Federal Register Vol. 83, No.78,
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 78 (April 23, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 78 (April 23, 2018)
| Page Range | 17615-17735 | |
| FR Document |
Document Created: 2017-12-29 23:37:50
Document Modified: 2017-12-29 23:37:50
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 17735 - Death of Barbara Bush | |
| 83 FR 17643 - Sunshine Act Meetings; In the Name of Hate: Examining the Federal Government's Role in Responding to Hate Crimes | |
| 83 FR 17657 - Extension of the Public Scoping Period for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center, Notice of Floodplain and Wetlands Involvement, and Draft Scope | |
| 83 FR 17627 - Air Plan Approval; AK; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
| 83 FR 17615 - Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines and Pummelos Grown in Florida and Imported Grapefruit; Change of Size Requirements for Grapefruit | |
| 83 FR 17656 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 17667 - National Advisory Committee on Children and Disasters and National Preparedness and Response Science Board Joint Public Teleconference | |
| 83 FR 17699 - Alliance Terminal Railroad, LLC-Discontinuance of Service and Discontinuance of Trackage Rights Exemption-in Denton and Tarrant Counties, Texas | |
| 83 FR 17623 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 2018 Recreational Fishing Seasons for Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico | |
| 83 FR 17698 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company | |
| 83 FR 17671 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Land Survey Report for Insured Multifamily Projects (Form HUD-92457) | |
| 83 FR 17671 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Budget-Based Rent Increases | |
| 83 FR 17621 - Special Local Regulation; USS PORTLAND Commissioning, Portland, OR | |
| 83 FR 17675 - Quartz Surface Products From China; Institution of Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations | |
| 83 FR 17626 - Tribal Consultation for Small Business HUBZone Program and Government Contracting Programs and Consolidation of Mentor Protégé Programs and Other Government Contracting Amendments | |
| 83 FR 17684 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standard | |
| 83 FR 17681 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards | |
| 83 FR 17687 - Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request, Proposed Collection: IMLS National Medals Nomination Forms | |
| 83 FR 17701 - Draft Safety Advisory Related to Temporary Signal Suspensions AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT) | |
| 83 FR 17658 - Notice of Issuance of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 54, Leases: An Amendment of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) 5, Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government, and SFFAS 6, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment | |
| 83 FR 17649 - Export Trade Certificate of Review | |
| 83 FR 17689 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 17697 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 17695 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 17694 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 17694 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 17674 - Tool Chests and Cabinets From China and Vietnam; Supplemental Schedule for the Subject Investigations | |
| 83 FR 17674 - Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing From China, Germany, India, Italy, Korea, and Switzerland; Supplemental Schedule for the Subject Investigations | |
| 83 FR 17676 - Certain Clidinium Bromide and Products Containing Same; Institution of Investigation | |
| 83 FR 17700 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 17644 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 81-Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Albany Safran Composites LLC (Carbon Fiber Composite Aircraft Engine Parts) Rochester, New Hampshire | |
| 83 FR 17648 - Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Turkey: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 17651 - Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty (CVD) Determination, Alignment of Final CVD Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, and Preliminary CVD Determination of Critical Circumstances | |
| 83 FR 17653 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits | |
| 83 FR 17619 - Qualified Financial Contracts Recordkeeping Related to Orderly Liquidation Authority | |
| 83 FR 17642 - Public Notice of Non-Response Follow-Up for the 2017 Census of Agriculture | |
| 83 FR 17642 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License | |
| 83 FR 17661 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 17663 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 83 FR 17662 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 83 FR 17669 - Modification of the National Customs Automation Program Test Regarding Submission of Import Data and Documents Required by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Through the Automated Commercial Environment | |
| 83 FR 17698 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Electronic Choice of Address and Agent | |
| 83 FR 17659 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 17658 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 83 FR 17660 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 17631 - Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls | |
| 83 FR 17705 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 83 FR 17707 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 83 FR 17704 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 83 FR 17623 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Harlem River, Bronx, New York | |
| 83 FR 17708 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Intent To File a Claim for Compensation and/or Pension, or Survivors Pension and/or DIC | |
| 83 FR 17677 - Certain Subsea Telecommunications Systems and Components Thereof; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Motion for Leave To Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation To Correct the Name of a Respondent and Withdrawal of the Complaint as to Other Respondents | |
| 83 FR 17690 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Delete Duplicative Rules Related to the Consolidated Audit Trail From Its Rulebook | |
| 83 FR 17665 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (BSC, NCEH/ATSDR) | |
| 83 FR 17688 - Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Withdrawal of License Renewal Application | |
| 83 FR 17703 - Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities | |
| 83 FR 17668 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 17668 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17668 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 17666 - Opioid Dependence: Developing Depot Buprenorphine Products for Treatment; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 17689 - Revision to ZIP Code Zone Charts for APO/FPO/DPO Inbound Mail | |
| 83 FR 17616 - Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory Capital, Final Revisions Applicable to Banking Organizations Subject to the Advanced Approaches Risk-Based Capital Rule | |
| 83 FR 17665 - Advisory Committee; Arthritis Advisory Committee, Renewal | |
| 83 FR 17660 - Announcement of Re-Chartering for the WRC-19 Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 17696 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delete Duplicative Rules Related to the Consolidated Audit Trail From Its Rulebook | |
| 83 FR 17691 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the DTC Redemptions Service Guide and the DTC Reorganizations Service Guide To Add Clarifying Text Relating to the Processing of MMI Securities | |
| 83 FR 17644 - In the Matter of: Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation ZTE Plaza, Keji Road South Hi-Tech Industrial Park Nanshan District, Shenzhen China; ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. 2/3 Floor, Suite A, Zte Communication Mansion Keji (S) Road Hi-New Shenzhen, 518057 China Respondent'; Order Activating Suspended Denial Order Relating to Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation and Zte Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. | |
| 83 FR 17656 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Campus Safety and Security Survey | |
| 83 FR 17687 - National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Advisory Board; Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17655 - Marine Mammals and Endangered Species | |
| 83 FR 17642 - Request for Stakeholder Input Relevant to the North American Regional Priorities for the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations | |
| 83 FR 17661 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 83 FR 17678 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Cayman Chemical Company | |
| 83 FR 17672 - U.S. Endangered Species; Receipt of Recovery Permit Applications | |
| 83 FR 17617 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters | |
| 83 FR 17710 - Nuclear Classification and Declassification |
Issue
Agricultural Marketing Service
Agricultural Research Service
Foreign Agricultural Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim rule implementing a recommendation from the Citrus Administrative Committee (Committee) to relax the minimum size requirements currently prescribed under the marketing order for oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and pummelos grown in Florida and the grapefruit import regulation. The interim rule relaxed the minimum size requirement for domestic shipments and imports of grapefruit from 3
Effective April 24, 2018.
Abigail Campos, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email:
Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order regulations by viewing a guide at the following website:
This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 905, as amended (7 CFR part 905), regulating the handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and pummelos grown in Florida. Part 905 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of growers and handlers operating within the production area and one public member.
This rule is also issued under section 8e of the Act, which provides that whenever certain specified commodities, including grapefruit, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of these commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements as those in effect for the domestically produced commodities.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
The handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and pummelos grown in Florida is regulated by the Order. Prior to this change, the minimum size requirement for domestic and export shipments of grapefruit was 3
In an interim rule published in the
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 20 handlers of Florida citrus who are subject to regulation under the Order and approximately 500 citrus producers in the regulated area. There are approximately 50 citrus importers. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,500,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the industry, and the Committee, the average f.o.b. price for Florida grapefruit during the 2016-17 season was $29.40 per box, and total fresh grapefruit shipments were approximately 3.2 million boxes. Using the average f.o.b.
South Africa, Peru, and Mexico are the major grapefruit-producing countries exporting grapefruit to the United States. In 2016, shipments of grapefruit imported into the United States totaled approximately 24,000 metric tons.
This rule continues in effect the action that reduced the minimum size requirements for grapefruit covered under the Order and imported grapefruit from 3
This action is not expected to increase costs associated with the Order's requirements. Rather, this action will have a beneficial impact. Reducing the size requirements makes additional fruit available for shipment to the fresh market, provides an outlet for fruit that may otherwise go unharvested, and affords more opportunity to meet consumer demand. This change provides additional fruit to fill the shortage caused by citrus greening and Hurricane Irma. Further, by maximizing shipments, this action will help provide additional returns to growers and handlers as they work to recover from the losses stemming from the hurricane.
