establish a valid baseline for the performance measure.
(3) Performance targets. Why each proposed performance target is ambitious yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance measure and when, during the project period, the applicant would meet the performance target(s).
(4) Data collection and reporting. (i) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data; and (ii) the applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.
All grantees must submit an annual performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 18, 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 Kimberly Smith, 202-453-6459.
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
Office of Communications and Outreach (OCO), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 21, 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 Simone Olson, 202-205-8719.
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.
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for the Education Innovation and Research Program—Early-phase Grants, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.411C (Early-phase Grants).
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202-5900. Telephone: (202) 453-7122. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
The central design element of the EIR program is its multi-tier structure that links the amount of funding that an applicant may receive to the quality of the evidence supporting the efficacy of the proposed project, with the expectation that projects that build this evidence will advance through EIR's grant tiers: “Early-phase,” “Mid-phase,” and “Expansion.” Applicants proposing innovative projects that are supported by limited evidence can receive relatively small grants to support the development, implementation, and initial evaluation of the practices; applicants proposing projects supported by evidence from rigorous evaluations, such as an experimental study (as defined in this notice), can receive larger grant awards to support expansion across the country. This structure provides incentives for applicants to: (1) Explore new ways of addressing persistent challenges that other educators can build on and learn from; (2) build evidence of effectiveness of their practices; and (3) replicate and scale successful practices in new schools, districts, and States while addressing the barriers to scale, such as cost structures and implementation fidelity.
All EIR projects are expected to generate information regarding their effectiveness in order to inform EIR grantees' efforts to learn about and improve upon their efforts, and to help similar, non-EIR efforts across the country benefit from EIR grantees' knowledge. By requiring that all grantees conduct independent evaluations of their EIR projects, EIR ensures that its funded projects make a significant contribution to improving the quality and quantity of information available to practitioners and policymakers about which practices improve student achievement and attainment, for which types of students, and in what contexts.
The Department awards three types of grants under this program: “Early-phase” grants, “Mid-phase” grants, and “Expansion” grants. These grants differ in terms of the level of prior evidence of effectiveness required for consideration for funding, the expectations regarding the kind of evidence and information funded projects should produce, the level of scale funded projects should reach, and, consequently, the amount of funding available to support each type of project.
Early-phase grants provide funding to support the development, implementation, and feasibility testing of a program, which prior research suggests has promise, for the purpose of determining whether the program can successfully improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students. Early-phase grants must demonstrate a rationale (as defined in this notice). These Early-phase grants are not intended simply to implement established practices in additional locations or address needs that are unique to one particular context. The goal is to determine whether and in what ways relatively newer practices can improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students.
This notice invites applications for Early-phase grants only. The notices inviting applications for Mid-phase and Expansion grants are published elsewhere in this issue of the
• How easy would it be for others to implement this practice, and how can its implementation be improved?
• How can I use data from early indicators to gauge impact, and what changes in implementation and student achievement do these early indicators suggest?
By focusing on continuous improvement and iterative development, Early-phase grantees can make adaptations that are necessary to increase their practice's potential to be effective and ensure that the EIR-funded evaluation assesses the impact of a thoroughly conceived practice.
Early-phase applicants should develop, implement, and test the feasibility of their projects. The evaluation of an Early-phase project should be an experimental or quasi-experimental design study (as defined in this notice) that can determine whether the program can successfully improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students. Early-phase grantees' evaluation designs are encouraged to have the potential to meet the moderate evidence (as defined in this notice) threshold. The Department intends to provide grantees and their independent evaluators with evaluation technical assistance. This evaluation technical assistance could include grantees and their independent evaluators providing to the Department or its contractor updated comprehensive evaluation plans in a format as
The FY 2018 Early-phase competition includes three absolute priorities and two invitational priorities. All Early-phase applicants must address Absolute Priority 1. Early-phase applicants are also required to address one of the other two absolute priorities. Applicants have the option of addressing one or more of the invitational priorities.
The absolute priorities and invitational priorities align with the purpose of the program and the Administration's priorities. Absolute Priority 1 establishes the evidence requirement for the Early-phase tier of grants. Section 4611(a)(1)(A) of the ESEA requires that Early-phase grants be evidence-based. For this competition that means applicants must demonstrate a rationale, as defined in section 8101(21)(A)(ii)(I) of the ESEA, in order to meet Absolute Priority 1. Absolute Priority 2 aligns with the EIR program as it is intended to take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and attainment. In addition to incorporating the focus on field-initiated innovations in Absolute Priority 2, Absolute Priority 3 aligns with the Administration's efforts to invest in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education in order to ensure our Nation's economic competitiveness by improving and expanding STEM learning and engagement. Invitational Priority 1 is intended to encourage applicants to focus on the needs of each child, with customized learning opportunities tailored to the needs of individual students. Invitational Priority 2 is intended to encourage applicants to improve early learning and cognitive development outcomes. Through these priorities, the Department intends to advance innovation and the use and building of evidence, and address the learning and achievement of high-need students.
Under the Early-phase grant competition, Absolute Priorities 2 and 3 constitute their own funding categories. The Secretary intends to award grants under each of these absolute priorities for which applications of sufficient quality are submitted. Because applications will be rank ordered separately for Absolute Priorities 2 and 3, applicants must clearly identify the specific absolute priority that the proposed project addresses.
These priorities are:
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that demonstrate a rationale based on high-quality research findings or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes.
Under the priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students.
Under the priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to:
(1) Create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students, and;
(2) Improve student achievement or other educational outcomes in one or more of the following areas: science, technology, engineering, math, or computer science (as defined in this notice). These projects must address the following priority area:
Creating or expanding partnerships between schools, local educational agencies, State educational agencies, businesses, not-for-profit organizations, or institutions of higher education to give students access to internships, apprenticeships, or other work-based learning experiences in STEM fields, including computer science (as defined in this notice).
These priorities are:
Projects that support educators in personalizing learning for all students so that learning opportunities may be tailored to fit the needs of individual students. In personalized learning environments, the pace, location, and delivery method of education may vary based on individual student interests and needs. Personalized learning approaches recognize that there are multiple pathways through which students can develop and demonstrate academic competencies and social-emotional skills aligned to college- and career-ready standards and that students may attain these competencies and skills in different amounts of time. Examples of personalized learning instructional approaches include dynamic student groupings, student-driven projects, and the use of adaptive technologies, such as digital curricula to both accelerate, and to target gaps in, student learning. Personalized learning approaches use data to provide ongoing feedback about student progress to educators, students, and their families and to adjust learning strategies in real-time.
The Department is especially interested in projects that improve early learning and cognitive development outcomes through neuroscience-based and scientifically validated interventions.
Computer science often includes computer programming or coding as a tool to create software, including applications, games, websites, and tools to manage or manipulate data; or development and management of computer hardware and the other electronics related to sharing, securing, and using digital information.
In addition to coding, the expanding field of computer science emphasizes computational thinking and interdisciplinary problem-solving to equip students with the skills and abilities necessary to apply computation in our digital world.
Computer science does not include using a computer for everyday activities, such as browsing the internet; use of tools like word processing, spreadsheets, or presentation software; or using computers in the study and exploration of unrelated subjects.
(i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).
(ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable (
(iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case (
(a) In General. A public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or of or for a combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools.
(b) Administrative Control and Direction. The term includes any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary school or secondary school.
(c) Bureau of Indian Education Schools. The term includes an elementary school or secondary school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education but only to the extent that including the school makes the school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility is not provided to the school in another provision of law and the school does not have a student population that is smaller than the student population of the local educational agency receiving assistance under the ESEA with the smallest student population, except that the school shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any State educational agency (as defined in this notice) other than the Bureau of Indian Education.
(d) Educational Service Agencies. The term includes educational service agencies and consortia of those agencies.
(e) State educational agency. The term includes the State educational agency in a State in which the State educational agency is the sole educational agency for all public schools.
(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or
(iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that—
(A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (
(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and
(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (
Section 4611 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7261.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
These estimated available funds are the total available for all three types of grants under the EIR program (Early-phase, Mid-phase, and Expansion grants). Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Under section 4611(c) of the ESEA, the Department must use at least 25 percent of EIR funds for a fiscal year to make awards to applicants serving rural areas, contingent on receipt of a sufficient number of applications of sufficient quality. For purposes of this competition, we will consider an applicant as rural if the applicant meets the qualifications for rural applicants as described in the eligible applicants section and the applicant certifies that it meets those qualifications through the application. In implementing this statutory provision, the Department may fund high-quality applications from rural applicants out of rank order in the Early-phase competition.
1.
(a) An LEA;
(b) An SEA;
(c) The Bureau of Indian Education;
(d) A consortium of SEAs or LEAs;
(e) A nonprofit organization; and
(f) An SEA, an LEA, a consortium described in (d), or the Bureau of Indian Education, in partnership with—
(1) A nonprofit organization;
(2) A business;
(3) An educational service agency; or
(4) An institution of higher education.
To qualify as a rural applicant under the EIR program, an applicant must meet both of the following requirements:
(a) The applicant is—
(1) An LEA with an urban-centric district locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary;
(2) A consortium of such LEAs;
(3) An educational service agency or a nonprofit organization in partnership with such an LEA; or
(4) A grantee described in clause (1) or (2) in partnership with an SEA; and
(b) A majority of the schools to be served by the program are designated with a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, or a combination of such codes, as determined by the Secretary.
Applicants are encouraged to retrieve locale codes from the National Center for Education Statistics School District search tool (
2.
(a) The difficulty of raising matching funds for a program to serve a rural area;
(b) The difficulty of raising matching funds in areas with a concentration of LEAs or schools with a high percentage of students aged 5 through 17—
(1) Who are in poverty, as counted in the most recent census data approved by the Secretary;
(2) Who are eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751
(3) Whose families receive assistance under the State program funded under
(4) Who are eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program; and
(c) The difficulty of raising funds on Tribal land.
Applicants that wish to apply for a waiver must include a request in their application that describes why the matching requirement would cause serious hardship or an inability to carry out project activities. Further information about applying for waivers can be found in the application package. However, given the importance of matching funds to the long-term success of the project, the Secretary expects eligible entities to identify appropriate matching funds.
3.
4.
Each application will be reviewed under the competition it was submitted under in the
b.
c.
1.
2.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
4.
5.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
6.
1.
In determining the significance of the project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The national significance of the proposed project.
(2) The extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in this notice).
(4) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the competition.
In determining the quality of the proposed project design, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(2) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(3) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.
(4) The mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate information on its project so as to
In determining the quality of the project evaluation to be conducted, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards with or without reservations as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (as defined in this notice).
(2) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other settings.
(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes.
(4) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key project components, mediators, and outcomes, as well as a measurable threshold for acceptable implementation.
Applicants may wish to review the following technical assistance resources on evaluation: (1) WWC Procedures and Standards Handbooks:
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
For Early-phase grant applications, the Department intends to conduct a two-tier review process to review and score all eligible applications. Reviewers will review and score all eligible Early-phase applications on the following two criteria: A. Significance, and B. Quality of the Project Design and Management Plan. Applications that score highly on these two criteria will then have the remaining criterion, C. Quality of the Project Evaluation, reviewed and scored by a different panel of reviewers with evaluation expertise.
Before making awards, we will screen applications submitted in accordance with the requirements in this notice to determine whether applications have met eligibility and other requirements. This screening process may occur at various stages of the process; applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a grant, regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments.
Peer reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation of, and score the assigned applications, using the selection criteria provided in this notice.
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
A specific deliverable under an Early-phase grant that grantees must openly license to the public is the evaluation report. Additionally, EIR grantees are encouraged to submit final studies resulting from research supported in whole or in part by EIR to the Educational Resources Information Center (
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
5.
(1) Performance measures. How each proposed performance measure would accurately measure the performance of the project and how the proposed performance measure would be consistent with the performance measures established for the program funding the competition.
(2) Baseline (as defined in this notice) data. (i) Why each proposed baseline is valid; or (ii) if the applicant has determined that there are no established baseline data for a particular performance measure, an explanation of why there is no established baseline and of how and when, during the project period, the applicant would establish a valid baseline for the performance measure.
(3) Performance targets. Why each proposed performance target is ambitious yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance measure and when, during the project period, the applicant would meet the performance target(s).
(4) Data collection and reporting. (i) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data; and (ii) the applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.
All grantees must submit an annual performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for the Education Innovation and Research Program—Mid-phase Grants, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.411B (Mid-phase Grants).
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202-5900. Telephone: (202) 453-7122.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.
The central design element of the EIR program is its multi-tier structure that links the amount of funding that an applicant may receive to the quality of the evidence supporting the efficacy of the proposed project, with the expectation that projects that build this evidence will advance through EIR's grant tiers: “Early-phase,” “Mid-phase,” and “Expansion.” Applicants proposing innovative practices that are supported by limited evidence can receive relatively small grants to support the development, implementation, and initial evaluation of the practices; applicants proposing practices supported by evidence from rigorous evaluations, such as an experimental study (as defined in this notice), can receive larger grant awards to support expansion across the country. This structure provides incentives for applicants to: (1) Explore new ways of addressing persistent challenges that other educators can build on and learn from; (2) build evidence of effectiveness of their practices; and (3) replicate and scale successful practices in new schools, districts, and States while addressing the barriers to scale, such as cost structures and implementation fidelity.
All EIR projects are expected to generate information regarding their effectiveness in order to inform EIR grantees' efforts to learn about and improve upon their efforts, and to help similar, non-EIR efforts across the country benefit from EIR grantees' knowledge. By requiring that all grantees conduct independent evaluations of their EIR projects, EIR ensures that its funded projects make a significant contribution to improving the quality and quantity of information available to practitioners and policymakers about which practices improve student achievement, for which types of students, and in what contexts.
The Department awards three types of grants under this program: “Early-phase” grants, “Mid-phase” grants, and “Expansion” grants. These grants differ in terms of the level of prior evidence of effectiveness required for consideration for funding, the expectations regarding the kind of evidence and information funded projects should produce, the level of scale funded projects should reach, and, consequently, the amount of funding available to support each type of project.
The Department expects that Mid-phase grants will be used to fund implementation and a rigorous evaluation of a program that has been successfully implemented under an Early-phase grant or other effort meeting similar criteria, for the purpose of measuring the program's impact and cost- effectiveness, if possible using existing administrative data. Mid-phase grants are supported by moderate evidence (as defined in this notice) for at least one population or setting, and grantees are encouraged to implement at the regional level (as defined in this notice) or at the national level (as defined in this notice). This notice invites applications for Mid-phase grants only. The notices inviting applications for Early-phase and Expansion grants are published elsewhere in this issue of the
With the funded Mid-phase projects, we aim to accelerate the building of a knowledge base of effective practices for addressing challenges and increase the likelihood that grantees can learn from one another while still exploring different approaches. We believe that improving outcomes across the education sector depends, in part, upon policymakers, practitioners, and researchers continually building upon one another's efforts to have the greatest impact.