This action may also help reduce harvesting costs. By reducing the minimum size, more fruit can be harvested immediately. This may eliminate the need to leave fruit on the tree to increase in size, which requires follow-up picking later in the season. Given the amount of fruit loss, this could help reduce picking costs substantially. The benefits of this rule are expected to be equally available to all fresh grapefruit growers and handlers, regardless of their size.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, “Generic Fruit Crops.” No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large grapefruit handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the Florida citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the June 29, 2017, and September 28, 2017, meetings were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before January 22, 2018. One comment was received during the comment period. The Commenter was in favor of the regulation, and stated that both producers and consumers would benefit from this action.
Accordingly, no changes will be made to the interim rule, based on the comment received.
To view the interim rule, go to:
This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, 13563, and 13771; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).
In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade Representative has concurred with the issuance of this final rule.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the
Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, Oranges, Pummelos, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tangerines.
Avocados, Food grades and standards, Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports, Kiwifruit, Limes, Olives, Oranges.
Accordingly, the interim rule that amended 7 CFR parts 905 and 944 and that was published at 82 FR 55305 on November 21, 2017, is adopted as a final rule, without change.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Final rule; technical amendment.
The FDIC is issuing this technical amendment to return text to its regulations that was altered due to a procedural error that allowed a 2014 rule to become effective on January 1, 2018. FDIC did not intend for the 2014 rule to become effective but did not rescind it before its effective date. This rule returns text to a section on capital measures and capital category definitions as it appeared before the codification of the 2014 rule.
April 23, 2018 and applicable beginning April 15, 2016.
Valerie J. Best, Supervisory Counsel (Assistant Executive Secretary),
This document sets out the text of § 324.403(b)(1)(v) as adopted by the FDIC Board of Directors on June 16, 2015. This technical correction is needed to rescind the impact of a delayed effective date initially prescribed in 2014. On April 8, 2014, the FDIC issued revisions to § 324.403(b)(1)(v), with a delayed effective date of January 1, 2018. 79 FR 24528 at 24541 (May 1, 2014). On July 15, 2015, the FDIC revised § 324.403(b)(1)(i) through (vi). 80 FR 41409 at 41426 (July 15, 2015). In the 2015
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Capital adequacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, State non-member banks.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation amends part 324 of chapter III of Title 12, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1815(a), 1815(b), 1816, 1818(a), 1818(b), 1818(c), 1818(t), 1819 (Tenth), 1828(c), 1828(d), 1828(i), 1828(n), 1828(o), 1831o, 1835, 3907, 3909, 4808; 5371; 5412; Pub. L. 102-233, 105 Stat. 1761, 1789, 1790 (12 U.S.C. 1831n note); Pub. L. 102-242, 105 Stat. 2236, 2355, as amended by Pub. L. 103-325, 108 Stat. 2160, 2233 (12 U.S.C. 1828 note); Pub. L. 102-242, 105 Stat. 2236, 2386, as amended by Pub. L. 102-550, 106 Stat. 3672, 4089 (12 U.S.C. 1828 note); Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1887 (15 U.S.C. 78o-7 note).
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) Is not subject to any written agreement, order, capital directive, or prompt corrective action directive issued by the FDIC pursuant to section 8 of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1818), the International Lending Supervision Act of 1983 (12 U.S.C. 3907), or the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1464(t)(6)(A)(ii)), or section 38 of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1831o), or any regulation thereunder, to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure; and
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters. This AD requires inspecting each main rotor rotating swashplate (swashplate) control rod attachment yoke (yoke). This AD is prompted by a finding that the yoke is susceptible to cracking. The actions of this AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective May 8, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of May 8, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by June 22, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2017-0191R2, dated December 15, 2017, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model EC 225 LP helicopters with swashplate part number (P/N) 332A31-3074-00 or P/N 332A31-3074-01 installed. EASA advises of a finding by Airbus Helicopters that the yoke is susceptible to cracking due to strain aging of the metal. EASA advises that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to structural failure of a yoke, possibly resulting in loss of control of the helicopter.
Accordingly, the EASA AD requires, for swashplates that are seven or more years old, a recurring inspection of the five yokes for a crack and a one-time inspection of the yokes for corrosion and a crack. If there is a crack or corrosion on a yoke, the EASA AD requires replacing the swashplate or repairing and reworking the yokes.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.
Airbus Helicopters has issued one document that co-publishes two Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) identification numbers: No. 05A051 for Model EC225LP helicopters and No. 05A046 for non-FAA type-certificated Model EC725AP helicopters, both Revision 1 and both dated November 16, 2017. Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 05A051 is incorporated by reference in this AD. Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 05A046 is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
This service information specifies inspections for certain serial-numbered swashplate P/N 332A31-3074-00 and P/N 332A31-3074-01. This service information specifies a repetitive inspection of the yokes for a crack and a one-time inspection of the stripped yokes for corrosion and a crack. If in doubt about whether there is a crack, this service information specifies performing a non-destructive inspection. This service information also specifies touching up the swashplate if there is corrosion, removing any damage within allowable limits, and refinishing the yokes. If there is a crack in a yoke, this service information specifies replacing the swashplate.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This AD requires a repetitive visual inspection of the five yokes for a crack every 15 hours time-in-service (TIS), and replacing the swashplate if there is a crack in any of the yokes.
The EASA AD specifies performing a non-destructive inspection if in doubt about if there is a crack and removing damage within allowable limits, whereas this AD does not. The EASA AD also specifies stripping the yokes and performing a one-time inspection within 100 hours TIS for corrosion and a crack, and this AD does not. We plan to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to give the public an opportunity to comment on this long-term requirement.
We estimate that this AD affects 5 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
Inspecting the yokes takes about 0.25 work-hour for an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and $105 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Replacing a swashplate takes about 6 work-hours and parts cost about $82,000 for an estimated cost of $82,510 per helicopter.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the required corrective action must be completed within 15 hours TIS. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model EC225LP helicopters, certificated in any category, with a main rotor (M/R) rotating swashplate (swashplate) part number (P/N) 332A31-3074-00 or P/N 332A31-3074-01 with a serial number listed in Appendix 4.A. of Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05A051, Revision 1, dated November 16, 2017 (EASB 05A051).
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a swashplate control rod attachment yoke (yoke). This condition could result in failure of the yoke, loss of M/R control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective May 8, 2018.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Within 15 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 15 hours TIS, visually inspect each yoke for a crack, paying particular attention to the areas shown in Details B, C, and D of Figure 1 of EASB 05A051. If there is a crack on a yoke, before further flight, replace the swashplate.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0191R2, dated December 15, 2017. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6230 Main Rotor Mast/Swashplate.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 05A051, Revision 1, dated November 16, 2017.
Note 1 to paragraph (i)(2)(i): Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 05A051, Revision 1, dated November 16, 2017, is co-published as one document along with Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 05A046, Revision 1, dated November 16, 2017, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Airbus Helicopter's service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
The Secretary of the Treasury (the “Secretary”), as Chairperson of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, in consultation with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”), is adopting a final rule that extends the compliance dates of the regulation implementing the qualified financial contract (“QFC”) recordkeeping requirements of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act” or the “Act”).
The final rule is effective May 23, 2018.
Brian Smith, Director, Office of Capital Markets, (202) 622-0157; Peter Nickoloff, Financial Economist, Office of Capital Markets, (202) 622-1692; Steven D. Laughton, Assistant General Counsel (Banking & Finance), (202) 622-8413; or Stephen T. Milligan, Attorney-Advisor, (202) 622-4051.
On October 31, 2016, the Secretary published a final regulation pursuant to section 210(c)(8)(H) of the Dodd-Frank
The regulation currently provides for staggered compliance dates for the bulk of the recordkeeping requirements as follows. The regulation generally provides that records entities with $1 trillion or more in total consolidated assets have 540 days (approximately 18 months) after the effective date to comply with the regulation; that records entities with total assets equal to or greater than $500 billion (but less than $1 trillion) have two years from the effective date to comply with the regulation; that records entities with total assets equal to or greater than $250 billion (but less than $500 billion) have three years from the effective date to comply with the regulation; and that all other records entities have four years from the effective date to comply with the regulation.
Separately, the regulation provides that a records entity may request an exemption from one or more of the regulation's requirements and that the Secretary may grant conditional or unconditional exemptions from the regulation's requirements after receiving a recommendation from the FDIC, prepared in consultation with the relevant primary financial regulatory agencies (as defined in the regulation).
In light of the pending exemption requests and the Administration's general policy of alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens,
The Secretary received one substantive comment regarding the proposed rule.
In support of their request for extension of the compliance dates, the commenters cited the resources being expended to develop systems to collect information in the specific formats required by the rule and the changes that will have to be made to the plans for those compliance efforts once determinations as to the exemption requests are made. The commenters also cited concurrent efforts by records entities to come into compliance with other regulatory requirements regarding QFCs recently adopted by other federal financial regulators.
Although the Secretary recognizes the importance of the QFC recordkeeping requirements, the Secretary continues to believe that it would impose an unnecessary burden on records entities to require their compliance with the regulation before the scope of their recordkeeping responsibilities is determined. An extension of the compliance dates is appropriate pending the Secretary's decisions whether to grant, in whole or in part, conditional or unconditional exemptions based on the exemption requests received to date, and to allow adequate time for records entities to prepare for compliance once the exemption requests are resolved.
Specifically, the Secretary has determined to amend the regulations to extend the compliance date by approximately nine months for records entities in the first compliance tier. Based on the substantive comment received in response to the proposed rule, the Secretary believes that this extension will allow sufficient time for such records entities to comply with the rule after determinations have been made with respect to the exemption requests. The Secretary has determined to extend the compliance dates for all other records entities by six months, as was proposed. Based on the substantive comment received in response to the proposed rule, the Secretary believes this additional time will permit records entities in each compliance tier to adjust their plans and budgets for compliance once the determinations as to the exemption requests are made while maintaining the staggered approach that was adopted by the Secretary with respect to the original compliance dates. That staggered approach was adopted not only on the understanding that larger entities will generally have greater capacity to apply to the task of coming into initial compliance with the rules but also because of the anticipated need to provide guidance to records entities as they work to come into compliance with the rules.
This final rule will not impose any additional burden on any records entities; rather, it would reduce the existing regulatory burden by extending the periods in which records entities have to comply with the regulation's requirements. For this reason and as discussed further in the release of the 2016 final regulation, the Secretary certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Small Business Administration's most recently revised standards for small entities, which went into effect on October 1, 2017.
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in section 3.f of Executive Order 12866.
While the cost savings of the rule cannot be estimated at this time, this final rule is considered a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury amends part 148 to 31 CFR as follows:
31 U.S.C. 321(b) and 12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(8)(H).
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) A records entity subject to this part on the effective date must comply with § 148.3(a)(2) on the date that is 90 days after the effective date and with all other applicable requirements of this part on:
(A) March 31, 2019 for a records entity that:
(B) June 30, 2019 for any records entity that is not subject to the compliance date set forth in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of this section and:
(C) June 30, 2020 for any records entity that is not subject to the compliance dates set forth in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of this section and:
(D) June 30, 2021 for any records entity that is not subject to the compliance dates set forth in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of this section.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated area for certain waters of the Willamette River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Port of Portland Terminal 2, Portland, OR, during a naval vessel commissioning ceremony on April 14 through 23, 2018. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Columbia River or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on April 23, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 11:59 p.m. on April 14, 2018, until April 23, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR Laura Springer, MSU Portland Waterways; telephone 503-240-9319, email
From April 14 through 23, 2018, the U.S. Navy will be conducting ceremonial activities for the commissioning of the USS PORTLAND. The commissioning activities will take place at the Port of Portland Terminal 2.
In response, on March 21, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Special Local Regulation; USS PORTLAND Commissioning, Portland, OR” (83 FR 12303). There we proposed to establish a regulated area extending approximately 500 yards on each side of the naval vessel on the Willamette River in Portland, OR during the commissioning ceremonies and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this event. During the comment period that ended April 5, 2018, we received 3 comments.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River (COTP) has determined that to provide for the safety of participants, spectators, support and transiting vessels, it is necessary to temporarily restrict vessel traffic from April 14 through 23, 2018. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within the regulated area, during, and after the scheduled event and to prevent any disruption to the commissioning ceremonies.
As noted above, we received three comments on our NPRM published March 21, 2018 (83 FR 12303). The first comment was in support of the regulated area. The second comment was from a yacht club requesting clarification for transiting the regulated area. Vessels desiring to transit the regulated area will be able with approval from the patrol commander. This issue was addressed in the published proposed regulatory text. Procedures for transiting the area will also be published in the Local Notice to Mariners. The third comment was beyond the scope of this rulemaking. We made no changes in the regulatory text from what we proposed in the NPRM.
This rule establishes a regulated area from 11:59 p.m. on April 14, 2018, to 11:59 p.m. on April 23, 2018. The
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the regulated area. Although this proposal would prevent traffic from transiting portions of the Willamette River, the effect of this regulation would not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area would be in effect and would allow waterway users to enter or transit through the area when deemed safe by the on-scene patrol commander. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 and publish information in the Local Notice to Mariners about the regulated area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, 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 regulated area lasting less than 10 days that would limit entry within approximately 500 yards of the USS PORTLAND. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Memorandum for Record supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(b)
(2) Entrance into the regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the PATCOM. The PATCOM may control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled to stop by an official patrol vessel, a vessel must come to an immediate stop and comply with the lawful directions issued. Failure to comply with a lawful direction may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(3) All vessels permitted to transit the regulated area must maintain a separation of at least 100 yards away from the USS PORTLAND.
(c)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Broadway Bridge across the Harlem River, mile 6.8, at Bronx, New York. This temporary deviation is necessary to allow the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to facilitate the replacement of track panels.
This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on April 28, 2018, to 5 p.m. on May 13, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0298 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone 212-514-4330, email
New York City Transit, the owner of the bridge, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate the replacement of track panels. The Broadway Bridge across the Harlem River, mile 6.8, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 24 feet at mean high water and 29 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.789(b)(1).
Under this temporary deviation, the Broadway Bridge shall remain in the closed position between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. on April 28, May 5 and May 12, 2018; and between 6 a.m. and 5 p.m. on April 29, May 6 and May 13, 2018.
The waterway is transited by commercial and recreational traffic. The Coast Guard notified known commercial vessel operators that transit the area, including the Sandy Hook Pilots and the local Tug/Tow Committee; there were no objections to this temporary deviation. Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS announces the 2018 recreational fishing seasons for the private angling and Federal charter vessel/headboat (for-hire) components for red snapper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) through this temporary rule. The Federal recreational season for red snapper in the Gulf EEZ begins at 12:01 a.m., local time, on June 1, 2018. For recreational harvest by the private angling component, the season closes at 12:01 a.m., local time, on June 1, 2018.
The closure is effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, June 1, 2018, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2019, for the private angling component. The closure is effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, July 22, 2018, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2019, for the Federal for-hire component.
Kelli O'Donnell, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes red snapper, is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The final rule implementing Amendment 40 to the FMP established two components within the recreational sector fishing for Gulf red snapper: The private angling component, and the Federal for-hire component (80 FR 22422; April 22, 2015). Amendment 40 also allocated the red snapper recreational ACL (recreational quota) between the components and established separate seasonal closures for the two components. The recreational seasonal closures are projected from the component annual catch targets (ACTs), set 20 percent less than the component quotas, to reduce the likelihood of the harvest exceeding the component quotas and the total recreational ACL.
According to regulations at 50 CFR 622.39(a)(2)(i), the 2018 total recreational quota for red snapper in the Gulf EEZ is 6.733 million lb (3.54 million kg), which is allocated 57.7 percent to the private angling component and 42.3 percent to the for-hire component. For the private angling component, the 2018 quota is 3.885 million lb (1.762 million kg), and the 2018 ACT is 3.108 million lb (1.410 million kg) (50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(iii)(C). For the Federal for-hire component, the 2018 quota is 2.848 million lb (1.292 million kg), and the 2018 ACT is 2.278 million lb (1.033 million kg) (50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(iii)(B)). All weights given are in round weight.
For the private angling component, NMFS has issued exempted fishing permits (EFPs) that allow each Gulf state (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida) to set the season for red snapper that are landed from state and federal waters in that state during 2018 and 2019. The EFPs do so by exempting private anglers from regulations at 50 CFR 622.34(b) (recreational season closure for red snapper) and 50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(i) (private angler component in-season closure) if these anglers hold the appropriate state fishing permits and are landing red snapper in a participating state during the state's open season. The EFPs allocate a portion of the private angling quota to each state, and each state is required under the terms and conditions of the EFPs to constrain landings to its allocation. The combined allocations equal the private angling component quota. Therefore, there will be no Federal season for the private angling component in 2018, and this closure notice will take effect at 12:01 a.m., local time, June 1, 2018.
The Gulf states will establish seasons during which red snapper caught in state and Federal waters can be landed. States will monitor red snapper landings and close their respective fishing seasons if the state's assigned quota is reached or projected to be reached. Private anglers should consult the regulations for the Gulf state where they wish to land red snapper to determine state season dates and landing requirements. If the EFPs remain effective in 2019, NMFS anticipates announcing a similar Federal recreational fishing season for the private angling component next year.