Mid-phase applicants are encouraged to design an evaluation that has the potential to meet the strong evidence (as defined in this notice) threshold. Mid-phase grantees should measure the cost-effectiveness of their practices using administrative or other readily available data. These types of efforts are critical to sustaining and scaling EIR-funded effective practices after the EIR grant period ends, assuming that the practice has positive effects on important student outcomes. In order to support adoption or replication by other entities, the evaluation of a Mid-phase project should identify and codify the core elements of the EIR-supported practice that the project implements, and examine the effectiveness of the project for any new populations or settings that are included in the project. The Department intends to provide grantees and their independent evaluators with evaluation technical assistance. This evaluation technical assistance could include grantees and their independent evaluators providing to the Department or its contractor updated comprehensive evaluation plans in a format as requested by the technical assistance provider and using such tools as the Department may request. Grantees will be encouraged to update this evaluation plan at least annually to reflect any changes to the evaluation, with updates consistent with the scope and objectives of the approved application.
The FY 2018 Mid-phase competition includes three absolute priorities and
The absolute priorities and invitational priorities align with the purpose of the program and the Administration's priorities. Absolute Priority 1 establishes the evidence requirement for this tier of grants. Absolute Priority 2 aligns with the EIR program as it is intended to take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and attainment. In addition to incorporating the focus on field-initiated innovations in Absolute Priority 2, Absolute Priority 3 aligns with the Administration's efforts to invest in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education in order to ensure our Nation's economic competitiveness by improving and expanding STEM learning and engagement. Invitational Priority 1 is intended to encourage applicants to focus on the needs of each child, with customized learning opportunities tailored to the needs of individual students. Invitational Priority 2 is intended to encourage applicants to improve early learning and cognitive development outcomes. Through these priorities, the Department intends to advance innovation and the use and building of evidence and address the learning and achievement of high-need students.
Under the Mid-phase grant competition, absolute priorities 2 and 3 constitute their own funding categories. The Secretary intends to award grants under each of these absolute priorities for which applications of sufficient quality are submitted. Because applications will be rank ordered separately for absolute priorities 2 and 3, applicants must clearly identify the specific absolute priority that the proposed project addresses.
These priorities are:
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects supported by moderate evidence.
An applicant must identify up to two study citations to be reviewed against the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Handbook (as defined in this notice) for the purposes of meeting moderate evidence. The studies may have been conducted by the applicant or by a third party. An applicant should clearly identify these citations in the Evidence form. The Department may not review a study citation that an applicant fails to clearly identify for review. In addition to including up to two study citations, applicants must include in the form a description of: (1) The positive student outcomes they intend to replicate under their Mid-phase grant and how the characteristics of students and the positive student outcomes in the study citations correspond with the characteristics of the high-need students to be served under the Mid-phase grant; (2) the correspondence of practice(s) the applicant plans to implement with the practice(s) cited in the studies; and (3) the intended student outcomes that the proposed practice(s) attempts to impact.
An applicant must ensure that all evidence is available to the Department from publicly available sources and provide links or other guidance indicating where it is available. If the Department determines that an applicant has provided insufficient information, the applicant will not have an opportunity to provide additional information at a later time. However, if the WWC determines that a study does not provide enough information on key aspects of the study design, such as sample attrition or equivalence of intervention and comparison groups, the WWC will submit a query to the study author(s) to gather information for use in determining a study rating. Authors are asked to respond to queries within 10 business days. Should the author query remain incomplete within 14 days of the initial contact to the study author(s), the study will be deemed ineligible under the grant competition. After the grant competition closes, the WWC will continue to include responses to author queries and will make updates to study reviews as necessary, but no additional information will be taken into account after the competition closes and the initial timeline established for response to an author query passes.
Under the priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students.
Under the priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to:
(1) Create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students, and;
(2) Improve student achievement or other educational outcomes in one or more of the following areas: Science, technology, engineering, math, or computer science (as defined in this notice). These projects must address the following priority area:
Increasing access to STEM coursework, including computer science (as defined in this notice), and hands-on learning opportunities, such as through expanded course offerings, dual-enrollment, high-quality online coursework, or other innovative delivery mechanisms.
These priorities are:
Projects that support educators in personalizing learning for all students so that learning opportunities may be tailored to fit the needs of individual students. In personalized learning environments, the pace, location, and delivery method of education may vary based on individual student interests and needs. Personalized learning approaches recognize that there are multiple pathways through which students can develop and demonstrate academic competencies and social-emotional skills aligned to college- and career-ready standards and that students may attain these competencies and
The Department is especially interested in projects that improve early learning and cognitive development outcomes through neuroscience-based and scientifically validated interventions.
Computer science often includes computer programming or coding as a tool to create software, including applications, games, websites, and tools to manage or manipulate data; or development and management of computer hardware and the other electronics related to sharing, securing, and using digital information.
In addition to coding, the expanding field of computer science emphasizes computational thinking and interdisciplinary problem-solving to equip students with the skills and abilities necessary to apply computation in our digital world.
Computer science does not include using a computer for everyday activities, such as browsing the internet; use of tools like word processing, spreadsheets, or presentation software; or using computers in the study and exploration of unrelated subjects.
(i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).
(ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable (
(iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case (
(a) In General. A public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or of or for a combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools.
(b) Administrative Control and Direction. The term includes any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary school or secondary school.
(c) Bureau of Indian Education Schools. The term includes an elementary school or secondary school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education but only to the extent that including the school makes the school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility is not provided to the school in another provision of law and the school does not have a student population that is smaller than the student population of the local educational agency receiving assistance under the ESEA with the smallest student population, except that the school shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any State educational agency (as defined in this notice) other than the Bureau of Indian Education.
(d) Educational Service Agencies. The term includes educational service agencies and consortia of those agencies.
(e) State Educational Agency. The term includes the State educational agency in a State in which the State educational agency is the sole educational agency for all public schools.
(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or
(iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design study (as defined in this notice) reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that—
(A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (
(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under
(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (
(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “strong evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or
(iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that—
(A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (
(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and
(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (
Section 4611 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7261.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
These estimated available funds are the total available for all three types of grants under the EIR program (Early-phase, Mid-phase, and Expansion grants). Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Under section 4611(c) of the ESEA, the Department must use at least 25 percent of EIR funds for a fiscal year to make awards to applicants serving rural areas, contingent on receipt of a sufficient number of applications of sufficient quality. For purposes of this competition, we will consider an applicant as rural if the applicant meets the qualifications for rural applicants as described in the eligible applicants section and the applicant certifies that it meets those qualifications through the application.
In implementing this statutory provision, the Department may fund high-quality applications from rural applicants out of rank order in the Mid-phase competition.
1.
(a) An LEA;
(b) An SEA;
(c) The Bureau of Indian Education;
(d) A consortium of SEAs or LEAs;
(e) A nonprofit organization; and
(f) An SEA, an LEA, a consortium described in (d), or the Bureau of Indian Education, in partnership with—
(1) A nonprofit organization;
(2) A business;
(3) An educational service agency; or
(4) An institution of higher education.
To qualify as a rural applicant under the EIR program, an applicant must meet both of the following requirements:
(a) The applicant is—
(1) An LEA with an urban-centric district locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary;
(2) A consortium of such LEAs;
(3) An educational service agency or a nonprofit organization in partnership with such an LEA; or
(4) A grantee described in clause (1) or (2) in partnership with an SEA; and
(b) A majority of the schools to be served by the program are designated with a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, or a combination of such codes, as determined by the Secretary.
Applicants are encouraged to retrieve locale codes from the National Center for Education Statistics School District search tool (
2.
(a) The difficulty of raising matching funds for a program to serve a rural area;
(b) The difficulty of raising matching funds in areas with a concentration of LEAs or schools with a high percentage of students aged 5 through 17—
(1) Who are in poverty, as counted in the most recent census data approved by the Secretary;
(2) Who are eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751
(3) Whose families receive assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601
(4) Who are eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program; and
(c) The difficulty of raising funds on Tribal land.
Applicants that wish to apply for a waiver must include a request in their application that describes why the matching requirement would cause serious hardship or an inability to carry out project activities. Further information about applying for waivers can be found in the application package. However, given the importance of matching funds to the long-term success of the project, the Secretary expects eligible entities to identify appropriate matching funds.
3.
4.
Each application will be reviewed under the competition it was submitted under in the
b.
c.
1.
2.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
4.
5.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
6.
1.
In determining the significance of the project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed by the proposed project.
(2) The national significance of the proposed project.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the competition.
In determining the applicant's capacity to scale the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates there is unmet demand for the process, product, strategy, or practice that will enable the applicant to reach the level of scale that is proposed in the application.
(2) The extent to which the applicant identifies a specific strategy or strategies that address a particular barrier or barriers that prevented the applicant, in the past, from reaching the level of scale that is proposed in the application.
(3) The feasibility of successful replication of the proposed project, if favorable results are obtained, in a variety of settings and with a variety of populations.
In determining the quality of the proposed project design, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(2) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(3) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(4) The potential and planning for the incorporation of project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the applicant beyond the end of the grant.
In determining the quality of the project evaluation to be conducted, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards without reservations as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (as defined in this notice).
(2) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other settings.
(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes.
(4) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key project components, mediators, and outcomes, as well as a measurable threshold for acceptable implementation.
Applicants may wish to review the following technical assistance resources on evaluation: (1) WWC Procedures and Standards Handbooks:
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Before making awards, we will screen applications submitted in accordance with the requirements in this notice to determine whether applications have met eligibility and other requirements. This screening process may occur at various stages of the process; applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a grant, regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments.
Peer reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation of, and score the assigned applications, using the selection criteria provided in this notice. For Mid-phase grant applications we intend to conduct a single-tier review.
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
A specific deliverable under a Mid-phase grant that grantees must openly license to the public is the evaluation report. Additionally, EIR grantees are encouraged to submit final studies resulting from research supported in whole or in part by EIR to the Educational Resources Information Center (
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
5.
(1) Performance measures. How each proposed performance measure would accurately measure the performance of the project and how the proposed performance measure would be consistent with the performance measures established for the program funding the competition.
(2) Baseline (as defined in this notice) data. (i) Why each proposed baseline is valid; or (ii) if the applicant has determined that there are no established baseline data for a particular performance measure, an explanation of why there is no established baseline and of how and when, during the project period, the applicant would establish a valid baseline for the performance measure.
(3) Performance targets. Why each proposed performance target is ambitious yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance measure and when, during the project period, the applicant would meet the performance target(s).
(4) Data collection and reporting. (i) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data; and (ii) the applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.
All grantees must submit an annual performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 21, 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 Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
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 data submitted electronically in the Fiscal Operations Report and Application to Participate (FISAP) is used by the Department of Education to determine the institution's funding need for the award year and monitor program effectiveness and accountability of fund expenditures. The data is used in
The HEA requires that if an institution anticipates not using all of its allocated funds for the FWS, and FSEOG programs by the end of an award year, it must specify the anticipated remaining unused amount to the Secretary, who reduces the institution's allocation accordingly.
The changes to the Perkins Loan Program in this annual update reflect the immediate reporting needs. There will be more extensive changes to the FISAP in next year's iteration to accommodate the continuing Perkins program close out.
Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), Department of Education (ED).
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 before April 18, 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 Karen Dorsey Hargrove, 202-453-6695.
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.
This is a request for emergency clearance of the funding announcement of the Promise Neighborhoods (PN) Extension Grant. The funding announcement is the instrument through which the Department will comply with the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2018 (the Appropriations Act) Public Law 115-141. The Appropriations Act directs the Department to make extension awards to fiscal year (FY) 2011 and FY 2012 Promise Neighborhoods (PN) implementation grantees. The Appropriations Act states that “. . . no later than June 1, 2018 (emphasis added), the Secretary shall award extension grants under such section on a competitive basis to implementation grantees that have demonstrated the ability to collect, track, and report longitudinal data on performance indicators established by the Department and required to be reported on annually as part of the initial implementation grant; demonstrated the most positive and promising results during their initial implementation grant based on such indicators, emphasizing getting children ready to learn; demonstrated a commitment to operating in the most under-served and under-resourced, including rural, areas; and propose continuing to pursue ambitious goals during an extension of that grant.” In order to comply with the Appropriations Act the Office of Innovation and Improvement will need to design a program specific instrument to conduct a competition for the PN extension funds. Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.13, the Department requests that OMB review this information collection under its emergency procedures. This request for emergency clearance is based on missing a statutory deadline. The Appropriations Act requires that awards be made no later than June 1, 2018. The Appropriations Act became public law on March 23, 2018. There are 70 calendar days from March 23, 2018 to May 31, 2018. The June 1st date does not allow for a 30-day public comment period and 30-day OMB review period. Due to this shortened approval period we are also requesting no public comment period.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of charter renewal.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee's (ASRAC) charter is being renewed.
The Committee will provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on matters concerning the DOE's Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Program's test procedures and rulemaking process.
Additionally, the renewal of the ARSAC has been determined to be essential to conduct business of the Department of Energy's and to be the in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy, by law and agreement. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the rules and regulations in implementation of that Act.
John Cymbalsky, Designated Federal Officer at (202) 287-1692.
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of amendment.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of an application for amendment (Amendment), filed on February 6, 2018, by Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. (JCEP or Jordan Cove) of both its Conditional Authorization (DOE/FE Order No. 3413) and pending Application in this proceeding.
Protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and written comments addressing the Amendment are invited as described below.
Protests, motions to intervene or notices of intervention, as applicable, requests for additional procedures, and written comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, May 9, 2018.
Larine Moore or Amy Sweeney, U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation and International, Engagement Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9478; (202) 586-2627.
JCEP's Application, filed on March 23, 2012, seeks authority to export domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) in a volume equivalent to 292 billion cubic feet per year (Bcf/yr) of natural gas (0.8 Bcf per day (Bcf/d)) from the proposed Jordan Cove LNG Terminal to be located on Coos Bay, Oregon, to nations with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas (non-FTA nations) (77 FR 33446). On March 24, 2014, DOE issued DOE/FE Order No. 3413, conditionally granting Jordan Cove's Application in the requested volume of 292 Bcf/yr for a term of 20 years (Conditional Non-FTA Authorization). On October 5, 2015, JCEP filed an amendment to its Application (81 FR 11202), asking DOE/FE to increase its requested non-FTA LNG export volume from the equivalent of 292 Bcf/yr to 350 Bcf/yr of natural gas (0.96 Bcf/d). At that time, JCEP did not seek to amend its Conditional Non-FTA Authorization. DOE/FE has not yet issued a final order on JCEP's Non-FTA Application, and its requested 2015 amendment remains pending as part of the Application proceeding.
In this Amendment, JCEP again seeks to increase its volume of LNG exports—to the equivalent of 395 Bcf/yr (1.08 Bcf/d) of natural gas—as approved in its Conditional Non-FTA Authorization (DOE/FE Order No. 3413) and as requested in its Non-FTA Application. JCEP states that the purpose of this Amendment is to conform its requested export volume to the proposed production capacity of the LNG Terminal in JCEP's current application at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). On September 21, 2017, JCEP filed an application at FERC (FERC Docket No. CP17-495-000) requesting authorization to site, construct, and operate the LNG Terminal with a proposed maximum capacity of 7.8 million metric tons per annum of LNG, equivalent to 395 Bcf/yr of natural gas. JCEP states that this FERC application reflects changes to the production capacity of its proposed facilities at the LNG Terminal, as well as additional engineering analysis. Although JCEP's application at FERC remains pending, JCEP states that it wishes to align its requested export volume with its requested facilities at FERC.
Additionally, JCEP asks that, if and when DOE/FE issues an order granting the requested Amendment to the Conditional Non-FTA Authorization,
Additional details can be found below and in JCEP's Amendment, posted on the DOE/FE website at:
Because the Amendment represents a substantive and material change in the Application, DOE has determined to publish this notice in the
The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3 of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b. In reviewing this Application, DOE will consider domestic need for the natural gas, as well as any other issues determined to be appropriate, including whether the arrangement is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. Parties that may oppose this application should comment in their responses on these issues.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Interested parties will be provided 20 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit comments, protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention.
Comments and protests should address JCEP's Amendment filed on February 6, 2018. The public previously was given an opportunity to intervene in, protest, and comment on JCEP's Application, as well as on JCEP's requested amendment to the Application filed in 2015 (discussed
Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590.
Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) Emailing the filing to
A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.
The Application is available for inspection and copying in the Office of Regulation and International Engagement docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the meetings of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Regional State Committee (RSC), Regional Entity Trustee (RET), Members Committee, and Board of Directors, as noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
The meetings will be held at the InterContinental at the Plaza, 401 Ward Parkway, Kansas City, MO 64112. The phone number is (816) 756-1500. All meetings are Central Time.
The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
This meeting is open to the public.
For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:17 a.m. on Tuesday, April 17, 2018, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded by Director Joseph M. Otting (Comptroller of the Currency), and concurred in by Director Mick Mulvaney (Acting Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10).
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for the institutions listed below, intends to terminate its receivership for said institutions.
The liquidation of the assets for each receivership has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receiverships will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receiverships shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of any of the receiverships, such comment must be made in writing, identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and be sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of the above-mentioned receiverships will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than May 9, 2018.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 14, 2018.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 18, 2018.
1.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled Emerging Infections Program (EIP) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on December 21, 2017 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and
Emerging Infections Program (OMB Control Number 0920-0978 Expiration Date 2/28/2019)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Emerging Infections Programs (EIPs) are population-based centers of excellence established through a network of state health departments collaborating with academic institutions; local health departments; public health and clinical laboratories; infection control professionals; and healthcare providers. EIPs assist in local, state, and national efforts to prevent, control, and monitor the public health impact of infectious diseases.
CDC seeks a three-year OMB approval for this revised information collection project request.
Activities of the EIPs fall into the following general categories: (1) Active surveillance; (2) applied public health epidemiologic and laboratory activities; (3) implementation and evaluation of pilot prevention/intervention projects; and (4) flexible response to public health emergencies. Activities of the EIPs are designed to: (1) Address issues that the EIP network is particularly suited to investigate; (2) maintain sufficient flexibility for emergency response and new problems as they arise; (3) develop and evaluate public health interventions to inform public health policy and treatment guidelines; (4) incorporate training as a key function; and (5) prioritize projects that lead directly to the prevention of disease.
The total estimated time burden for the revised collection project is 40,347 hours, an increase of 18,257 hours. The majority of the collection activities remain the same, however, there are multiple proposed revisions including form consolidation, minor revised language and rewording to improve clarity and readability of the data collection forms and the discontinuation of the previously approved Legionellosis Expanded Case Report Form.
CDC seeks to request the use of five new forms: ABCs Severe GAS Infection Supplemental Form; HAIC Multi-site Gram-Negative Bacilli Case Report Form for Carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CR-PA); HAIC Multi-site Gram-Negative Surveillance Initiative—Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae (MuGSI-ESBL); HAIC Invasive Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA); and HAIC Candidemia Case Report Form. These forms will allow the EIP to better detect, identify, and monitor emerging pathogens.
This revision package will enhance the previous submission by improving surveillance through new forms, form consolidation, minor revised language to improve clarity, and the discontinuation of specific previously approved forms. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Program (PCNASP) 2015-2020 Assessment to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on October 10, 2017 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Program (2015-2020) Assessment—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP), requests OMB approval for a new collection.
The CDC is the primary Federal agency for protecting health and promoting quality of life through the prevention and control of disease, injury, and disability. CDC is committed to programs that reduce the health and economic consequences of the leading causes of death and disability, thereby ensuring a long, productive, healthy life for all people.
Stroke remains a leading cause of serious, long-term disability and is the fifth leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and accidents. Estimates indicate that approximately 795,000 people suffer a first-ever or recurrent stroke each year with more than 130,000 deaths annually. Although there have been significant advances in preventing and treating stroke, the rising prevalence of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity has increased the relative risk for stroke, especially in African American populations. Moreover, stroke's lifetime direct cost of health care and indirect cost of lost productivity is staggering and imposes a substantial societal economic burden. Coverdell-funded state programs are in the forefront of developing and implementing system-change efforts to improve emergency response systems, enhance the quality of care for stroke, and improve transitions across stroke systems of care, including pre-event; transitions from EMS to acute care in hospitals; and transitions from hospitals to home,
When Congress directed the CDC to establish the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Program (PCNASP) in 2001, CDC intended to monitor trends in stroke and stroke care, with the ultimate mission of improving the quality of care for stroke patients in the United States. Since 2015, CDC has funded and provided technical assistance to nine state health departments to develop comprehensive stroke systems of care. A comprehensive system of care improves quality of care by creating seamless transitions for individuals experiencing stroke. In such a system, pre-hospital providers, in-hospital providers, and early post-hospital providers coordinate patient hand-offs and ensure continuity of care. CDC contracted with RTI International to conduct an assessment of the state health departments awarded grants in 2015 to assess their implementation in their state-based contexts and progress toward short- and intermediate-term outcomes.
CDC and RTI International propose to collect information from all nine funded PCNASP grantees to gain insight into the effectiveness of implementation of their quality improvement strategies, development (and use) of a data integrated management system, and partner collaboration in building comprehensive state-wide stroke systems of care. The information collection will focus on describing PCNASP specific contributions to effective state-based stroke systems of care and the costs associated with this work. Two components of the information collection include: (1) Program implementation cost data collection from program partners using a cost and resource utilization tool; and (2) telephone interviews with key program stakeholders, such as the PCNASP principal investigator, program manager, quality improvement specialist, data analyst/program evaluator, and partner support staff. Cost data collection will focus on a stratified sample of partners' cumulative spending to support PCNASP activities, spending by reporting period, and spending associated with specific PCNASP strategies related to building comprehensive state-wide stroke systems of care. Interview questions will target how each grantee implemented its strategies, challenges encountered and how they were overcome, factors that facilitated implementation, lessons learned along the way, and observed outcomes and improvements. The information to be collected does not currently exist for large scale, statewide programs that employ multiple combinations of strategies led by state public health departments to build comprehensive stroke systems of care. The insights to be gained from this data collection will be critical to improving immediate efforts and achieving the goals of spreading and replicating state-level strategies that are proven programmatically and are cost-effective in contributing to a higher quality of care for stroke patients.
The total estimated annual burden hours are 328. There are no costs to the respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled “Evaluation of the third decade of the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) Council Effectiveness”. This is a survey to collect information from NORA council members and leaders about council activities and satisfaction with council functioning.
Written comments must be received on or before June 18, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0034 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Evaluation of the third decade of the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) Council Effectiveness—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is responsible for conducting research and making recommendations to prevent worker injury and illness, as authorized in Section 20(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 669). In 1995-1996, NIOSH saw an opportunity to enhance its ability to accomplish its mission through partnerships that involved a broad national stakeholder base in occupational safety and health. With stakeholder input, NIOSH developed and launched a partnership program titled the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) in 1996. Participation in NORA includes stakeholders from universities, large and small businesses, professional societies, government agencies, and worker organizations. NORA runs in ten year cycles, with the first decade running 1996-2006, the second 2006-2016, and the third 2016-2026.
The structure of NORA has evolved over time, and now, in the third decade, it is organized into ten industry sectors based on major areas of the U.S. economy, and seven health and safety cross-sectors organized according to the major health and safety issues affecting the U.S. working population. The work of the sectors and cross-sectors is managed through a partnership structure of councils. Each of the 17 councils develops and maintains an agenda for the decade for its sector. The sector agendas become part of the national agenda for improvements in occupational safety and health through research and partnerships. Representing all stakeholders, the councils use an open process to set research objectives, share information, encourage partnerships, and promote improved workplace practices.
NIOSH seeks to request a 12-month Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to administer a survey to NORA council members and leaders. As the steward of NORA, it is NIOSH's responsibility to ensure that councils, which are central to the work of NORA, are operating well. Without this data collection, NIOSH's internal review of NORA would lack critical stakeholder input from its many non-Federal partners.
The target population is all current and former members and leaders of each of the 17 NORA councils in the third decade of NORA. The web-based survey requests information on council activities, the effectiveness of the council and its processes, and suggestions for improving the effectiveness and impact of NORA councils in the future. Without this data collection, NIOSH's internal management review of NORA would lack critical stakeholder input from its many non-Federal partners.
NIOSH has developed a 17-item survey and will send to approximately 425 non-Federal NORA Sector council members or leaders. NIOSH estimates that it will take 12 minutes to complete the survey.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated time burden is 85 hours.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on November 27, 2017 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) (OMB Control Number 0920-0278, Expiration 02/28/2018)—Reinstatement with change—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on “utilization of health care” in the United States. The National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) has conducted annually since 1992. NCHS is seeking OMB approval to reinstate this survey for an additional three years, following a brief discontinuation on February 28, 2018.
The target universe of the NHAMCS is in-person visits made to emergency departments (EDs) of non-Federal, short-stay hospitals (hospitals with an average length of stay of less than 30 days) that have at least six beds for inpatient use, and with a specialty of general and medical, maternity, children's general, or long term acute care.
NHAMCS was initiated to complement the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS, OMB Control Number 0920-0234, Expiration 03/31/2019), which provides similar data concerning patient visits to physicians' offices. NAMCS and NHAMCS are the principal sources of data on ambulatory care provided in the United States.
NHAMCS provides a range of baseline data on the characteristics of the users and providers of hospital ambulatory medical care. Data collected include patients' demographic characteristics, reason(s) for visit, providers' diagnoses, diagnostic services, medications, and disposition. These data, together with trend data, may be used to monitor the effects of change in the health care system, for the planning of health services, improving medical education, determining health care work force needs, and assessing the health status of the population.
Starting 2018, CDC will implement just the ED component of NHAMCS. However, once reinstated the 2017 survey will run concurrently with the 2018 survey until the final months of pending 2017 data collection have been completed. This is typical with any data collection cycle: It begins in the last month of the preceding year and ends around the middle of the following year. For the 2017 data collection, CDC will collect information on all three settings (ED, OPD, and ASL). For this three-year request, CDC does not expect substantive changes or supplements for the survey.
Users of NHAMCS data include, but are not limited to, congressional offices, Federal agencies, state and local governments, schools of public health, colleges and Universities, private industry, nonprofit foundations, professional associations, clinicians, researchers, administrators, and health planners.
There are no costs to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 1,251.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled Contact Investigation Outcome Reporting Forms to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on October 13, 2017 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Contact Investigation Outcome Reporting Forms (OMB Control Number 0920-0900, expiration date 06/30/2018)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC's Division of Global Migration and Quarantine has a regulatory and public health mission to prevent the importation and spread of communicable disease into and within the United States. CDC works towards fulfilling this mission through a number of activities carried out at Quarantine Stations strategically placed at 20 U.S. ports of entry as well as coordinating activities at CDC headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. A key portion of this mission is responding to reports of illness or death on air and maritime conveyances and investigating any potential exposures to determine if public health follow up is needed.
CDC proposes to continue collecting passenger-level, epidemiologic, demographic, and health status data from state/local Health Departments and maritime operators at the conclusion of contact investigations of individuals believed to have been exposed to a communicable disease during travel. Health departments or maritime operators will obtain the information for CDC while conducting contact investigations according to their established policies and procedures.
The current information collection request includes forms that are specific to investigations about Tuberculosis (TB), Measles, and Rubella. The request also includes a General form for other diseases of public health concern. In 2011, OMB initially approved the forms to facilitate the collection and reporting of pertinent information. Prior to 2011, there were no standardized tools for health departments and maritime operators to report the outcomes of state or vessel contact investigations to CDC.
The collected information will assist CDC in fulfilling its regulatory responsibility to prevent the importation of communicable diseases from foreign countries (42 CFR part 71) and interstate control of communicable diseases in humans (42 CFR part 70). This information collection is also a critical piece of the standard operating procedures carried out by the 20 Quarantine Stations placed at key ports of entry around the United States. The purpose of all forms is the same: to facilitate the collection of information by public health partners to help CDC quarantine officials fully understand the extent of disease spread and transmission during travel and to inform the development and or refinement of investigative protocols aimed at reducing the spread of communicable disease.
The respondents, state and local health departments and maritime conveyance operators (
As part of this revision, CDC requests approval for a number of changes and adjustments:
• CDC is discontinuing all Ebola related forms;
• CDC is discontinuing all current maritime-related forms except a condensed maritime TB contact investigation follow-up form in an Excel format;
• CDC is requesting a downward revision of the estimated number of TB contact investigation forms used annually, but an upward revision of the amount of time requested from each respondent;
• CDC is requesting addition of varicella and influenza like illness outbreak contact investigation follow up forms;
• no changes are requested of the Air or Land associated forms; however adjustments in burden are requested.
The proposed changes will result in a decrease of 673 burden hours (from 782 burden hours to 109 hours).
There is no cost to respondents other than their time to complete the form and submit the data to CDC.
The information collection activities to be submitted in the package include:
(1) Leadership and supervisor interviews will collect information on program structure and staffing, client experiences, agency goals and performance management, organizational learning and innovation, cultural congruence across service providers, and the perception of the organizational culture change, if applicable.
(2) Frontline workers' interviews will collect information about frontline staffs' role in service delivery, client experiences, peer interaction and social institutions within the agency, agency goals, organizational learning and innovation, and the perception of the organizational culture change initiative, if applicable.
(3) The focus groups will collect information about program participants' perceptions of agency processes, their communication with agency staff, and their assessment of the agency's organizational culture.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Metered Dose Inhaler (MDI) and Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI) Drug Products—Quality Considerations.” The purpose of this guidance is to provide recommendations to industry on the development and manufacture of inhalation aerosols (also known as metered dose inhalers, or MDIs) and inhalation powders (also known as dry powder inhalers, or DPIs). Although not explicitly discussed, some of the principles and recommendations provided in this guidance may be applicable to nasal delivery products, as well. The recommendations in this guidance can apply to MDI and DPI products intended for local or systemic effect.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by June 18, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave. Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Richard Lostritto, Center for Drug
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Metered Dose Inhaler (MDI) and Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI) Drug Products—Quality Considerations.” This guidance describes points to consider to help ensure product quality and performance for MDIs and DPIs. It describes chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information recommended for inclusion in new drug applications (NDAs) and abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs); however, the principles are applicable to products used during clinical trials and over the product lifecycle, as well. It also provides recommendations on certain aspects of labeling for NDA and ANDA MDI and DPI products. FDA previously published a draft guidance on this topic on November 13, 1998. The present guidance is a revision of the previous draft, updated to reflect current standards and requirements to enhance understanding of development approaches for these products consistent with the quality by design paradigm.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Metered Dose Inhaler (MDI) and Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI) Drug Products—Quality Considerations.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This guidance includes information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information referenced in this guidance that are related to the burden for the submission of investigational new drug applications are covered under 21 CFR part 312 and have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information referenced in this guidance that are related to the burden for the submission of new drug applications that are covered under 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The submission of prescription drug product labeling under 21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57 is approved under OMB control number 0910-0572.