The 2018 red snapper Federal for-hire fishing season has been determined to be 51 days based on NMFS' projection of the date landings are expected to reach the component ACT. For details about the calculation of the projection for 2018, see
On and after the effective date of the Federal for-hire component closure, the bag and possession limits for red snapper for Federal for-hire vessels are zero. When either the Federal for-hire component or entire recreational sector is closed, these bag and possession limits apply in the Gulf onboard a vessel for which a valid Federal for-hire permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested,
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf red snapper and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(i) and (ii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action is based on the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the private angling and Federal for-hire components for the red snapper recreational sector constitute good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the recreational red snapper ACLs and ACTs, and the rule implementing the requirement to close the recreational components when the ACTs are projected to be reached have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closures.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notification of tribal consultation meeting.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announces that it is holding a tribal consultation meeting in Anchorage, Alaska concerning the regulations governing the 8(a) Business Development (BD) program and the HUBZone program. SBA seeks to reduce unnecessary or excessive regulatory burdens in those programs and to make them more attractive to procuring agencies and small businesses. Testimony presented at this tribal consultation will become part of the administrative record for SBA's consideration when the Agency deliberates on approaches to changes in the regulations pertaining to these programs.
The Tribal Consultation meeting date is Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (AKDT), Anchorage, Alaska. The Tribal Consultation meeting pre-registration deadline date is May 2, 2018.
1. The Tribal Consultation meeting will be held at Z.J. Loussac Public Library, 3600 Denali Street, Anchorage, AK 99503.
2. Send pre-registration requests to attend and/or testify to Chequita Carter of SBA's Office of Native American Affairs, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416;
3. You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AG38, for Small Business HUBZone Program and Government Contracting Programs and RIN 3245-AG94, for Consolidation of Mentor Protégé Programs and Other Government Contracting Amendments, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Chequita Carter, Program Assistant for SBA's Office of Native American Affairs, at
SBA is contemplating making substantive changes to the regulations governing both the 8(a) BD (13 CFR part 124) and HUBZone (13 CFR part 126) programs, and requests comments and input on how best to reduce unnecessary or excessive regulatory burdens in those programs. Particularly, SBA is interested in comments related to two planned rulemakings: (1) Small Business HUBZone Program and Government Contracting Programs (RIN 3245-AG38); and (2) Consolidation of Mentor Protégé Programs and Other Government Contracting Amendments (RIN 3245-AG94). The first-mentioned planned rulemaking would constitute a comprehensive revision of part 126 of SBA's regulations to clarify current HUBZone program regulations, and implement various new procedures. The latter planned rulemaking would consolidate the All Small Mentor Protégé Program and the 8(a) Mentor Protégé Program into one program and would revise SBA's process for approving management changes in entity-owned 8(a) firms. It is SBA's intent to implement changes that will make it easier for small business concerns to understand and comply with the programs' requirements. SBA is also seeking to make these programs more effective and improve the delivery of them to the small business community. SBA understands that some of its regulations have significantly adversely affected small business concerns owned and controlled by tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs), including 8(a) change of ownership requirements, and seeks tribal participation to ease these burdens. Additionally, SBA notes that the HUBZone program is often not being fully utilized by procuring agencies, and seeks input on what changes could be made to make the HUBZone program more attractive to both procuring agencies and small businesses.
The purpose of this tribal consultation meeting is to conform to the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Tribal Consultations; to provide interested parties with an opportunity to discuss their views on the issues; and for SBA to obtain the views of SBA's stakeholders on approaches to the 8(a) BD program and HUBZone program regulations. SBA considers tribal consultation meetings a valuable component of its deliberations and believes that this tribal consultation meeting will allow for constructive dialogue with the Tribal community, Tribal Leaders, Tribal Elders, elected members of Alaska Native Villages or their appointed representatives, and principals of tribally-owned and ANC-owned firms participating in the 8(a) BD and HUBZone programs. SBA intends to hold additional tribal consultations in order to obtain comments and input from Tribal communities representing other geographic regions.
The format of this tribal consultation meeting will consist of a panel of SBA representatives who will preside over the session. The oral and written testimony as well as any comments SBA receives will become part of the administrative record for SBA's consideration. Written testimony may be submitted in lieu of oral testimony. SBA will analyze the testimony, both oral and written, along with any written comments received. SBA officials may ask questions of a presenter to clarify or further explain the testimony. The purpose of the tribal consultation is to assist SBA with gathering information to guide SBA's review process and to potentially develop new proposals. SBA requests that the comments focus on SBA's two planned rulemakings relating to the 8(a) BD and HUBZone programs, general issues as they pertain to the 8(a) BD and HUBZone regulations, input related to what changes could be made to make these programs more attractive to procuring agencies and small businesses, or the unique concerns of the Tribal communities. SBA requests that commenters do not raise issues pertaining to other SBA small business programs. Presenters are encouraged to provide a written copy of their testimony. SBA will accept written material that the presenter wishes to provide that further supplements his or her testimony. Electronic or digitized copies are encouraged.
The tribal consultation meeting will be held for one day. The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 3:30 p.m. (AKDT), with a break from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. SBA will adjourn early if all those scheduled have delivered their testimony.
SBA respectfully requests that any elected or appointed representative of the tribal communities or principal of a tribally-owned or ANC-owned 8(a) firm that is interested in attending please pre-register in advance and indicate whether you would like to testify at the hearing. Registration requests should be received by SBA by May 2, 2018. Please contact Chequita Carter of SBA's Office of Native American Affairs in writing at
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the tribal consultation meeting, contact Chequita Carter at the telephone number or email address indicated under the
15 U.S.C. 634 and E.O. 13175, 65 FR 67249.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (Alaska DEC) demonstrating that the SIP meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated in 2010 for nitrogen dioxide (NO
Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0590, at
John Chi, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: 206-553-1185; email address:
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. Information is organized as follows:
On January 22, 2010, the EPA established a primary NO
The EPA's most recent infrastructure SIP guidance, the September 13, 2013, “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” did not explicitly include criteria for how the Agency would evaluate infrastructure SIP submissions intended to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
For other pollutants such as lead (Pb), the EPA has suggested that the applicable interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) can be met through a state's assessment as to whether or not emissions from Pb sources located in close proximity to its borders have emissions that impact a neighboring state such that they contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in that state. For example, the EPA noted in an October 14, 2011, memorandum titled, “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),”
On March 10, 2016, the Alaska DEC submitted a SIP revision to address these remaining CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport provisions, also called “good neighbor” provisions. The first element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that for a new or revised NAAQS the SIP contains adequate measures to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will “contribute significantly to nonattainment” of the NAAQS in another state. The second element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that the SIP prohibits any source or other type of emissions activity in the state from emitting pollutants that will “interfere with maintenance” of the applicable NAAQS in any other state.
The state addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by providing information supporting the conclusion that emissions from Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour NO
The state's submittal noted that Alaska's southern-most border is separated by over 600 miles (966 km) of mountainous terrain in Canada's Province of British Columbia separating the southeastern border of Alaska from the nearest state, Washington. The state's submittal also noted that in Alaska, the regional, predominant low pressure wind patterns emanate from the Gulf of Alaska in the west and travel inland towards the east, circulating in a counterclockwise direction. The Alaska DEC concluded that based on distance from other states and weather patterns, Alaska does not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010 NO
In addition to reviewing Alaska's submittal, the EPA reviewed recent monitoring data for NO
The EPA also reviewed regulatory provisions to control future new sources of NO
In addition to reviewing Alaska's submittal, the EPA reviewed: (1) SO
Despite being emitted from a similar universe of point and nonpoint sources, interstate transport of SO
While the State of Alaska has no areas which would require SO
The NEI data summaries for Alaska have shown a decrease in the total statewide SO
Lastly, Alaska has various provisions and regulations to ensure that SO
Based on the analysis provided by Alaska DEC in its SIP submission and the factors discussed above, the EPA proposes to find that sources or emissions activity within the state will not contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010 SO
The EPA has reviewed the March 10, 2016, submittal from the Alaska DEC demonstrating that sources in Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010 NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as 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 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission invites comment on proposed changes to its rules. The Commission proposes rules to ensure that one or more databases are available to provide callers with the comprehensive and timely information they need to discover potential number reassignments before making a call. It seeks comment on the specific information that callers need from a reassigned numbers database; and the best way to make that information available to callers that want it, as well as related issues.
Comments are due on June 7, 2018, and reply comments are due on July 9, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by CG Docket No. 17-59 and/or FCC Number 18-31, by any of the following methods:
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process,
Josh Zeldis, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), at (202) 418- 0715, email:
This is a summary of the Commission's Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using ECFS.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Pursuant to § 1.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, this matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substances of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to:
The
1. The Commission, as part of its multiple-front battle against unwanted calls, proposes and seeks comment on ways to address the problem of unwanted calls to reassigned numbers. This problem subjects the recipient of the reassigned number to annoyance and wastes the time and effort of the caller while potentially subjecting the caller to liability.