The guidance also discusses labeling for MDI and DPI drug products, and references 21 CFR part 201. In the
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the document at either
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-Day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0028, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of a revision of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves requesting information from flight and cabin crew members of air carriers to participate in voluntary advanced self-defense training provided by TSA. Each crew member will also be required to complete an electronic Injury Waiver Form. Additionally, each participant is asked to complete an anonymous course evaluation at the conclusion of the training.
Send your comments by May 21, 2018. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email
TSA published a
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.
TSA currently collects biographical information from crew members to confirm their eligibility to participate in this training program and to confirm their attendance. TSA confirms the eligibility of the participant by contacting the participant's employer, and confirms attendance by comparing the registration information against a sign-in sheet provided in the classroom.
TSA is making a number of revisions to this ICR. First, TSA is changing the name of the collection from “Flight Crew Self-Defense Training-Registration and Evaluation” to “Crew Member Self-Defense Training-Registration and Evaluation.” Furthermore, TSA has expanded the program to allow voluntary participation by air carriers providing cargo air transportation. Also, TSA will no longer collect the last four digits of the SSN from crew members and will update the attendance roster to add a “training complete” column and remove the “Day 1-3” and “2nd ID #” columns. In addition, TSA will include an electronic Injury Waiver Form. Finally, TSA will replace the evaluation form with an electronic feedback tab.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-Day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0034, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of an extension of the
Send your comments by May 21, 2018. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email
TSA published a
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4160, Washington, DC 20410; telephone: 202-708-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email Ms. Pollard for a copy of the proposed form and other available information.
Gloria Coates, Community Planning and Development Specialist, Entitlement Communities Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, 451 7th Street SW, Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1577 (this is not a toll-free number).
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 3178, Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 as amended.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct activities intended to recover and enhance endangered species survival. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), prohibits certain activities that may impact endangered species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The ESA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by May 21, 2018.
Request documents or submit comments to Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Classification and Restoration Division, by U.S. mail to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103. Please specify the permit you are interested in by number (
Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Classification and Restoration Division, by U.S. mail or by telephone at 505-248-6641.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct activities intended to recover and enhance endangered species survival. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The ESA prohibits certain activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit authorizes them. The ESA and our implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), title 50, part 17, provide for issuing such permits and require that we invite public comment before issuing permits for activities involving endangered species.
A recovery permit we issue under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or enhance the species' propagation or survival. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
In accordance with section 10(c) of the ESA, we invite public comment on these permit applications before we take final action.
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the permit number for the application when submitting comments.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review by any party who submits a written request to the contact in
Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the species' recovery and survival enhancement.
All comments and materials we receive in response to these requests will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 21, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
On September 7, 2017, we published in the
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Service; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Service enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Service minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Horseshoe crabs play a vital role commercially, biomedically, and ecologically along the Atlantic coast. Horseshoe crabs are commercially harvested and used as bait in eel and conch fisheries. Biomedical companies along the coast also collect and bleed horseshoe crabs at their facilities. Limulus amebocyte lysate, derived from crab blood, is used by pharmaceutical companies to test sterility of products. Finally, migratory shorebirds also depend on the eggs of horseshoe crabs to refuel on their migrations from South America to the Arctic. One bird in particular, the rufa red knot (
In 1998, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), a management organization with representatives from each State on the Atlantic coast, developed a horseshoe crab management plan. The ASMFC plan and its subsequent addenda established mandatory State-by-State harvest quotas, and created the 1,500-square-mile Carl N. Shuster, Jr., Horseshoe Crab Sanctuary off the mouth of Delaware Bay.
Restrictive measures have been taken in recent years, but populations are increasing slowly. Because horseshoe crabs do not breed until they are 9 years or older, it may take some time before the population measurably increases. Federal and State agencies, universities, and biomedical companies participate in a Horseshoe Crab Cooperative Tagging Program. The Service's MDFWCO maintains the information collected under this program and uses it to evaluate migratory patterns, survival, and abundance of horseshoe crabs.
Agencies that tag and release the crabs complete FWS Form 3-2311 (Horseshoe Crab Tagging) and provide the Service with:
• Organization name.
• Contact person name.
• Tag number.
• Sex of crab.
• Prosomal width.
• Capture site, latitude, longitude, waterbody, State, and date.
Members of the public who recover tagged crabs provide the following information using FWS Form 3-2310 (Horseshoe Crab Recapture Report):
• Tag number.
• Whether or not tag was removed.
• Whether the tag was circular or square.
• Condition of crab.
• Date captured/found.
• Crab fate.
• Finder type.
• Capture method.
• Capture location.
• Reporter information.
• Comments.
At the request of the public participant reporting the tagged crab, we send data pertaining to the tagging program and tag and release information on the horseshoe crab that was found or captured.
We propose a revision to this existing collection of information to include four forms currently in use which are used by the Service:
• Form 3-2493, “American Shad Recapture Report”;
• Form 3-2494, “Snakehead Recapture Report”;
• Form 3-2495, “Striped Bass Recapture Report”; and
• Form 3-2496, “Sturgeon Recapture Report.”
Fish will be tagged with an external tag containing a toll-free number for MDFWCO. Members of the public reporting a tag will be asked a series of questions pertaining to the fish that they are referencing. This data will be used by fisheries managers throughout the east coast and mid-Atlantic region, depending on species.
Currently the species that are tagged are striped bass (
Sturgeon are tagged by Federal, State, and university biologists and nongovernmental organizations along the U.S. east coast and into Canada, and throughout the United States and Canada. Local populations of Atlantic sturgeon have been listed as either threatened or endangered since 2012, and shortnose populations have been listed since 1973. The information collected provides data on tag retention and sturgeon movement along the east coast. The data are also used to address some of the management and research needs identified by amendment 1 to the ASMFC's Atlantic Sturgeon Fishery Management Plan.
Northern snakehead is an invasive species found in many watersheds throughout the mid-Atlantic region. It has been firmly established in the Potomac River since at least 2004. Federal and State biologists within the Potomac River watershed have been tasked with managing the impacts of northern snakehead. Tagging of northern snakehead is used to learn more about the species so that control efforts can be better informed. Tagging is also used to estimate population sizes to monitor fluctuations in population size. Recreational and commercial fishers reporting tags provide information on catch rates and migration patterns as well.
American shad are tagged by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC), which retains all fish tagging information. The public reports tags to MDFWCO, who provides information on tag returns to NYDEC. Tag return data are used to monitor migration and abundance of shad along the Atlantic coast.
Data collected across these tagging programs are similar in nature, including: Tag number, date of capture, waterbody of capture, capture method, fish length, fish weight, fish fate (whether released or killed), fisher type (
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 21, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Service; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Service enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Service minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We administer 373 hunting programs and 310 fishing programs on 411 refuges and wetland management districts. We only collect user information at about 20 percent of these refuges. Information that we plan to collect will help us:
• Administer and monitor hunting and fishing programs on refuges.
• Distribute hunting and fishing permits in a fair and equitable manner to eligible participants.
We use nine application and report forms associated with hunting and fishing on refuges. We may not allow all opportunities on all refuges; therefore, we developed different forms to simplify the process and avoid confusion for applicants. The currently approved forms are available online at
We use the following application forms when we assign areas, dates, and/or types of hunts via a drawing because of limited resources, high demand, or when a permit is needed to hunt. We issue application forms for specific periods, usually seasonally or annually.
• FWS Form 3-2354 (Quota Deer Hunt Application).
• FWS Form 3-2355 (Waterfowl Lottery Application).
• FWS Form 3-2356 (Big/Upland Game Hunt Application).
• FWS Form 3-2357 (Migratory Bird Hunt Application).
• FWS Form 3-2358 (Fishing/Shrimping/Crabbing Application).
Forms 3-2354 through 3-2358 collect information on:
• Applicant (name, address, phone number) so that we can notify applicants of their selection.
• User preferences (dates, areas, method) so that we can distribute users equitably.
• Whether or not the applicant is applying for a special opportunity for disabled or youth hunters.
• Age of youth hunter(s) so that we can establish eligibility.
We ask users to report on their success after their experience so that we can evaluate hunting/fishing quality and resource impacts. We use the following activity reports, which we distribute during appropriate seasons, as determined by State or Federal regulations.
• FWS Form 3-2359 (Big Game Harvest Report).
• FWS Form 3-2360 (Fishing Report).
• FWS Form 3-2361 (Migratory Bird Hunt Report).
• FWS Form 3-2362 (Upland/Small Game/Furbearer Report).
Forms 3-2359 through 3-2362 collect information on:
• Names of users so we can differentiate between responses.
• City and State of residence so that we can better understand if users are local or traveling.
• Dates, time, and number in party so we can identify use trends and allocate staff and resources.
• Details of success by species so that we can evaluate quality of experience and resource impacts.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 21, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Service; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Service enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Service minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
• Managing migratory bird populations frequenting the United States, and
• Setting hunting regulations that allow for the well-being of migratory bird populations.
The North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey is an essential part of the migratory bird management program. State, Federal, Provincial, local, and tribal conservation agencies conduct the survey annually to provide the data necessary to determine the population status of the woodcock. In addition, the information is vital in assessing the relative changes in the geographic distribution of the woodcock. We use the information primarily to develop recommendations for hunting regulations. Without information on the population's status, we might promulgate hunting regulations that:
• Are not sufficiently restrictive, which could cause harm to the woodcock population, or
• Are too restrictive, which would unduly restrict recreational opportunities afforded by woodcock hunting.
The Service, State conservation agencies, university associates, and other interested parties use the data for various research and management projects.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
On January 23, 2018, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin (previously listed as Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin) (Nation) leasing regulations under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). With this approval, the Nation is authorized to enter into business, agricultural and residential leases without further BIA approval.
Ms. Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1849 C Street, MS-4642-MIB, NW, Washington, DC 20240, at (202) 208-3615.
The HEARTH Act makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to Tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The HEARTH Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter into agricultural and business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). The HEARTH Act also authorizes Tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating Tribes develop Tribal leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering into leases. The HEARTH Act requires the Secretary to approve Tribal regulations if the Tribal regulations are consistent with the Department of the Interior's (Department) leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the HEARTH Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the Tribal regulations for the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin.
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction.
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 5108, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.”
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing.
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or Part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Wisconsin Historical Society at the address in this notice by May 21, 2018.
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains were removed from the Pleasant Plain Group site, Barron County, and the Mertig Site, Sawyer County, WI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
In 1947, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Pleasant Plain Group (47-BN-0025) in Barron County, WI. The site consists of 27 mounds, including 15 conical mounds, 12 oval or linear mounds, and one “catfish” or “tadpole” mound. The human remains representing one adult male and one possible adult male were found in a single sub-floor burial pit in the center of Mound 2 by Robert R. Jones and students of the University of Wisconsin Extension Center. It is not clear what type of mound Mound 2 was. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Mertig Site (47-SY-0042) in Sawyer County, WI. Landowner Fred Mertig found partially cremated human remains while leveling the mounds. He also recovered two copper beads, one of which enclosed a piece of buckskin. In 1956, Mertig sent the human remains and copper beads to the Wisconsin Historical Society for analysis. The recovery location of the copper beads is unknown and there is a lack of information to indicate they were associated funerary objects. Skeletal analysis determined the human remains represent one adult and one child, both of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, oral histories, and skeletal analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as the Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota (hereafter referred to as “The Aboriginal Land Tribes”).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Aboriginal Land Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying The Aboriginal Land Tribes, Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Wisconsin Historical Society at the address in this notice by May 21, 2018.
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Wade Farm Mounds, Polk County, WI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
In 1960, human remains representing, at minimum, nine individuals were removed from Wade Farm Mounds (47-PK-0004) in Polk County, WI. The Wisconsin Historical Society, under the direction of Joan Freeman and with the assistance of the Polk Historical Society and students from the University of Wisconsin, conducted salvage excavations over a three day period prior to the creation of a gravel pit at the site. They excavated portions of Mound 2, Mound 3, and Mound 4, and excavated human remains representing nine individuals of indeterminate age and sex. No known individuals were identified. The six associated funerary objects are two groups of ceramic sherds, one group of lithics, two groups of wood fragments, and one chert biface.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, archeological context, oral histories, and skeletal analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of nine individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the six objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as the Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota (hereafter referred to as “The Aboriginal Land Tribes”).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to The Aboriginal Land Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying The Aboriginal Land Tribes; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian Tribes or Native
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Wisconsin Historical Society at the address in this notice by May 21, 2018.
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from multiple sites in Crawford County, WI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
In 1937, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Rock Shelter #4 (47-CR-0191) in Crawford County, WI. The site was first documented in 1937, by Leland Cooper who was associated with the Wisconsin Historical Society at the time. A Wisconsin Historical Society card catalog lists 97 artifacts recovered as a “general sample from 4-10 inches deep in floor of rockshelter” were collected by Cooper in 1937 and accessioned by the Wisconsin Historical Society in 1978. Later analysis of the collection revealed human remains that represent one individual of indeterminate age and sex. There is no evidence to suggest the artifacts collected and accessioned at the same time are funerary objects associated with the human remains. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1990, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Copper Creek Mound Group (47-CR-0484) in Crawford County, WI. A local informant contacted the Wisconsin Burial Site Preservation Office (BSPO) to report that the site had recently been looted, and representatives of the BPSO visited the site. They conducted a pedestrian survey of the mounds and collected a small group of human remains that were visible on the surface. The few human remains collected are very fragmentary and represent one individual of indeterminate age and sex. No associated funerary objects were found. No known individuals were identified.
In 1993, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Highway 35 (47-CR-0731) in Crawford County, WI. A cranium was found resting next to a cement retaining wall near the property of Thomas and Alleine La Chine near Prairie du Chien. The La Chines contacted the Crawford County Sheriff's Department upon their discovery, and the police subsequently contacted the Wisconsin Burial Sites Preservation Office (BSPO). A representative from the BPSO investigated the site but did not locate any other human remains or artifacts. The human remains were transferred from the Crawford County Sheriff's Department to the Wisconsin Historical Society. The cranium was later determined to be from an adult female with attributes of mixed European-American and Native American ancestry. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1976, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from McDonald Graves (47-CR-0166) in Crawford County, WI. The human remains were discovered during a sewer construction project in an alley located in the city of Prairie du Chien. Homeowners initially contacted the Prairie du Chien Police Department, who immediately contacted the Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS). Representatives from the WHS visited the site within days and conducted an excavation in conjunction with the Prairie du Chien Police of what appeared to be profiles of two coffins. The Prairie du Chien Police Department originally took custody of the human remains and artifacts, but transferred them to the WHS in 1976. Skeletal analysis later determined the human remains represent an adult male and an adult female, both of Native American ancestry. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a group of 20 coffin nails and fragments of wood.