2. Consumer groups and callers alike have asked for a solution to this problem. The Commission therefore proposes in document FCC 18-31 to ensure that one or more databases are available to provide callers with the comprehensive and timely information they need to discover potential number reassignments before making a call. To that end, the Commission seeks further comment on, among other issues: (1) The specific information that callers need from a reassigned numbers database; and (2) the best way to make that information available to callers that want it. Making a reassigned numbers database available to callers that want it will benefit consumers by reducing unwanted calls intended for another consumer while helping callers avoid the costs of calling the wrong consumer, including potential violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
3. As required by the Commission's rules, voice service providers ensure the efficient use of telephone numbers by reassigning a telephone number to a new consumer after it is disconnected by the previous subscriber. Approximately 35 million numbers are disconnected and made available for reassignment to new consumers each year. Consumers disconnect their old numbers and change to new telephone numbers for a variety of reasons, including switching wireless providers without porting numbers and getting new wireline telephone numbers when they move. Upon disconnecting his or her phone number, a consumer may not update all parties who have called him/her in the past, including businesses to which the consumer gave prior express consent to call and other callers from which the consumer expects to receive calls. When that number is reassigned, the new subscriber of that number may receive unwanted calls intended for the previous subscriber.
4. The problem of unwanted calls to reassigned numbers can have important consequences for both consumers and callers. Beyond annoying the new subscriber of the reassigned number, a misdirected call can deprive the previous subscriber of the number of a desired call from, for example, his/her school, health care provider, or financial institution. In the case of prerecorded or automated voice calls (robocalls) to reassigned numbers, a good-faith caller may be subject to liability for violations of the TCPA. That threat can have a chilling effect, causing some callers to be overly cautious and stop making wanted, lawful calls out of concern over potential liability for calling a reassigned number.
5. While existing tools can help callers identify number reassignments, “callers lack guaranteed methods to discover all reassignments” in a timely manner. Accordingly, in the July 2017
6. The majority of commenters on the
7. Several commenters nonetheless raise concerns about this approach. For example, the United States Chamber of Commerce express concern about the costs associated with using a reassigned numbers database and note that the Commission cannot mandate that callers use a reassigned numbers database in order to comply with the TCPA. Several other commenters contend that establishing a reassigned numbers database is too costly as compared to the likely benefit. Alternatively, CTIA and others contend that if the Commission decides to address the reassigned numbers problem, it should adopt a safe harbor from TCPA violations for callers that use existing commercial solutions and thereby encourage broader adoption and improvement of those solutions.
8. The Commission proposes to ensure that one or more databases are available to provide callers with the comprehensive and timely information they need to avoid calling reassigned numbers. The Commission therefore seek comment below on, among other things: (1) The information that callers who choose to use a reassigned numbers database need from such a database; (2) how to ensure that the information is reported to a database; and (3) the best approach to making that information available to callers.
9. The Commission believes that its proposal will benefit legitimate callers and consumers alike. While some commenters argued that a reassigned numbers database would not reduce unwanted calls from bad actors, the Commission notes that a reassigned numbers database is only one important part of its broader policy and enforcement efforts to combat unwanted calls, including illegal robocalls. The Commission seeks comment on how its approach in the
10. The Commission believes its legal authority for the potential requirements and alternatives stems directly from section 251(e) of the Act. More specifically, it believes that the Commission's exclusive jurisdiction over North American Numbering Plan (NANP) numbering resources provides ample authority to adopt any requirements that recipients of NANP numbers report reassignment or other information about those numbers, including the mechanism through which such information must be reported. The Commission seeks comment on these views and on the nature and scope of its legal authority under section 251(e) of the Act to adopt the potential requirements and alternatives.
11. Based on the
12.
13.
14.
15. The Commission proposes to provide callers with information about when NANP numbers are disconnected. Because disconnection is a first step in the reassignment process, the Commission believes that a database containing information on when a number has been disconnected will best allow callers to identify, at the earliest possible point, when a subscriber can no longer be reached at that number. With timely access to such data, callers will be best positioned to rid their calling lists of reassigned numbers before calling them. Access to disconnection information would be preferable to new assignment information because, as one commenter notes, tracking new assignments “would provide little to no lead time for callers to update their dialing lists to avoid calling consumers with newly reassigned numbers.” Do commenters agree with these views? Why or why not? The Commission also understands that service providers routinely track disconnection information and it seeks comment on this view. Do service providers use consistent criteria to track and record disconnects or does each service provider set its own criteria?
16. Should an effective reassigned numbers database contain information in addition to or in lieu of disconnection information? Commenters should discuss the advantages and disadvantages of their preferred approach relative to other approaches.
17. The Commission also seeks comment on information that callers believe should be excluded from a reassigned numbers database in order to ensure accurate and reliable data and prevent false positives. For example, if the database includes information about disconnections, should the database exclude information on when a number has been temporarily disconnected, thus excluding, for example, when a number is in a temporary suspension status (
18.
19. To ensure a comprehensive database, do callers need data from all types of voice service providers, including wireless, wireline, interconnected VoIP, and non-interconnected VoIP providers? Or would data from only certain types of providers be sufficient? Nearly all
20. The Commission also seeks comment on the universe of numbers that a reassigned numbers database should contain. For example, should such a database contain all numbers allocated by a numbering administrator to a service provider or only a subset of such numbers (
21. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether there is any reason to limit the reported reassignment information to a specific timeframe. For instance, if the most recent reassignment of a number occurred five or ten years ago, do callers need that information?
22.
23. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on how long service providers currently age numbers before making them available again for assignment. The Commission notes that the Commission's rules limit the aging period for disconnected residential numbers to a maximum of 90 days. Should the Commission adopt a minimum aging period for disconnected numbers so that service providers could report data to a reassigned numbers database less frequently? If so, would 30 days be a reasonable minimum aging period? Would 60 days? What are the costs and benefits to service providers of having to comply with a minimum aging requirement? Would the costs outweigh any benefit of being able to report data to a reassigned numbers database less frequently?
24.
25.
26. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on any specific criteria or requirements that an entity must satisfy to become an eligible user. Most commenters on the
27. The Commission seeks comment on whether users should be required to certify the purpose for which they seek access to the information and, if so, how that purpose should be defined. In the
28. The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how to track relevant information about those who access a reassigned numbers database. Several commenters on the
29.
30.
31. Rather, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt a safe harbor from TCPA liability for those callers that choose to use a reassigned numbers database, including under any of the three approaches to database administration discussed below. Some commenters, for example, urge the Commission to adopt a safe harbor from TCPA violations for robocallers that inadvertently make calls to reassigned numbers after checking a comprehensive reassigned numbers database. Other commenters argue that the Commission should instead adopt a safe harbor for callers using existing commercial solutions. The Commission seeks comment on these views. If the Commission were to adopt a safe harbor from TCPA violations, under what circumstances should callers be permitted to avail themselves of the safe harbor? For example, how often would a caller need to check a reassigned numbers database under a safe harbor? The Commission also seeks detailed comment on whether section 227 of the Act or other sections of the Act provide it with authority to adopt such a safe harbor—what provisions, precisely, would allow the agency to create a safe harbor? If the Commission were to adopt a safe harbor under the TCPA, how does the D.C. Circuit's recent ruling in
32. In the
33. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recognized that the Commission has “consistently adopted a `reasonable reliance' approach” to the TCPA, including in cases “when a consenting party's number is reassigned.” The court highlighted that the Commission is “considering creating a comprehensive repository of information about reassigned wireless numbers” and “whether to provide a safe harbor for callers that inadvertently reach reassigned numbers after consulting the most recently updated information”—and the court noted a reassigned numbers database “would naturally bear on the reasonableness of calling numbers that have in fact been reassigned.” The Commission seeks comment on the impact that decision and possible Commission action in response to that decision could have on the costs and benefits of the database options discussed herein. Does that decision strengthen the need for a timely and comprehensive reassigned numbers database? Or does it suggest that existing, commercially available databases provide callers with sufficient resources, diminishing the need for a new database or a mandatory reporting requirement?
34. The Commission seeks detailed comment on whether it should establish and select an administrator of a single reassigned numbers database. Under this approach, the Commission would mandate that service providers report reassigned number information to the database, and allow eligible users to query the database for such information. As discussed below, the Commission seeks comment on how the single database should be established, who should administer it, and how it should be funded. The Commission also seeks comment on which service providers should be required to report information, the requirements that should apply to such providers, and whether and how they should be able to recover their reporting costs. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the effectiveness, costs, and benefits of the single database approach.
35.