In 1960, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Miller Site (47-CR-0001) in Crawford County, WI. The Miller Site was investigated in 1960 and 1961 by the Wisconsin Historical Society's Highway Archaeology Program under a cooperative agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. During the 1960 excavations, the remains of a single adult male were excavated from a burial pit located in the southern portion of the investigated area. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Waterfront Site (47-CR-0436) in Crawford County, WI. Local resident J.P. Albee discovered human remains representing two probable male individuals on St. Feriole Island along the East Channel of the Mississippi River in the city of Prairie du Chien. Mr. Albee donated the human remains to the Wisconsin Historical Society in 1912. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, archeological context, oral histories, and skeletal analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of eight individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the one object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as the Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska (hereafter referred to as “The Aboriginal Land Tribes”).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to The Aboriginal Land Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying The Aboriginal Land Tribes; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Wisconsin Historical Society at the address in this notice by May 21, 2018.
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Mosquito Island Sandbar Discovery, Buffalo County, and the Schwert Mound Group, Trempealeau County, WI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
In 1966, human remains representing, at minimum, 56 individuals were removed from Schwert Mound Group (47-TR-0031) in Trempealeau County, WI. The Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS), in a joint project with the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Department of Anthropology and Center for Climatic Research, excavated two mounds (Mounds 4 and 26) at the site in 1966. All of the human remains in Mound 4 were found in a single sub-floor burial pit with 24 distinct burial areas within the pit (Burials 1-15, 17-25). Internment patterns included fully extended individuals and bundle burials. Skeletal analysis determined that these remains represent four adult males, five adult females, thirteen adults of indeterminate sex, six juveniles, and five individuals of indeterminate age and sex. Five out of the six subadults were interred with an adult. Remains were found in two separate locations
In 2003, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Mosquito Island Sandbar Discovery (47-BF-0233) in Buffalo County, WI. The human remains from this site consist of a single femur found by a family playing on a sandbar near Mosquito Island in the Mississippi River. The family took the femur to Dr. William McNeil of the Winona, Minnesota Community Memorial Hospital, who identified the femur as human. Dr. McNeil then contacted Dr. Thomas Retzinger of the Winona County Coroner's Office who contacted the Minnesota State Archeologist, Mark Dudzik. Dudzik determined that the site of recovery was within Wisconsin and sent the human remains for deposition and analysis to the Wisconsin Historical Society Burial Sites Preservation Office (BSPO). Skeletal analysis by BSPO staff determined the femur exhibited morphological features consistent with Native American ancestry. Due to the nature of the discovery, the time period to which the human remains date and whether their place of recovery was their primary burial location is not known. Additionally, there are no known burial sites along the Mississippi River in Buffalo County. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, archeological context, oral histories, and skeletal analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 57 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 48 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Oglala Sioux Tribe (previously listed as the Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota); Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; and the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota (hereafter referred to as “The Aboriginal Land Tribes”).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to The Aboriginal Land Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying The Aboriginal Land Tribes; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; and Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Wisconsin Historical
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from four locations in Winnebago County, WI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
In 1994, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from Plummer's Point (47-WN-0055) in Winnebago County, WI. The site consists of a mound, garden beds, cache pits, fire pits, and burials. An unknown person collected the human remains eroding from an animal burrow. Through skeletal analysis, Wisconsin Historical Society staff determined the human remains represent three adults of indeterminate sex and one juvenile of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1993, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from Butte des Morts Burials (47-WN-0083) in Winnebago County, WI. The human remains were discovered while digging a trench for a water line on a residential plot. Wisconsin Historical Society Burial Sites Preservation Office staff and Jeff Behm, Assistant Professor of Anthropology at University of Wisconsin—Oshkosh (UW—Oshkosh), excavated the burials. The exposed human remains were transferred to the Wisconsin Historical Society for examination while the rest of the burials were left in situ. The human remains were determined to represent two adult males and one adult female. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1993, human remains representing, at minimum, 19 individuals were removed from the Barefoot Site (47-WN-0280) in Winnebago County, WI. The human remains were excavated prior to the construction of a new housing subdivision, just east of the town of Winneconne. Initial machine stripping of the site revealed numerous features and a number of burials. Mapping and limited excavations of these features were done by archeologists Richard and Carol Mason under the direction of the Wisconsin Historical Society Burial Sites Protection Office (BSPO). Archeologists from the BSPO excavated nine burials (Burials 1-9). An additional four burials were excavated by archeologists from UW—Oshkosh; these human remains were transferred to the Wisconsin Historical Society (Burials 10-13). There is no archeological report describing Burials 1-9. Skeletal analysis for Burials 1-9 was completed in 2015 and it was discovered that none of the human remains were labeled as being from Burial 6. Because Wisconsin Historical Society has in its possession a copper celt that was found with Burial 6, it is possible that the human remains from Burial 6 are present but were mislabeled as being from another burial. However, absent an archeological report for Burials 1-9, it is impossible to determine which human remains were excavated from Burial 6 or if human remains were excavated from that feature. The human remains from all of the burial features were determined to represent eight adult males, four adult females, five juveniles, and two individuals of indeterminate age and sex. No known individuals were identified. The five associated funerary objects are one copper celt, one pipe, one chert point, one group of glass beads, and one stem fragment from a kaolin pipe.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Blair Burials (47-WN-0720) in Winnebago County, WI. Sometime prior to 1912, the human remains were removed from a gravel pit located on the T.B. Blair property on a gravel ridge overlooking the western shore of Lake Butte des Morts. Charles E. Brown of the Wisconsin Historical Society states the human remains were discovered when a railroad cut was excavated. Blair donated the human remains to the Wisconsin Historical Society in 1920. In a letter to Charles E. Brown dated January 13, 1912, Blair states that he had two skulls in his possession. Based on the description given by Blair, it is assumed that these skulls are those currently in Wisconsin Historical Society's possession. In 1949, the mandible from one of the skulls was loaned to the University of Wisconsin—Madison and was returned to the Wisconsin Historical Society in 2011. Skeletal analysis conducted in 2005 determined that the human remains represent an adult, possibly female, and an adult male of mixed ancestry. This determination was confirmed after the return of the loaned mandible. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, archeological context, oral histories, and skeletal analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 28 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the five objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Wisconsin Historical Society at the address in this notice by May 21, 2018.
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains were removed from the Ostergaard Burial Discovery in Vernon County, WI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
In 1991, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Ostergaard Burial Discovery (47-VE-0967) in Vernon County, WI. Mr. Chris Hill discovered the human remains, later determined to represent one adult male, in a backdirt pile from a utility construction project at the home of the Ostergaard Family. Mr. Hill gave the human remains to the Mississippi Valley Archaeological Center, who contacted the Wisconsin Historical Society Burial Sites Preservation Office. When representatives from both institutions visited the site, they observed additional human remains were eroding out of tire ruts and a slope at the site. These human remains were left in place because the landowner did not permit excavation. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, archeological context, oral histories, and skeletal analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Oglala Sioux Tribe (previously listed as the Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota); Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Aboriginal Land Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying The Aboriginal Land Tribes; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; and Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Wisconsin Historical Society at the address in this notice by May 21, 2018.
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Pole Barn Site, Waukesha County, WI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
In 1992, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from the Pole Barn Site (47-WK-0471) in Waukesha County, WI. The human remains were disturbed while digging a utility trench under a barn in the town of New Berlin. Diane Holiday along with other Wisconsin Historical Society Burial Sites Preservation Office staff and archeologists from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee salvaged the remainder of the burial feature. Skeletal analysis conducted in 2014 determined that the human remains represent two adult males, one adult female, one infant, and one child. Six artifacts were discovered stored with the human remains during the 2014 skeletal analysis and were determined to be associated funerary objects because they were labeled as being associated with specific burials. No known individuals were identified. The six associated funerary objects are one antler tine, one group of worked avian bones, one group of unworked avian bones, one projectile point, one lithic flake, and one scrapper fragment.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, archeological context, oral histories, and skeletal analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the six objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community,
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as the Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota (hereafter referred to as “The Acknowledged Aboriginal Land Tribes”).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to The Adjudicated Aboriginal Land Tribes and The Acknowledged Aboriginal Land Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying The Aboriginal Land Tribes; The Additional Aboriginal Land Tribes; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History (Museum) at the University of Oklahoma has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organization, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Museum. If no additional requesters come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History at the address in this notice by May 21, 2018.
Dr. Marc Levine, Assistant Curator of Archaeology, Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma, 2401 Chautauqua Avenue, Norman, OK 73072-7029, telephone (405) 325-1994, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Sequoyah, OK.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Cherokee Nation and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
In 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Blackbird House Site (34Sq0119) in Sequoyah County, OK. The site was recorded by the Oklahoma Archaeological Survey and the collection was transferred to the Museum in 1981. The human remains consist of a single right clavicle of an
The Blackbird House Site is a historic Cherokee site located within lands reserved for the Cherokee. Historical documents, Cherokee oral history, and the presence of European goods support the determination that the area was occupied by the Cherokee during the nineteenth century.
Officials of the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Cherokee Nation and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Marc Levine, Assistant Curator of Archaeology, Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma, 2401 Chautauqua Avenue, Norman, OK 73072-7029, telephone (405) 325-1994, email
The Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma and the Cherokee Nation that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Wisconsin Historical Society at the address in this notice by May 21, 2018.
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Dane, Richland, and Sauk Counties, WI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
In 1958, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Blackhawk Country Club (47-DA-0131) in Dane County, WI. The human remains were excavated from pit fill by Warren Wittry of the Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS) from the panther mound, which he referred to as the “Mayland Mound,” named after the then-landowner. The human remains were found in the collections in 2013, were originally cataloged as faunal bones, and are too fragmentary to determine age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The four associated funerary objects are one chert flake, two seed fragments, and a soil sample.
Between 1960 and 1961, human remains representing, at minimum, 132 individuals were removed from the Price III (47-RI-0004) in Richland County, WI. The site was investigated during the 1960-1961 Highway 60 relocation project as the area was slated for destruction. The Wisconsin Historical Society led the investigations under a cooperative agreement with the Wisconsin Highway Commission. A total of 26 features were exposed, 22 of which were burial features. Of the remaining four features, three may have been burial pits that were destroyed from previous plowing activity, but no materials of any kind were recovered from them. The human remains recovered from the 22 burial pits represent 33 adult males, 10 adult females, 43 adults of indeterminate sex, 30 juveniles of indeterminate sex, 6 infants, and 10 individuals of indeterminate age and sex. No known individuals were identified. The 27 associated funerary objects are five projectile points, two bone awls, one copper fish hook, one perforated bear canine, ten groups of tool debitage, three
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Neefe Mounds (47-RI-0059) in Richland County, WI. The site was first reported to the Wisconsin Historical Society by T. Orion in 1907, who observed two conical mounds that were under cultivation. Human remains representing one adult male from an unknown location within the site were donated to the Wisconsin Historical Society by a Mr. Sheldon Bartel at an unknown date. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a group of daub fragments.
In 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, seven individuals were removed from the Rehbein I Site (47-RI-0081) in Richland County, WI. Excavations took place at the site in 1977 and included investigation of Mounds 1-6. The majority of the human remains recovered were reinterred under the reconstructed mounds. For an unknown reason, human remains representing six adults of indeterminate sex and one infant were excluded from reburial and are in the possession of the Wisconsin Historical Society. No known individuals were identified. The seven associated funerary objects are one ceramic vessel, two groups of ceramic sherds, three mussel shells, and one group of bark fragments.
In 1960, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from Sobek Mounds (47-RI-0001) in Richland County, WI. The site was investigated by the Wisconsin Historical Society in cooperation with the Department of Transportation. Three of the mounds (Mounds 1-3) were located in the right-of-way for the relocation of Highway 60 and would be destroyed. The Wisconsin Historical Society placed a center-line trench through each mound and recovered human remains representing an adult female and an adult male from Mound 1 and an adult female from Mound 3. During an inventory of the collections from the site in 2007, additional human remains were found from a plowzone context. The human remains from the plowzone are too fragmentary to affect the MNI for the site. No known individuals were identified. The 23 associated funerary objects are one quartzite hammerstone, one fragment of hematite, twelve groups of chert debitage, one chert biface, three charcoal fragments, two ceramic sherds, and three groups of sandstone fragments.
In 1955 and 1957, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Raddatz Rockshelter (47-SK-0005) in Sauk County, WI. The site was investigated by Warren Wittry of the Wisconsin Historical Society in 1955 and 1957 in order to gain a better understanding of the chronological depth of prehistoric occupation in Wisconsin. His excavations covered a 675 square foot area that he estimated represented 75 percent of the rockshelter. In 2012, all of the artifacts from the site were reinventoried by the Wisconsin Historical Society and human remains were identified. Skeletal analysis in 2016 determined the human remains represent a juvenile of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, archeological context, oral histories, and skeletal analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 145 individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 62 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum (Burke Museum) has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Burke Museum at the address in this notice by May 21, 2018.
Peter Lape, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Box 353010, Seattle, WA 98195, telephone (206) 685-3849, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Burke Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. The human remains were removed from the Aleutian Islands, AK.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Burke Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove; Native Village of Akutan; Native Village of Atka; Native Village of Belkofski; Native Village of False Pass; Native Village of Nelson Lagoon; Native Village of Nikolski; Native Village of Unga; Pauloff Harbor Village; Qagan Tayagungin Tribe of Sand Point Village; Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska; and Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities of St. Paul and St. George Islands, hereafter known as “The Tribes and Native Villages of the Aleutian Islands.”
At an unknown date prior to 1973, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown location in the Aleutian Islands, AK. The human remains were found in collections at the Burke Museum in 1973 (Burke Accn. #1973-58) in a box labeled “Aleutian Skull, R.C. Barnard.” While the label on the box indicates the contents were donated by R. C. Barnard, no donor record exists at the Burke Museum's records for that name. No known individuals were identified. No funerary objects are present.
This individual has been determined to be Native American based on geographical and biological information. Archeological and biological information suggest continuity between past populations and modern Native populations in the Aleutian Islands. The archeological record indicates over 4,500 years of cultural continuity on the Aleutian Islands with unbroken sequences in midden sites (McCartney, 1984). During the 1700s, after contact with the Russians, Unangax/Aleut populations began to decline and by the late 1700s and early 1800s most Unangax/Aleut had relocated, or been removed, to the modern Native Villages. A relationship of shared group identity can reasonably be traced between the human remains and the modern day descendants of the Unangax/Aleut, who are represented by The Tribes and Native Villages of the Aleutian Islands.
Officials of the Burke Museum have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and The Tribes and Native Villages of the Aleutian Islands.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Peter Lape, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Box 353010, Seattle, WA 98195, telephone (206) 685-3849 Ext 2, email
The Burke Museum is responsible for notifying The Tribes and Native Villages of the Aleutian Islands that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Wisconsin Historical Society at the address in this notice by May 21, 2018.
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI. The human remains were removed from two sites in La Crosse County, WI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d).