36. One possibility would be to modify the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC), which is used to facilitate local number portability. In response to the
37. The Commission also seeks comment on which entities have the expertise to serve as the administrator of a central reassigned numbers database. Could the LNPA or a different numbering administrator (such as the NANPA or the Pooling Administrator) serve such a role? Or could an entirely different vendor serve this role? What factors should the Commission take into account in selecting a reassigned numbers database administrator?
38.
39.
40. Alternatively, should the Commission require all service providers that receive numbers directly from the NANPA to report data on those numbers? In response to the
41. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should exempt certain service providers from the obligation to report data to an FCC-designated reassigned numbers database without undermining its overall comprehensiveness. For example, NTCA asks that the Commission exempt rural service providers from this requirement, at least initially, because of their limitations in resources and staff. Are there other types of providers, such as those offering only telecommunications relay services, that should be exempted from mandatory reporting? The Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt any such exemptions, the relevant eligibility criteria, and the effect of the exemption on the goal of providing comprehensive numbering information to callers that want it. Are there other measures short of an exemption that would lessen the reporting burden, while still achieving that goal?
42.
43.
44.
45.
46. As an alternative to the single database approach discussed above, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require service providers to report reassigned number information to commercial data aggregators. Under this approach, the Commission expects that service providers would enter into bilateral agreements with data aggregators for purposes of reporting data, and as a result, there would be multiple reassigned numbers databases that callers could query. The Commission seeks comment on the criteria and process for becoming a qualifying data aggregator to which service providers would report data; which service providers should be required to report data, the requirements they should be subject to, and the appropriate cost recovery for these covered service providers; contractual and other issues that might arise between data aggregators and service providers; and the feasibility and implementation issues associated with this approach. The Commission also seeks comment on the costs and benefits of this approach.
47.
48. The Commission also seeks comment on the process for becoming a
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56. The Commission seeks comment on whether, as a second alternative, it should allow service providers to report reassigned number data to commercial data aggregators on a voluntary basis. Under this approach, callers could then use commercial data aggregators to determine whether a phone number has been reassigned. As discussed below, the Commission seeks comment on whether, and if so, how a voluntary reporting approach could be structured to be more effective than existing solutions at addressing the reassigned numbers problem.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61. As required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, (RFA) the Commission has prepared the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the proposals contained in the
62. The
63. The
64. The proposed and anticipated rules are authorized under sections 201, 227, and 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 227, 251(e).
65. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small-business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
66. The proposed safe harbor from liability for violating the prohibitions relating to telephone solicitations using autodialers, artificial and/or prerecorded messages applies to a wide range of entities, including potentially all entities that use the telephone to advertise. Thus, the Commission expects that the safe harbor proposal could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For instance, funeral homes, mortgage brokers, automobile dealers, newspapers and telecommunications companies could all be affected.
67. In 2013, there were approximately 28.8 million small business firms in the United States, according to SBA data. Determining a precise number of small entities that would be subject to the requirements proposed in this NPRM is not readily feasible. Therefore, the Commission invites comment about the number of small business entities that would be subject to the proposed safe harbor in this proceeding. After evaluating the comments, the Commission will examine further the effect the proposed safe harbor might have on small entities, and will set forth its findings in the final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
68. The descriptions and estimates of small entities affected by the remaining proposed rules is detailed below.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that,
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83. As indicated above, the
84. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
85. As indicated above, the
86. The Commission will consider ways to reduce the impact on small businesses, such as establishment of different compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities based on the record in response to the
87. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the
88. None.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Koppert B.V. of The Netherlands, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 9,642,372, “TRICHODERMA MICROSCLEROTIA AND METHODS OF MAKING”, issued on May 9, 2017.
Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2018.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.
Brian T. Nakanishi of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.
The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Koppert B.V. of The Netherlands has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Request for stakeholder input.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of State will host for the U.S. government the 2018 Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Informal North American Regional Conference (INARC).
The INARC will be held on April 18-19, 2018. Stakeholder comments should be submitted to the point of contact listed below, by May 18, 2018.
Candice Bruce, (202) 720-1324,
The INARC is a biennial meeting co-chaired with the Government of Canada to discuss the FAO North American region's priorities as member countries of the FAO. Written input from stakeholders on their views for the 2018-2019 biennium priorities for the region is welcome and encouraged. Stakeholder input may be examined by the Governments of the United States and Canada while developing priorities for the 2018-2019 biennium. Priorities recommended by FAO member countries at regional conferences are taken into account in the FAO Programme of Work and Budget and are used to justify funding levels, work streams, and programming.
The North American priorities highlighted at the 2016 INARC included FAO's normative work and activities related to standards, guidelines, and practices; boosting FAO's regulatory capacity building; FAO's continued provision of impartial, evidence-based information to help small-holder farmers increase productivity and production in a sustainable manner; and increasing FAO's partnerships when implementing North American priorities. The North American region highlights FAO's science and evidence-based work and aims to ensure that FAO uses resources efficiently and operates primarily in its areas of comparative advantage.
Topics of focus to be discussed during the 2018 INARC include agri-food trade and global food security; gender equality and the empowerment of women; agricultural innovations; and FAO's work in emergencies and emerging threats. These are the specific topics on which comments are sought. North America's priorities will be published in the 5th INARC report which will be available to the public.
The U.S. Government solicits written input from stakeholders who want to provide views related to the focus of the discussion areas regarding the FAO North American region's priorities. This notice remains open after the INARC meeting; input received after April 18 may still be considered prior to the publication of the INARC report.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to adjust the non-response follow-up methodology for the 2017 Census of Agriculture.
Comments on this notice must be received by May 7, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0226, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kevin L. Barnes, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202)720-2707. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS—OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388 or at
The Census of Agriculture is required by law under the “Census of Agriculture Act of 1997,” Public Law 105-113, 7 U.S.C. 2204(g).
The original due date for reporting to the 2017 Census of Agriculture was February 5, 2018. Despite receiving up to three paper questionnaires in the mail and being provided opportunities to report on the web, NASS has not received responses from over one-third of the initial Census of Agriculture mail list. Low response rates threaten the quality of the results and the usefulness of the information collected. To ensure proper representation of various geographic areas and sub-populations in the results, NASS will begin contacting non-respondents by using both telephone and in-person interviews. NASS will also make an additional contact to non-respondents via mail to encourage response either by mail or on the web. Due to budget and time limitations, contacting all non-respondents for interviews is not possible; therefore, NASS will randomly select respondents for increased efforts to obtain responses, prioritizing certain geographic areas and sub-populations. This involves a modification of the non-response follow-up procedures identified in the original supporting statements NASS submitted for this information collection (OMB Control Number 0535-0226).
NASS will use historical data to prioritize which non-respondents to contact. Priority will be given to non-respondents: In low-response counties; those believed to produce commodities with low-coverage in past censuses of agriculture; those believed to produce commodities or perform production practices NASS will target in future Census of Agriculture follow-on studies; or those believed to be members of minority groups, which are also known to have lower coverage in previous censuses of agriculture. Priority will also be given to those with a higher response likelihood based on previous contact for NASS censuses and surveys.
NASS will use well-established statistical weighting and calibration techniques to ensure the results from the 2017 Census of Agriculture properly represent the intended population of inference.
Individually identifiable information collected by the Census of Agriculture is governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record.
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of Commission public briefing.
Friday, May 11, 2018, 9:00 a.m.-6:30 p.m. EST. See detailed agenda below.
National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425. Entrance is via F St. NW, between 13th and 14th Streets NW.
Brian Walch, (202) 376-8371; TTY: (202) 376-8116;
The Commission will hold a public briefing, “In the Name of Hate: Examining the Federal Government's Role in Responding to Hate Crimes.” This meeting is open to the public. The Commission will examine best practices for local law enforcement on collecting and reporting data, and the role of the Education and Justice Departments in prosecution and prevention of these heinous acts. Commissioners will hear from local law enforcement and federal government officials, experts, academics, advocates, and survivors of hate. Testimony from this briefing will form an integral basis for the Commission's subsequent report to Congress, the President, and the American people regarding the state of hate crimes and bias-related incidents across the nation.
Members of the public who wish to address the Commission will have an opportunity to do so during an open comment session that will take place between 5:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. EST. Individuals will be able to register for speaking slots, both online and at the briefing (in-person). Full details regarding registration for the open comment session will be available on the Commission's website (
The event will live-stream at
See
Albany Safran Composites LLC (ASC) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility located in Rochester, New Hampshire. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on April 6, 2018.