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
In 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Schaper Site (47-LC-0039) in La Crosse County, WI. The Wisconsin Historical Society conducted investigations at the site during a highway surface survey project that was part of a Wisconsin Department of Transportation Cooperative Agreement. The WHS crew found that the highway bisected one of the site's two mounds. Eroding from the cut bank of this mound they found human remains representing one juvenile individual of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Between 1969 and 1989, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Krause Site (47-LC-0041) in La Crosse County, WI. The human remains were donated by the Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center (MVAC) in 1989 to the Wisconsin Burial Sites Preservation Office. MVAC reported the human remains as being collected over several years from different locations within the site. MVAC collected human remains in 1982 and again in 1989 during surface surveys of plowed fields, and additional human remains were donated to MVAC by local landowners and collectors who had collected human remains in 1969 and 1989. Skeletal analysis in 2015 determined that the human remains represent two individuals of indeterminate age and sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, archeological context, oral histories, and skeletal analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Oglala Sioux Tribe (previously listed as the Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota); Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota (hereafter referred to as “The Aboriginal Land Tribes”).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Aboriginal Land Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying The Aboriginal Land Tribes; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; and Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Wisconsin Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Wisconsin Historical Society. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Wisconsin Historical Society at the address in this notice by May 21, 2018.
Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Wisconsin Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota.
In 1990, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Sax of Fax site (47-FD-0261) in Sawyer County, WI. The human remains were brought to the Wisconsin Historical Society's Burial Sites Preservation Office (BSPO) by Lynn Rusch in 1990. The human remains had reportedly been unearthed in a plowed field by a tenant farmer on the farm of Robert Abraham. Diane Holliday of the BSPO, along with an officer of the Fond du Lac County Sheriff's Department, visited the site and discovered additional human skeletal fragments. Skeletal analysis conducted in 2005 determined that the human remains represent an elderly adult, probably female. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Wisconsin Historical Society have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on Wisconsin Historical Society records, burial location, oral histories, and skeletal analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as the Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska (hereafter referred to as “The Aboriginal Land Tribes”).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Aboriginal Land Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Jennifer Kolb, Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706, telephone (608) 264-6434, email
The Wisconsin Historical Society is responsible for notifying The Aboriginal Land Tribes; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota that this notice has been published.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted this review on November 1, 2017 (82 FR 50683) and determined on February 5, 2018 that it would conduct an expedited review (83 FR 11562, March 15, 2018).
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on April 16, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4776 (April 2018), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with a full review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on clad steel plate from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the review will be established and announced at a later date.
April 9, 2018.
Drew Dushkes (202-205-3229), 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 (
On April 9, 2018, the Commission determined that it should proceed to a full review in the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (83 FR 148, January 2, 2018) was adequate, and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission also found that other circumstances warranted conducting a full review.
This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with full reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on utility scale wind towers from China and the antidumping duty orders on utility scale wind towers from China and Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the reviews will be established and announced at a later date.
April 9, 2018.
Calvin Chang (202-205-3062), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
On April 9, 2018, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (83 FR 142, January 2, 2018) was adequate. The Commission found that the respondent interested party group responses were inadequate. The Commission also found that other circumstances warranted conducting full reviews.
These reviews are 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.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted these investigations effective March 23, 2017, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by the National Biodiesel Board Fair Trade Coalition, Washington DC. The Commission held a public hearing in Washington, DC, on November 9, 2017, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. Following notification of final determinations by Commerce that imports of biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(a)), notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's antidumping duty investigations was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on April 16, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4775 (April 2018), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Standard on Blasting and the Use of Explosives.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by June 18, 2018.
Charles McCormick or Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone: (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The Standard on Blasting and the Use of Explosives (29 CFR part 1926, subpart
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
The Agency is requesting to maintain its current burden hours of 1,666.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Information on using the
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirement contained in the Standard on Reports of Injuries to Employees Operating Mechanical Power Presses.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by June 18, 2018.
Theda Kenney or Charles McCormick, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
In the event that a worker is injured while operating a mechanical power press, 29 CFR 1910.217(g) requires the employer to report, within 30 days of the occurrence, all point-of-operation injuries to the operators or other employees to either the Director of the Directorate of Standards and Guidance at OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210 or electronically at
OSHA's Mechanical Power Press injury reporting requirement at 1910.217(g) is a separate injury reporting requirement from OSHA's severe injury reporting requirements which are part of 1904.39. Under 1904.39, employers must, within 24 hours, report to OSHA any work-related injury requiring hospitalization as well as work-related incidents resulting in an amputation or loss of an eye. The Mechanical Power Press Standard requires employers to report all injuries involving operation of a power press to OSHA or an appropriate state agency within 30 days. Injuries that must be reported under 1910.217(g) include those that are also reportable under 1904.39 as well as those that are recordable under the recordkeeping standard (29 CFR 1904).
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply. For example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirement contained in the Standard on Reports of Injuries to Employees Operating Mechanical Power Presses (29 CFR 1910.217(g)). There are no adjustments or program changes
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, TTY (877) 889-5627.
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NUREG; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued Revision 1 to NUREG-1556, Volume 6, “Consolidated Guidance about Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About 10 CFR part 36 Irradiator Licenses,” and Volume 7, “Consolidated Guidance about Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About Academic, Research and Development, and Other Licenses of Limited Scope, Including Electron Capture Devices and X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzers.” NUREG-1556 Volumes 6 and 7 have been revised to include information on updated regulatory requirements, safety culture, security of radioactive materials, protection of sensitive information, and changes in regulatory policies and practices. These volumes are intended for use by applicants, licensees, and the NRC staff.
NUREG 1556, Volume 6, Revision 1, was published in January, 2018, and Volume 7, Revision 1, was published in February, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC 2013-0185 (Volume 6, Revision 1) and NRC-2014-0005 (Volume 7, Revision 1) when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding these documents. You may obtain publicly-available information related to these documents using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Anthony McMurtray, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2746; email:
The NRC issued revisions to NUREG-1556, Volumes 6 and 7, to provide guidance to existing materials licensees covered under these types of licenses and to applicants preparing an application for one of these types of materials licenses. These NUREG volumes also provide the NRC staff with criteria for evaluating these types of license applications. The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that the
The NRC published notices of the availability of the draft report for comment versions of NUREG-1556, Volume 6, Revision 1 in the
These NUREG volumes are rules as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found these NUREG revisions to be major rules as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to a proposed rule change to codify within Rule 718, which rule is currently reserved, the data feeds that are currently offered on ISE.
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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to codify within Rule 718, which rule is currently reserved, the data feeds that are currently offered on ISE and previously described in prior rule changes as described in more detail below. The Exchange proposes to rename Rule 718 “Data Feeds” and list the various data feed offerings within that rule.
The Exchange has previously filed a rule change which describes the various data offerings.
The Exchange notes it proposes various universal amendments to its data feeds for consistency and clarity. References to “instrument” will be replaced by the more specific language “options series.” Where the Exchange previously referred to “trading status” those words will be replaced with language which specifically explains the information for status, which is, “whether the option series is available for trading on ISE and identifies if the series is available for closing transactions only.” The word “customer” will be replaced with the defined term “Priority Customer.”
In a Prior Filing the Exchange described the Depth Feed as providing aggregate quotes and orders at the top five price levels on the Exchange, and provides subscribers with a consolidated view of tradable prices beyond the BBO, showing additional liquidity and enhancing transparency for ISE traded options. The data provided for each instrument includes the symbols (series and underlying security), put or call indicator, expiration date, the strike price of the series, and trading status. In addition, subscribers are provided with total quantity, customer quantity, price, and side (
In codifying the feed description, the Exchange proposes a few amendments to the description in the Prior Filing in addition to the universal changes mentioned above. For the Depth of Market Feed, the Exchange is removing the words “”Real-time” and “Raw” because all the feeds are real-time and contain raw data. Removing these words conforms the language of all the feeds. The Exchange proposes to replace “Exchange” with “ISE” for clarity. Also, the Exchange is expanding the description of total quantity to “total aggregate quantity” including Public Customer
In a Prior Filing the Exchange described the Order Feed as providing information on new orders resting on the book. In addition, the feed also announces auctions. The data provided for each instrument includes the symbols (series and underlying security), put or call indicator, expiration date, the strike price of the series, and trading status. The feed also provides participants of imbalances on opening/reopening.
In codifying the feed description, the Exchange proposes a few amendments to the description in the Prior Filing in addition to the universal changes mentioned above. The Exchange is amending the order feed to include the word “all” before auctions to make clear all auction information is included. The Exchange is adding examples of the information provided on new orders resting on the book,
In a Prior Filing the Exchange described the Top Quote Feed as one that calculates and disseminates its best bid and offer position, with aggregated size (Total & Customer), based on displayable order and quote interest in the options market system. The feed also provides last trade information along with opening price, cumulative volume, high and low prices for the day. The data provided for each instrument includes the symbols (series and underlying security), put or call indicator, expiration date, the strike price of the series, and trading status.
In codifying the feed description, the Exchange proposes a few amendments to the description in the Prior Filing in addition to the universal changes mentioned above. The Exchange proposes to amend the Top Quote Feed to make clear that aggregated size included total size, Public Customer size in the aggregate and also Priority Customer size in the aggregate. The Exchange is replacing the term “options market system” with the defined term
In a Prior Filing the Exchange described the Trades Feed as displaying last trade information along with opening price, cumulative volume, high and low prices for the day. The data provided for each instrument includes the symbols (series and underlying security), put or call indicator, expiration date, the strike price of the series, and trading status.
The Exchange is only amending the description of the Trades Feed as described in the universal changes.
In a Prior Filing the Exchange described the Spread Feed as a real-time feed that consists of options quotes and orders for all Complex Orders (
In codifying the Trades Feed description, the Exchange proposes a few amendments to the description in the Prior Filing in addition to the universal changes mentioned above. The Exchange is also removing a reference to “real-time” as not necessary. The Exchange is also capitalizing the term “Complex Order,” which is a defined term.
The Exchange notes that market participants are charged for subscriptions to these products.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
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)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at Rule 7018 to reduce the credit for a Retail Order that accesses liquidity provided by a Retail Price Improvement Order.
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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at Rule 7018 to reduce the credit for a Retail Order that accesses liquidity provided by a Retail Price Improvement Order in connection with the Retail Price Improvement Program (“Program”).
Under the RPI Program, a member (or a division thereof) approved by the Exchange to participate in the Program (a “Retail Member Organization” or “RMO”) may submit designated “Retail Orders”
Currently, the Exchange provides a credit of $0.0025 per share executed for a Retail Order that accesses liquidity provided by an RPI Order. This credit was adopted by the Exchange in 2014, contemporaneously with the implementation of the RPI Program.
Since the introduction of the Program in 2014 and the accompanying fees and credits, the Program has attained a stable level of participation with respect to the number of monthly participants and average monthly volume. Given the maturity of the Program and the fact that it maintains a stable level of participants and volume, the Exchange believes that a lower credit, in addition to the potential price improvement Retail Orders will receive, will continue to incentivize retail participants to use the Program. Accordingly, the Exchange is reducing the current credit of $0.0025 per share executed for a Retail Order that accesses liquidity provided by an RPI Order to $0.0021 per share executed. The remaining credits and fees associated with the Program remain unchanged.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers' . . . .”
The Exchange believes that reducing the credit for a Retail Order that accesses liquidity provided by a Retail Price Improvement Order from $0.0025 to $0.0021 per share executed is reasonable. Given the maturity of the Program and the fact that it maintains a stable level of participants and volume, the Exchange believes that a lower credit, in addition to the potential price improvement Retail Orders will receive, will continue to incentivize retail participants to use the Program. The Exchange also believes that the new credit is reasonable because it remains higher than other credits offered by the Exchange, and will therefore continue to incentivize market participants to submit orders that qualify as Retail Orders to the Program.
In assessing the reasonableness of the new credit, the Exchange also notes that the new credit remains greater than similar credits paid by other exchanges for their respective Retail Liquidity Programs. For example, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. currently provides a rebate of $0.00150 per share executed for a Retail Order that removes liquidity against a Retail Price Improving Order or a non-displayed order that adds liquidity.
The Exchange notes that this Cboe BYX credit was previously $0.00250 per share.
Tape C securities are those that are listed on the Exchange, Tape A securities are those that are listed on New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), and Tape B securities are those that are listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq or NYSE.
The Exchange believes that the new credit amount is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory
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 terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the proposed change to the credit available to member firms does not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. The proposed credit will apply to all similarly situated members. While the Exchange believes that the current credit amount is no longer necessary to incentivize market participants to participate in the Program, the proposed credit will continue to incentivize market participants to submit orders that qualify as Retail Orders to the Program. The Exchange does not believe that it will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate to leave the other credits that are available pursuant to the Program ($0.0017 and $0.0000 per share executed) unchanged. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the $0.0017 credit for a Retail Order that accesses other liquidity on the Exchange book is still necessary to incentivize participation in the Program, while the $0.0000 credit cannot be further reduced while remaining a credit. The proposed change will more closely align the credit for a Retail Order that accesses liquidity provided by a Retail Price Improvement Order to those other credits.
Finally, the proposed credit continues to be higher than comparable credits paid by other exchanges in connection with their respective Retail Liquidity Programs.
In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to codify within Rule 718, which rule is currently reserved, the data feeds that are currently offered on GEMX.
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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to codify within Rule 718, which rule is currently reserved, the data feeds that are currently offered on GEMX and previously filed in prior rule changes as described in more detail below. The Exchange proposes to rename Rule 718 “Data Feeds” and list the various data feed offerings within that rule.
The Exchange has previously filed a rule change which describes the various data offerings.
The Exchange notes it proposes various universal amendments to its data feeds for consistency and clarity. References to “instrument” will be replaced by the more specific language “options series.” Where the Exchange previously referred to “trading status” those words will be replaced with language which specifically explains the information for status, which is, “whether the option series is available for trading on GEMX and identifies if the series is available for closing transactions only.” The word “customer” will be replaced with the defined term “Priority Customer.”
In a Prior Filing the Exchange described the Depth Feed as providing aggregate quotes and orders at the top five price levels on the Exchange, and provides subscribers with a consolidated view of tradable prices beyond the BBO, showing additional liquidity and enhancing transparency for GEMX traded options. The data provided for each instrument includes the symbols (series and underlying security), put or call indicator, expiration date, the strike price of the series, and trading status. In addition, subscribers are provided with total quantity, customer quantity, price, and side (
In codifying the feed description, the Exchange proposes a few amendments to the description in the Prior Filing in addition to the universal changes mentioned above. For the Depth of Market Feed, the Exchange is removing the words “Real-time” and “Raw” because all the feeds are real-time and contain raw data. Removing these words conforms the language of all the feeds. The Exchange proposes to replace “Exchange” with “GEMX” for clarity. Also, the Exchange is expanding the description of total quantity to “total aggregate quantity” including Public Customer
In a Prior Filing the Exchange described the Order Feed as providing information on new orders resting on the book. In addition, the feed also announces auctions. The data provided for each instrument includes the symbols (series and underlying
In codifying the feed description, the Exchange proposes a few amendments to the description in the Prior Filing in addition to the universal changes mentioned above. The Exchange is amending the order feed to include the word “all” before auctions to make clear all auction information is included. The Exchange is adding examples of the information provided on new orders resting on the book,
In a Prior Filing the Exchange described the Top Quote Feed as one that calculates and disseminates its best bid and offer position, with aggregated size (Total & Customer), based on displayable order and quote interest in the options market system. The feed also provides last trade information along with opening price, cumulative volume, high and low prices for the day. The data provided for each instrument includes the symbols (series and underlying security), put or call indicator, expiration date, the strike price of the series, and trading status.