The company indicates that it will be submitting a separate application for FTZ designation at the ASC facility under FTZ 81. The facility is used for the manufacture of carbon fiber composite aircraft engine parts. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material (epoxide resin) and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt ASC from customs duty payments on the epoxide resin used in export production. On its domestic sales, ASC would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to carbon fiber composite aircraft engine fan blades, cases and spacers (duty-free) for the foreign-status epoxide resin (duty rate—6.1%). ASC would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status resin which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is June 4, 2018.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
On March 23, 2017, I signed an Order approving the terms of the Settlement Agreement entered into in early March 2017, between the Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce (“BIS”) and Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation, of Shenzhen, China (“ZTE Corporation”) and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. of Hi-New Shenzhen, China (“ZTE Kangxun”) (collectively, “ZTE”), hereinafter the “March 23, 2017 Order.” Under the terms of the settlement, ZTE agreed to a record-high combined civil and criminal penalty of $1.19 billion, after engaging in a multi-year conspiracy to violate the U.S. trade embargo against Iran to obtain contracts to supply, build, operate, and maintain telecommunications networks in Iran using U.S.-origin equipment, and also illegally shipping telecommunications equipment to North Korea in violation of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774 (2017)) (“EAR” or the “Regulations”). ZTE also admitted to engaging in an elaborate scheme to hide the unlicensed transactions from the U.S. Government, by deleting, destroying, removing, or sanitizing materials and information.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the March 23, 2017 Order, BIS imposed against ZTE a civil penalty totaling $661,000,000, with $300,000,000 of that amount suspended for a probationary period of seven years from the date of the Order.
The Settlement Agreement and March 23, 2017 Order require that during the probationary period, ZTE is to, among other things, complete and submit six audit reports regarding ZTE's compliance with U.S. export control laws. The Settlement Agreement and March 23, 2017 Order also include a broad cooperation provision during the period of the suspended denial order. This cooperation provision specifically requires that ZTE make truthful disclosures of any requested factual information. The Settlement Agreement and March 23, 2017 Order thus, by their terms, essentially incorporate the prohibition set forth in Section 764.2(g) of the EAR against making any false or misleading representation or statement to BIS during, inter alia, the course of an investigation or other action subject to the EAR.
On February 2, 2018, acting pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and March 23, 2017 Order, BIS requested, among other things, that ZTE provide a status report on all individuals named or otherwise identified in two letters sent by ZTE, through its outside counsel, to the U.S. Government, dated November 30, 2016, and July 20, 2017, respectively. The status report was to include, among other things, current title, position, responsibilities, and pay and bonus information from March 7, 2017 to the present. The first of those two letters, dated November 30, 2016, was sent during BIS's investigation of the violations alleged in the Proposed Charging Letter and referenced in the Settlement Agreement and March 23, 2017 Order. In that letter, ZTE described “self-initiated” employee disciplinary actions it asserted that it had taken to date and additional actions that the company said it would take in the near future because they were “necessary to achieve the Company's goals of disciplining those involved and sending a strong message to ZTE employees about the Company's commitment to compliance.” The letter focused on ZTE's asserted commitment to compliance, including from the highest levels of management.
The July 20, 2017 letter, sent on ZTE's behalf during the March 23, 2017 Order's seven-year probationary period, also asserted ZTE's commitment to compliance and claimed that the disciplinary actions taken had sent a very strong message to ZTE employees. The letter was sent “to confirm that the measures detailed by ZTE with respect to discipline have been implemented” against nine named ZTE employees identified during the U.S. Government's investigation. The employee disciplinary actions—actions that ZTE told the U.S. Government that it had already taken—were in ZTE's words a showing of ZTE's “overall approach to discipline and commitment to compliance,” which the company described as “significant and sufficient to prevent past misconduct from occurring again at ZTE.” Nearly all of the employees named in the July 20, 2017 letter had been specifically identified to ZTE by the U.S. Government as individuals that U.S. law enforcement agents wanted to interview during the investigation, either because they were signatories on an internal ZTE memorandum discussing how to evade U.S. export controls, were identified on that memorandum as a “project core member” of that evasion scheme, and/or had met with ZTE's then-CEO to discuss means to continue evading U.S. law. Three were members of the “Contract Data Induction Team” involved in extensive efforts to destroy and conceal evidence described in more detail below and in the PCL.
In sum, through those two letters, ZTE informed the U.S. Government that the company had taken or would take action against 39 employees and officials that ZTE identified as having a role in the violations that led to the criminal plea agreement and the settlement agreements with BIS and the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. In fact, and as ZTE now admits, the letters of reprimand described in the November 30, 2016 letter were never issued until approximately a month after BIS's February 2, 2018 request for information, and all but one of the pertinent individuals identified in the November 30, 2016 or July 20, 2017 letters received his or her 2016 bonus.
On March 13, 2018, pursuant to Section 766.17(c) of the Regulations, BIS notified ZTE of a proposed activation of the sanctions conditionally-suspended under the Settlement Agreement and the March 23, 2017 Order, based on ZTE's false statements in its letters dated November 30, 2016 and July 20, 2017, respectively. The notice letter to ZTE also gave the company an opportunity to respond, which it did on March 16, 2018.
I have reviewed in detail ZTE's response. In its letter, ZTE confirmed the false statements and, as discussed further
In issuing the March 13, 2018 notice letter to ZTE, and in considering ZTE's response, I have taken into account the course of ZTE's dealings with the U.S. Government during BIS's multi-year investigation, which demonstrate a pattern of deception, false statements, and repeated violations. I note the multiple false and misleading statements made to the U.S. Government during its investigation of ZTE's violations of the Regulations, and the behavior and actions of ZTE since then. ZTE's July 20, 2017 letter is brimming with false statements in violation of § 764.2(g) of the Regulations, and is the latest in a pattern of the company making untruthful statements to the U.S. Government and only admitting to its culpability when compelled by circumstances to do so. That pattern can be seen in the November 30, 2016 letter, which falsely documented steps the company said it was taking and had taken, as well as in the 96 admitted evasion violations described in the PCL, which detailed the company's efforts to destroy evidence of its continued export control violations.
In agreeing to the Settlement Agreement and the imposition of the March 23, 2017 Order, ZTE admitted committing 380 violations of the Regulations as those violations were alleged in BIS's PCL. The PCL detailed an extensive conspiracy, including as laid out in a 2011 company memorandum drafted by ZTE Corporation's Legal Department and ratified by its then-CEO, to evade U.S. export control laws and facilitate unlicensed exports to Iran. During the conspiracy, ZTE leadership and staff employed multiple strategies in an attempt to conceal or obscure the true nature and extent of the company's role in the transactions and thereby facilitate its evasion of U.S. export controls, of which ZTE had detailed knowledge. As a result of the conspiracy, ZTE was able to obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts with and sales from Iranian entities to ship routers, microprocessors, and servers controlled under the Regulations for national security, encryption, regional security, and/or anti-terrorism reasons to Iran.
Of the 380 alleged and admitted violations, ZTE committed 96 evasion violations relating to its actions to obstruct and delay the U.S. Government's investigation.
ZTE also engaged in an elaborate scheme to prevent disclosure to the U.S. Government, and, in fact, to affirmatively mislead the Government, by deleting and concealing documents and information from the outside counsel and forensic accounting firm that ZTE had retained with regard to the investigation. Between January and March 2016, ZTE went so far as to form and operate a “Contract Data Induction Team” made up of ZTE employees tasked with destroying, removing, and sanitizing all materials concerning transactions or other activities relating to ZTE's Iran business that post-dated March 2012. ZTE required each of the team members to sign a non-disclosure agreement covering the ZTE transactions and activities the team was directed to hide from the U.S. Government, subject to a penalty of 1 million RMB (or approximately $150,000) payable to ZTE if it determined that a disclosure occurred.
It was with this backdrop in mind, as more fully alleged in the PCL, that the Settlement Agreement and the March 23, 2017 Order mandate that ZTE truthfully disclose, upon request, all factual information (not subject to certain privileges, which are inapplicable here), and that led BIS to make its February 2, 2018 request for information relating to the employee disciplinary actions stated in the November 30, 2016 and July 20, 2017 letters.
BIS has determined that the company's admission, in response to inquiries from BIS, that it made false statements to the U.S. Government during the probationary period under the Settlement Agreement and March 23, 2017 Order indicate that ZTE still cannot be relied upon to make truthful statements, even in the course of dealings with U.S. law enforcement agencies, and even with the prospect of the imposition of a $300 million penalty and/or a seven-year denial order. The provision of false statements to the U.S. Government, despite repeated protestations from the company that it has engaged in a sustained effort to turn the page on past misdeeds, is indicative of a company incapable of being, or unwilling to be, a reliable and trustworthy recipient of U.S.-origin goods, software, and technology. BIS is left to conclude that if the $892 million monetary penalty paid pursuant to the March 23, 2017 Order, criminal plea agreement, and settlement agreement with the Department of the Treasury did not induce ZTE to ensure it was engaging with the U.S. Government truthfully, an additional monetary penalty of up to roughly a third that amount ($300 million) is unlikely to lead to the company's reform.