In codifying the feed description, the Exchange proposes a few amendments to the description in the Prior Filing in addition to the universal changes mentioned above. The Exchange proposes to amend the Top Quote Feed to make clear that aggregated size included total size, Public Customer size in the aggregate and also Priority Customer size in the aggregate. The Exchange is replacing the term “options market system” with the defined term “System.”
In a Prior Filing the Exchange described the Trades Feed as displaying last trade information along with opening price, cumulative volume, high and low prices for the day. The data provided for each instrument includes the symbols (series and underlying security), put or call indicator, expiration date, the strike price of the series, and trading status.
The Exchange is only amending the description of the Trades Feed as described in the universal changes.
The Exchange notes that market participants are charged for subscriptions to these products.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
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)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt data feeds offered to MRX Members.
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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt data feeds for MRX. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 718, which is currently reserved, to rename the rule “Data Feeds” and include a description of each data feed within the rule. The data feed offerings are as follows: Nasdaq MRX Depth of Market Data Feed (“Depth of Market Feed”), the Nasdaq MRX Order Feed (“Order Feed”), the Nasdaq MRX Top Quote Feed (“Top Quote Feed”) and the Nasdaq MRX Trades Feed (“Trades Feed”). A description of each data offering follows below.
The Depth of Market Data Feed provides aggregate quotes and orders at the top five price levels on MRX, and provides subscribers with a consolidated view of tradable prices beyond the BBO, showing additional liquidity and enhancing transparency for MRX traded options. The data provided for each option series includes the symbols (series and underlying security), put or call indicator, expiration date, the strike price of the series, and whether the option series is available for trading on ISE and identifies if the series is available for closing transactions only. In addition, subscribers are provided with total aggregate quantity, Public Customer aggregate quantity, Priority Customer aggregate quantity, price, and side (
The Order feed provides information on new orders resting on the book (
The Top Quote Feed calculates and disseminates MRX's best bid and offer position, with aggregated size (including total size in aggregate, Public Customer size in the aggregate and Priority Customer size in the aggregate), based on displayable order and quote interest in the System. The feed also provides last trade information along with opening price, daily trading volume, high and low prices for the day. The data provided for each option series includes the symbols (series and underlying security), put or call indicator, expiration date, the strike price of the series, and whether the option series is available for trading on MRX and identifies if the series is available for closing transactions only. The feed also provides order imbalances on opening/reopening.
The Trades Feed displays last trade information along with opening price, daily trading volume, high and low prices for the day. The data provided for each option series includes the symbols (series and underlying security), put or call indicator, expiration date, the strike price of the series, and whether the option series is available for trading on MRX and identifies if the series is available for closing transactions only.
These data offerings are currently being offered at no cost to any market participant. The Exchange believes that adopting these data feeds and codifying them within the Exchange's Rulebook will bring greater transparency to its Rules as well as the data which is available on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest by adopting MRX's data feed offerings and codifying them into a Rule for the benefit of all investors. The Exchange permits any market participant to receive these data offerings at no cost. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as it describes information relating to the data available on the Exchange for the benefit of its members and adds greater transparency to these offerings.
Adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that this proposal is in keeping with those principles by promoting increased transparency through the dissemination of more useful proprietary data and also by clarifying its availability to market participants. The Exchange is making a voluntary decision to make this data available as it is not required to furnish this data under the Act. The Exchange chooses to make the data available as proposed in order to improve market quality, to attract order flow, and to increase transparency. The Exchange notes that the data provided on each of these feeds is the same as data provided by Nasdaq GEMX, LLC. The Exchange believes that is in the public interest to make similar information available with respect to options traded on MRX. The data offerings are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade by providing all subscribers with data that should enable them to make informed decisions by using the data to assess current market conditions that directly affect such decisions. The market data provided by each of these feeds removes impediments to, and is designed to further perfect, the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system by making the market more transparent and accessible to market participants making routing decisions concerning their options orders.
The market data products are also designed to protect investors and the public interest by providing data to subscribers that is already currently available on other exchanges and will enable MRX to compete with such other exchanges, thereby offering market participants with additional data in order to seek the market center with the best price and the most liquidity on which to execute their transactions, all to the benefit of investors and the public interest, and to the marketplace as a whole.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket or intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The data feed offerings are available to any market participant at no cost. The Exchange's proposal seeks to adopt and codify the data offerings in a Rule for ease of reference and transparency. The Exchange believes that the proposed market data products will enhance competition in the U.S. options markets by providing similar data to that which is currently provided on other options exchanges.
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)(iii) of 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to correct a typographical error within BX Rule Chapter VI, Section 9.
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 purpose of this rule change is amend Chapter VI, Section 9, entitled “Price Improvement Auction (“PRISM”)” at Section 9(i)(C). The Exchange proposes to amend the following sentence:
If the PRISM Order is for the account of a broker dealer or any other person or entity that is not a Public Customer and such order is for 50 option contracts
The Exchange proposes to replace the “of” with an “or.” The Exchange believes that amending the rule will bring greater clarity to the rule.
The Exchange believes that its proposal 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. The Exchange inadvertently inserted the word “of” instead of “or” within Chapter VI, Section 9(i)(C). This is a non-substantive correction to the current rule.
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)(iii) of 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 9, 2018, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” 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 Shares of the Fund under Rule 5705, which governs the listing and trading of Index Fund Shares on the Exchange. The Shares will be offered by the Fund, which will be a passively managed exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) that seeks to track the performance of the CBOE Russell 2000 30-Delta BuyWrite V2 Index (“Benchmark Index”).
The Exchange has made the following representations and statements in describing the Fund and its investment strategies, including other assets and investment restrictions.
According to the Exchange, the Fund's investment objective is to seek to track the investment results that correspond (before fees and expenses) generally to the performance of the Benchmark Index provided by the Index Provider. The Fund will pursue its objective by investing at least 80% of its total assets in all of the equity securities in the Russell 2000 Index and a single written one-month out-of-the-money covered call option on the Russell 2000 Index. The market value of the option strategy may be up to 20% of the Fund's overall net asset value. The market value of the call options included in the Benchmark Index will not represent more than 10% of the total weight of the Benchmark Index. According to the Exchange, the component securities of the Benchmark Index meet all requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5705(b)(3)(A)(i) except that the Benchmark Index includes call options, which are not NMS Stocks as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS.
In pursuing its investment objective, under normal market conditions,
The Benchmark Index is a benchmark index that measures the performance of a theoretical portfolio that holds the stocks included in the Russell 2000 Index and writes (or sells) a single one-month out-of-the-money Russell 2000 Index covered call option. The call option written for the Benchmark Index is at the strike nearest to the 30 Delta between 10:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. CT on the roll date (the third Friday of every month). The Russell 2000 Index measures the performance of the small capitalization sector of the U.S. equity market, as defined by the Index Provider. The Russell 2000 Index is a subset of the Russell 3000 Index, which measures the performance of the broad U.S. equity market, as determined by the Index Provider. The Russell 2000 Index is a float-adjusted capitalization-weighted index of equity securities issued by the approximately 2000 smallest issuers in the Russell 3000 Index. Preferred and convertible preferred stock, redeemable shares, participating preferred stock, warrants, rights, installment receipts and trust receipts are not included in the Russell 2000 Index.
According to the Exchange, because a covered call strategy generates income in the form of premiums on the written call options, the Benchmark Index is generally expected to provide higher total returns with lower volatility than the Russell 2000 Index in most market environments, with the exception of when the equity market is rallying rapidly. The Exchange states that each single call option in the Benchmark Index will be traded on national securities exchanges, such as the CBOE. According to the Exchange, as of October 31, 2017, the Russell 2000 Index included common stocks of 1984 companies, with an average market capitalization of approximately $2.3 billion.
The Fund will generally use a replication methodology, meaning it will invest in all of the securities and the call option comprising the Benchmark Index in proportion to the weightings in the Benchmark Index. However, the Fund may, from time-to-time, utilize a sampling methodology under various circumstances where it may not be possible or practicable to purchase all of the equity securities comprising the Benchmark Index.
The Exchange represents that the equity securities in which the Fund will invest and the option that the Fund will write will be limited to U.S. exchange-traded securities and call options, respectively, and that such securities will trade in markets that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) or which are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange.
The equity securities held by the Fund will be rebalanced quarterly. The call option portion of the portfolio will consist of a single U.S. exchange-traded one-month covered call on the Russell 2000 Index that is written by the Fund slightly out-of-the-money. A call option will give the holder the right to buy the securities underlying the call options written at a predetermined strike price from the Fund. The notional value of the covered call options written (including the financial instruments in the Exchange's description of the Fund's Other Investments below) will be generally 100% of the overall Fund.
The Fund will utilize options in accordance with Rule 4.5 of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). The Trust, on behalf of the Fund, has filed a notice of eligibility for exclusion from the definition of the term “commodity pool operator” in accordance with Rule 4.5 so that the Fund is not subject to registration or regulation as a commodity pool operator under the CEA.
According to the Exchange, the Fund may invest no more than 20% of its net
The Fund may invest in ETFs, which shall be registered as investment companies under the 1940 Act and trade on a U.S. national securities exchange. The Fund may also buy and sell individual large capitalization equity securities that do not comprise the Russell 2000 Index and are traded on a U.S. national securities exchange.
The Fund may invest in U.S. exchange-listed futures contracts based on (1) the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index and (2) ETFs designed to track the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index. In addition, the Fund may invest in forward contracts based on (1) the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index and (2) ETFs designed to track the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index. The Fund may also buy and sell OTC options on (1) the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index and (2) ETFs designed to track the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index. Moreover, the Fund may enter into dividend and total return swap transactions (including equity swap transactions) based on (1) the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index and (2) ETFs designed to track the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index.
The Exchange represents that the Fund's short positions and its investments in swaps, futures contracts, forward contracts and options based on the Benchmark Index and Russell 2000 Index and ETFs designed to track the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index will be backed by investments in cash, high-quality short-term debt securities and money-market instruments in an amount equal to the Fund's maximum liability under the applicable position or contract, or will otherwise be offset in accordance with Section 18 of the 1940 Act.
The Fund will attempt to limit counterparty risk in non-cleared swaps, forwards, and OTC option contracts by entering into such contracts only with counterparties the Adviser believes are creditworthy and by limiting the Fund's exposure to each counterparty. The Adviser will monitor the creditworthiness of each counterparty and the Fund's exposure to each counterparty on an ongoing basis.
The Fund may invest in short-term debt securities, money market instruments and shares of money market funds to the extent permitted under the 1940 Act. Short-term debt securities and money market instruments include shares of fixed income or money market mutual funds, commercial paper, certificates of deposit, bankers' acceptances, U.S. government securities (including securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government or its authorities, agencies, or instrumentalities) and, repurchase agreements.
The Exchange represents that the Fund's investments described above in this section will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and with the requirements of the 1940 Act.
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities (calculated at the time of investment). The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid securities. Illiquid securities include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets, as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.
The Exchange states that the Fund will not invest in assets that are not described in this proposed rule change.
The Fund seeks to track the Benchmark Index, which itself may have concentration in certain regions, economies, markets, industries or sectors. The Fund may concentrate its investments in a particular industry or group of industries to the extent that the Russell 2000 Index concentrates in an industry or group of industries.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act
Quotation and last-sale information for the Shares will be available via Nasdaq proprietary quote and trade services, as well as in accordance with the Unlisted Trading Privileges and the Consolidated Tape Association plans for the Shares. With respect to the securities and other assets held by the Fund, the intra-day, executable price quotations on such securities will be available from major broker-dealer firms or on the exchange on which they are traded, as applicable. Intra-day price information will also be available through subscription services, such as Bloomberg, Markit and Thomson Reuters, which can be accessed by Authorized Participants and other investors. Specifically, the intra-day, closing and settlement prices of the portfolio securities and other Fund investments, including exchange-listed equity securities, exchange-listed futures, and exchange-listed options, will be readily available from the national securities exchanges trading such securities, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, and, with respect to OTC options, swaps, and forwards, from third party pricing sources, or on-line information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. Price information regarding ETFs will be available from on-line information services and from the website for the applicable investment company security. The intra-day, closing and settlement prices of short-term debt securities and money market instruments will be readily available from published and other public sources or on-line information services. Money market funds are typically priced once each business day and their prices will be available through the applicable fund's website or from major market data vendors.
The value of the Benchmark Index will be published by one or more major market data vendors every 15 seconds during the Regular Market Session.
On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Regular Market Session on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its website the identities and quantities of the portfolio of securities and other assets (the “Disclosed Portfolio”) held by the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day.
Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. The Fund's website will include a form of the prospectus for the Fund that may be downloaded and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information.
The Commission further believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time.
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and also the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The Commission notes that the Shares and the Fund must comply with the initial and continued listing criteria in Rule 5705 for the Shares to be listed and traded on the Exchange.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made the following representations:
(1) The Shares will be subject to Rule 5705, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Index Fund Shares.
(2) The component securities of the Benchmark Index meet all requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5705(b)(3)(A)(i) except that the Benchmark Index includes call options, which are not NMS Stocks as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS.
(3) The Exchange has the appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(4) Trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by Nasdaq and FINRA on behalf of the Exchange.
(5) FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, in the equity securities in which the Fund will invest, and in the U.S. exchange-traded options and futures which the Fund will buy and write with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. FINRA may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and in such equity securities and U.S. exchange-traded options and futures from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and in such equity securities and U.S. exchange-traded options and futures from markets and other entities that are members of the ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The Exchange may also obtain information from FINRA's TRACE.
(6) For initial and/or continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3
(7) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (a) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) Nasdaq Rule 2111A, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (c) how information regarding the Benchmark Index value and Intraday Indicative Value is disseminated; (d) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Market and Post-Market
(8) The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities (calculated at the time of investment).
(9) Each single call option in the Benchmark Index will be traded on national securities exchanges.
(10) The equity securities in which the Fund will invest, and the option that the Fund will write, will be limited to U.S. exchange-traded securities and call options, respectively, and such securities will trade in markets that are members of the ISG or which are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange.
(11) The Fund will invest at least 80% of its total assets in all of the equity securities in the Russell 2000 Index and a single written one-month out-of-the-money covered call option on the Russell 2000 Index, and the market value of the option strategy may be up to 20% of the Fund's overall net asset value.
(12) The Fund will utilize options in accordance with Rule 4.5 of the CEA.
(13) The Fund will transact only with swap dealers that have in place an ISDA agreement with the Fund.
(14) The Fund's short positions and its investments in swaps, futures contracts, forward contracts and options based on the Benchmark Index and Russell 2000 Index and ETFs designed to track the Benchmark Index or Russell 2000 Index will be backed by investments in cash, high-quality short-term debt securities and money-market instruments in an amount equal to the Fund's maximum liability under the applicable position or contract, or will otherwise be offset in accordance with Section 18 of the 1940 Act.
(15) The Fund will attempt to limit counterparty risk in non-cleared swaps, forwards, and OTC option contracts by entering into such contracts only with counterparties the Adviser believes are creditworthy and by limiting the Fund's exposure to each counterparty. The Adviser will monitor the creditworthiness of each counterparty and the Fund's exposure to each counterparty on an ongoing basis.
(16) To limit the potential risk associated with such transactions, the Fund will segregate or “earmark” assets determined to be liquid by the Adviser in accordance with procedures established by the Trust's Board of Trustees and in accordance with the 1940 Act (or, as permitted by applicable regulation, enter into certain offsetting positions) to cover its obligations arising from such transactions. In addition, the Fund will include appropriate risk disclosure in its offering documents, including leveraging risk.
(17) The Fund will not make investments in securities to seek to achieve a multiple or inverse multiple of an index and they will not be used to enhance leverage.
(18) The Fund will not invest in assets that are not described in the proposed rule change.
(19) A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
The Exchange further represents that all statements and representations made in this filing regarding the description of the portfolio, limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, dissemination and availability of the reference asset and intraday indicative values, and the applicability of Exchange listing rules shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under the Nasdaq 5800 Series.
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations, including those set forth above and in the Notice. For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 these statement [sic] may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 11.190(g) to incrementally optimize and enhance the effectiveness of the quote instability calculation in determining whether a crumbling quote exists. The Exchange utilizes real time relative quoting activity of certain Protected Quotations
When CQI is on, Discretionary Peg orders
In addition, when the CQI is on buy (sell) orders that take liquidity at prices at or below (above) the NBO (NBB) are subject to the Crumbling Quote Remove Fee (“CQRF”) for executions that exceed the CQRF Threshold.
The manner in which Discretionary Peg orders operate is described in Rule 11.190(b)(10). Specifically, a Discretionary Peg order is a non-displayed, pegged order that upon entry into the System, the price of the order is automatically adjusted by the System to be equal to the less aggressive of the Midpoint Price or the order's limit price, if any. When unexecuted shares of such order are posted to the Order Book, the price of the order is automatically adjusted by the System to be equal to and ranked at the less aggressive of the primary quote or the order's limit price and is automatically adjusted by the System in response to changes in the NBB (NBO) for buy (sell) orders up (down) to the order's limit price, if any. In order to meet the limit price of active orders on the Order Book, a Discretionary Peg order will exercise the least amount of price discretion necessary from the Discretionary Peg order's resting price to its discretionary price (defined as the less aggressive of the Midpoint Price or the Discretionary Peg order's limit price, if any), except during periods of quote instability (
The manner in which primary peg orders operate is described in Rules 11.190(a)(3) and 11.190(b)(8). Specifically, a primary peg order is a non-displayed, pegged order that upon entry and when posting to the Order Book the price of the order is automatically adjusted by the System to be equal to and ranked at the less aggressive of one (1) MPV less aggressive than the primary quote (
The CQRF is designed to incentivize resting liquidity, including displayed liquidity, on IEX, and is applicable to orders that remove resting liquidity when the CQI is on if such orders constitute at least 5% of the Member's volume executed on IEX and at least 1,000,000 shares, on a monthly basis, measured on a per market participant identifier (“MPID”) basis. Thus, orders that exceed the 5% and 1,000,000 share thresholds are assessed a fee of $0.0030 per each incremental share executed (or 0.3% of the total dollar value of the transaction for securities priced below $1.00) that exceeds the threshold.
In determining whether a crumbling quote exists, the Exchange utilizes real time relative quoting activity of certain Protected Quotations and a proprietary mathematical calculation (the “quote instability calculation”) to assess the probability of an imminent change to the current Protected NBB to a lower price or Protected NBO to a higher price for a particular security (“quote instability factor”). When the quoting activity meets predefined criteria and the quote instability factor calculated is greater than the Exchange's defined threshold (“quote instability threshold”), the System treats the quote as not stable (“quote instability” or a “crumbling quote”). During all other times, the quote is considered stable
When the System determines that a quote, either the Protected NBB or the Protected NBO, is unstable, the determination remains in effect at that price level for two (2) milliseconds. The System will only treat one side of the Protected NBBO as unstable in a particular security at any given time.
Quote stability or instability (also referred to as a crumbling quote) is an assessment that the Exchange System makes on a real-time basis, based on a pre-determined, objective set of conditions specified in Rule 11.190(g)(1). Specifically, quote instability, or the presence of a crumbling quote, is determined by the System when:
(A) the quote instability factor result from the quote stability calculation is greater than the defined quote instability threshold.
(i) Quote Instability Factor. The Exchange's proprietary quote stability calculation used to determine the current quote instability factor is defined by the following formula that utilizes the quote stability coefficients and quote stability variables defined below:
(ii) Quote Instability Threshold. The Exchange utilizes a quote instability threshold of 0.39 for securities whose current spread is less than or equal to $0.01; 0.45 for securities for which the current spread (
Rule 11.190(g)(1)(D)(iii) provides that the Exchange reserves the right to modify the quote instability coefficients or quote instability threshold at any time, subject to a filing of a proposed rule change with the SEC. The Exchange is proposing such changes in this rule filing.
IEX conducted an analysis of the effectiveness of the existing factors in predicting whether a crumbling quote would occur, by reviewing market data from randomly selected days in the period from October 2016 through October 2017. These results were then validated by testing different randomly selected dates from the same time period. Based on this analysis, the Exchange has determined that further optimization of the methodology and existing factors would incrementally increase the accuracy of the formula in predicting whether a crumbling quote will occur. The following describes the proposed changes:
1. Rule 11.190(g)(1) provides in part that when the System determines that a quote, either the Protected NBB or the Protected NBO is unstable, the determination remains in effect at that price level for two (2) milliseconds. The Exchange proposes to revise the time limitation on how long each determination remains in effect, and reorganize certain existing rule text for clarity. As proposed, when the System determines that either the Protected NBB or the Protected NBO in a particular security is unstable, the determination remains in effect at that price level for two (2) milliseconds, unless a new determination is made before the end of the two (2) millisecond period. Only one determination may be in effect at any given time for a particular security. A new determination may be made after at least 200 microseconds has elapsed since a preceding determination, or a price change on either side of the Protected NBBO occurs, whichever is first. If a new determination is made, the original determination is no longer in effect. A new determination can be at either the Protected NBB or the Protected NBO and at the same or different price level as the original determination.
2. The Exchange proposes to revise five of the quote stability variables currently specified in subparagraph (1)(A)(i)(b) of Rule 11.190(g). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to revise variables NC, EPosPrev, ENegPrev and Delta to be calculated over a time window looking back from the time of calculation to one (1) millisecond ago or the most recent PBBO change on the near side (rather than on either side), whichever happened more recently. Based on our analysis of market data, as described above, the Exchange identified that for each variable, considering the maximum change over the time window defined in this manner is a more accurate indicator of a crumbling quote than the current approach. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to revise variable FC to be calculated over a time window looking back from the time of calculation to one (1) millisecond ago or the most recent PBBO change on the far side (rather than on either side), whichever happened more recently. Based on our analysis of market data, as described above, the Exchange identified that for this variable, considering the maximum change over the time window described in this manner is a more accurate indicator of a crumbling quote than the current approach.
3. The Quote Stability Coefficients specified in subparagraph (1)(A)(i)(a) of Rule 11.190(g) are proposed to be modified to take into account the recent market data analysis, as well as the changes to the quote stability variables as described above. The Exchange believes that the modifications, as proposed, will increase the accuracy of the quote instability calculation.
4. The Exchange proposes to modify and re-optimize the Quote Instability Threshold specified in subparagraph (1)(A)(ii) of Rule 11.190(g) based on the recent market data analysis and the changes to the quote stability variables. Specifically, the threshold size would continue to vary based on the spread of the Protected NBBO,
5. Finally, the Exchange proposes to conform terminology within Rule 11.190(g) by replacing the use of the term “quote stability” in two instances—within subparagraph (1)(A) and subparagraph (1)(A)(i) of 11.190(g)—with “quote instability” for clarity and consistency. The Exchange notes that in context, both instances mean “quote instability” so no substantive change is proposed in this respect.
The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change by Trading Alert at least five business days in advance of such implementation date and within 90 days of effectiveness of this proposed rule change.
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes are designed to protect investors and the public interest by incrementally enhancing the accuracy of the Exchange's quote instability calculation in determining whether a crumbling quote exists, thereby increasing the Exchange's protection of Discretionary Peg orders, primary peg orders and other liquidity providing orders. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will enhance the extent to which Discretionary Peg orders and primary peg orders will be protected from unfavorable executions by increasing the instances in which such orders will be prevented from exercising price discretion during periods of quote instability when the Exchange's probabilistic model identifies that the market appears to be moving adversely to them. Similarly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will incrementally enhance the extent to which liquidity providing orders will be protected from liquidity taking orders targeting them at prices that are likely to move adversely from the perspective of the liquidity providing order.
The Exchange also believes that application of the proposed rule change to the CQRF is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, because it will continue to be narrowly tailored to disincentivize all Members from deploying trading strategies designed to chase short-term price momentum during periods when the CQI is on and thus potentially adversely impact liquidity providing orders. Further, although the incremental enhancements to the accuracy of the crumbling quote formula may result in a corresponding increase in executions that remove resting liquidity when the CQI is on, the Exchange believes that Members are able to adjust their trading on IEX to reduce or eliminate the imposition of fees pursuant to the CQRF. Moreover, based on its review of market data during February 2018, the Exchange estimates that while approximately 10% more trades would be impacted by the proposed rule change, only one additional Member would potentially be subject to the CQRF. However, a review of this Member's trading activity since
The Exchange further believes that the conforming changes to terminology are consistent with the Act because they are designed to provide enhanced clarity within Rule 11.190(g) and thereby avoid any potential confusion on the part of market participants.
Finally, the Exchange notes that, as proposed, the new quote instability calculation will continue to be a fixed formula specified transparently in IEX's rules. The Exchange is not proposing to add any new functionality, but merely to revise the fixed formula based on market data analysis designed to increase the accuracy of the formula in predicting a crumbling quote, and as contemplated by the rule.
IEX 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. With regard to intra-market competition, the proposed change will apply equally to all IEX Members. The Commission has already considered the Exchange's Discretionary Peg order type in connection with its grant of IEX's application for registration as a national securities exchange under Sections 6 and 19 of the Act
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change will not result in any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard, the Exchange notes that NYSE American LLC has adopted a rule copying an earlier iteration of the Exchange's Discretionary Peg Order and quote stability calculation.
As discussed in the Purpose and Statutory Basis sections, the proposed rule change is designed to merely enhance the accuracy of the quote instability calculation; therefore, no new burdens are being proposed.
Written comments were neither solicited nor 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)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
The Commission believes that a partial waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as it will allow IEX to optimize the functionality of its quote instability calculation in order to allow the crumbling quote functionality to better meet its intended purpose to protect certain liquidity-providing orders. At the same time, a partial operative delay will afford the public time to review and comment upon the proposed changes before they become operative. Accordingly, the Commission waives the 30-day operative delay and designates that the proposed rule change will become operative on April 24, 2018.
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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
• 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.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice announces a public meeting of the Voluntary Information-sharing System (VIS) Working Group. The VIS Working Group will convene to discuss and identify recommendations to establish a voluntary information-sharing system.
The public meeting will be held on June 20, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET. Members of the public who wish to attend in person should register no later than June 15, 2018. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, may notify PHMSA by June 15, 2018. For additional information, see the
The meeting will be held at a location yet to be determined in the Washington, DC Metropolitan area. The meeting location, agenda and any additional information will be published on the following VIS Working Group and registration page at:
The meetings will not be webcast; however, presentations will be available on the meeting website and posted on the E-Gov website,
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Therefore, consider reviewing DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the following statement: “Comments on PHMSA-2016-0128.” The docket clerk will date stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S. mail.
DOT may solicit comments from the public regarding certain general notices. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
For information about the meeting, contact Cheryl Whetsel by phone at 202-366-4431 or by email at
The VIS Working Group is an advisory committee established in accordance with Section 10 of the Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-183), the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., App. 2, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a).
The VIS Working Group agenda will include briefings on topics such as mandate requirements, integrity management, data types and tools, in-line inspection repair and other direct assessment methods, geographic information system implementation, subcommittee considerations, lessons learned, examples of existing information-sharing systems, safety management systems, and more. As part of its work, the committee will ultimately provide recommendations to the Secretary, as required and specifically outlined in Section 10 of Public Law 114-183, addressing:
(a) The need for, and the identification of, a system to ensure that dig verification data are shared with in-line inspection operators to the extent consistent with the need to maintain proprietary and security-sensitive data in a confidential manner to improve pipeline safety and inspection technology;
(b) Ways to encourage the exchange of pipeline inspection information and the development of advanced pipeline inspection technologies and enhanced risk analysis;
(c) Opportunities to share data, including dig verification data between operators of pipeline facilities and in-line inspector vendors to expand knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of the different types of in-line inspection technology and methodologies;
(d) Options to create a secure system that protects proprietary data while encouraging the exchange of pipeline inspection information and the development of advanced pipeline inspection technologies and enhanced risk analysis;
(e) Means and best practices for the protection of safety and security-sensitive information and proprietary information; and
(f) Regulatory, funding, and legal barriers to sharing the information described in paragraphs (a) through (d).
The Secretary will publish the VIS Working Group's recommendations on a publicly available DOT website and in the docket. The VIS Working Group will fulfill its purpose once its recommendations are published online.
PHMSA will publish the agenda on the PHMSA meeting page
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning information collection requirements related to the guidance regarding the qualified severance of a trust for generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax purposes.
Written comments should be received on or before June 18, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Roberto Mora-Figueroa, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Publication of inflation adjustment factor and reference prices for calendar year 2018.
The 2018 inflation adjustment factor and reference prices are used in determining the availability of the credit for renewable electricity production and refined coal production under section 45.
The 2018 inflation adjustment factor and reference prices apply to calendar year 2018 sales of kilowatt hours of electricity produced in the United States or a possession thereof from qualified energy resources and to 2018 sales of refined coal produced in the United States or a possession thereof.
Martha M. Garcia, CC:PSI:6, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, (202) 317-6853 (not a toll-free number).
Publication of the inflation adjustment factor and reference prices is required by sections 45(e)(2)(A) (26 U.S.C. 45(e)(2)(A)) and 45(e)(8)(C) (26 U.S.C. 45(e)(8)(C)) of the Internal Revenue Code.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation (Committee) will meet on May 22-23, 2018. The Committee will meet at 1800 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20006. The meeting will be held on the Fourth Floor in Conference Room 420-H. The meetings are open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The Committee is to assemble and review relevant information relating to the nature and character of disabilities arising during service in the Armed Forces, provide an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the rating schedule, and give advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of Veterans relating to disability compensation.
On May 22, 2018, the sessions will begin at 7:30 a.m. and end at 3:00 p.m. EST. On May 23, 2018 the sessions will begin at 7:30 a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m. EST. On both days, the Committee will receive briefings on issues related to compensation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities and on other VA benefits programs. Time will be allocated for receiving public comments. 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-served basis. Individuals who speak are invited to submit 1-2 page summaries of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record.
The public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Stacy Boyd, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, Compensation Service, Policy Staff (211A), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420 or email at
| 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 |