The false statements ZTE made in the July 20, 2017 letter violate Section 764.2(g) of the Regulations and the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the March 23, 2017 Order, and thus violate the conditions of ZTE's probation under the Agreement and the Order. The false statements in the November 30, 2016 letter, made during the investigation, are pertinent and material in at least two ways.
I note that in its response to BIS's notice of proposed activation of suspended sanctions and in making its case for leniency, ZTE acknowledged that it had submitted false statements, but argued that it would have been irrational for ZTE to knowingly or intentionally mislead the U.S. Government in light of the seriousness of the suspended sanctions. The heart of its argument is the question, posed by the company in rhetorical fashion, asking “why would ZTEC risk paying another $300 million suspended fine and placement on the denied parties list, which would effectively destroy the Company, to avoid sending out employee letters of reprimand and deducting portions of employee bonuses?” ZTE argued that BIS should not act until the company completed an internal investigation so that ZTE could answer such questions.
ZTE has posed such questions not because additional investigation could render its false statements true, but in the hope of postponing action by the U.S. Government and ultimately avoiding or minimizing the consequences of its additional violations. Similarly, additional time to continue its investigation is unnecessary and irrelevant to the issue of whether the company violated the provision against giving false statements to BIS under Section 764.2(g) of the Regulations, and in violation of the Settlement Agreement and March 23, 2017 Order. The reasons that ZTE violated the EAR are red herrings to BIS's concern that the company has repeatedly made false statements to the U.S. Government—as the company has now repeatedly admitted. As recently as March 21, 2018, in a certification to the U.S. Government signed by ZTE Corporation's Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Acting Chief Compliance Officer, ZTE admitted that it “had not executed in full certain employee disciplinary measures that it had previously described in a letter to the U.S. government dated November 30, 2016, and there are inaccuracies in certain statements in the letter dated July 20, 2017.” Giving ZTE additional time to complete its internal investigation will not erase the company's most recent—in a series—of false statements to the U.S. Government.
Furthermore, ZTE's suggestion that it could or would not have made such a poor or irrational cost-benefit calculation, or otherwise assumed the risks involved, simply ignores the fact that throughout the U.S. Government's investigation ZTE has acted in ways that BIS would consider illogical and unwise. ZTE committed repeated violations of the Regulations and U.S. export control laws
Based on the totality of circumstances here, I have determined within my discretion that it is appropriate to activate the suspended denial order in full and to suspend the export privileges of ZTE for a period of seven years, until March 13, 2025.
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership,
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from a Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
This Order is effective immediately.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) for the period December 1, 2016, through November 30, 2017.
Applicable April 23, 2018.
Alice Maldonado or David Crespo, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4682 or (202) 482-3693, respectively.
On December 4, 2017, Commerce published in the
On April 12, 2018, Maverick withdrew its request for an administrative review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. The aforementioned withdrawal request was timely submitted, and no other interested party requested an administrative review of any company. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from Turkey covering the period December 1, 2016, through November 30, 2017.
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Notice of Application to amend the Export Trade Certificate of Review issued to Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc., Application No. 92-14A001.
The Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (“OTEA”) of the International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, received an application to amend an Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”). This notice summarizes the proposed amendment and requests comments relevant to whether the amended Certificate should be issued.
Joseph Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the
Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked as privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential.
An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 21028, Washington, DC 20230.
Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 92-14A001.”
The Aerospace Industries Association of America Inc. (“AIA”) original Certificate was issued on September 8, 1992 (57 FR 41920, September 14, 1992). A summary of the current application for an amendment follows.
1. Add the following companies as new Members of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(l) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(l)):
2. Delete the following companies as Members of AIA's Certificate:
3. Change in name or address for the following Members:
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of common alloy aluminum sheet (common alloy sheet) from the People's Republic of China (China). The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable April 23, 2018.
Yasmin Bordas, Lana Nigro, or John Anwesen, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3813, (202) 482-1779, or (202) 482-0131, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on December 4, 2017.
The product covered by this investigation is common alloy sheet from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
In accordance with section 703(e)(1) of the Act, Commerce preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of common alloy sheet from China for Chalco Ruimin Co., Ltd.; Chalco-SWA Cold Rolling Co., Ltd., and all other exporters or producers not individually examined. Commerce preliminarily determines that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to Yong Jie New Material Co., Ltd.; Henan Mingtai Industrial Co., Ltd.; and Zhengzhou Mingtai Industry Co., Ltd. For a full description of the methodology and results of Commerce's analysis,
As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce is aligning the final determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion AD investigation of common alloy sheet from China. Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than August 29, 2018, unless postponed.
Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Section 703(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Chalco Ruimin Co., Ltd.; Chalco-SWA Cold Rolling Co., Ltd., and all other exporters or producers not individually examined. In accordance with section 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise from the exporters/producers identified in this paragraph that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is aluminum common alloy sheet (common alloy sheet), which is a flat-rolled aluminum product having a thickness of 6.3 mm or less, but greater than 0.2 mm, in coils or cut-to-length, regardless of width. Common alloy sheet within the scope of the investigation includes both not clad aluminum sheet, as well as multi-alloy, clad aluminum sheet. With respect to not clad aluminum sheet, common alloy sheet is manufactured from a 1XXX-, 3XXX-, or 5XXX-series alloy as designated by the Aluminum Association. With respect to multi-alloy, clad aluminum sheet, common alloy sheet is produced from a 3XXX-series core, to which cladding layers are applied to either one or both sides of the core.
Common alloy sheet may be made to ASTM specification B209-14, but can also be made to other specifications. Regardless of specification, however, all common alloy sheet meeting the scope description is included in the scope. Subject merchandise includes common alloy sheet that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the common alloy sheet.
Excluded from the scope of the investigation is aluminum can stock, which is suitable for use in the manufacture of aluminum beverage cans, lids of such cans, or tabs used to open such cans. Aluminum can stock is produced to gauges that range from 0.200 mm to 0.292 mm, and has an H-19, H-41, H-48, or H-391 temper. In addition, aluminum can stock has a lubricant applied to the flat surfaces of the can stock to facilitate its movement through machines used in the manufacture of beverage cans. Aluminum can stock is properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7606.12.3045 and 7606.12.3055.
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 for the above.
Common alloy sheet is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 7606.11.3060, 7606.11.6000, 7606.12.3090, 7606.12.6000, 7606.91.3090, 7606.91.6080, 7606.92.3090, and 7606.92.6080. Further, merchandise that falls within the scope of these investigation may also be entered into the United States under HTSUS subheadings 7606.11.3030, 7606.12.3030, 7606.91.3060, 7606.91.6040, 7606.92.3060, 7606.92.6040, 7607.11.9090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This Exempted Fishing Permit would exempt one commercial fishing vessel from the Northeast multispecies minimum mesh size and minimum fish size regulations in support of gear research to target healthy haddock and redfish stocks.
Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits.
Comments must be received on or before May 8, 2018.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Spencer Talmage, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9232.
The Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI) submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) on March 20, 2018, in support of a 2016 Saltonstall-Kennedy Program project titled “Complementary testing of off-bottom trawls to target Georges Bank haddock.” The EFP would exempt one fishing vessel from minimum mesh size requirements at 50 CFR 648.80(a)(3)(ii) and temporarily exempt the vessel from minimum fish size requirements in 50 CFR part 648, subparts B and D through
The project would test the efficacy of an off-bottom trawl fitted with a small-mesh codend to access healthy haddock and redfish stocks while avoiding other groundfish stocks. Additional project objectives include the development of a fuel-efficient trawl that also reduces disruption to benthic habitat. One vessel, the F/V
The 4.5-inch (11.43-cm) diamond mesh codend was previously authorized for use in the redfish exempted fishery, through a regulatory exemption to sectors, based on the results of previous redfish selectivity research (REDNET). This exemption has been modified a number of times in order to balance the conservation requirements, and economic goals of the fishery. In fishing year 2017, a 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) mesh was authorized within the redfish exemption area. During the REDNET study, substantial catches of redfish with low levels of incidental catch or bycatch of regulated species were observed when using a 4.5-inch (11.43-cm) mesh codend. Under this EFP, testing of the net outfitted with the 4.5-inch (11.43-cm) mesh codend would only occur in the Redfish Exemption Area.
The square-mesh 5.1-inch (13.0-cm) codend was selected based on the Canadian haddock fishery, which uses a 5-inch (12.7-cm) square-mesh codend. The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans has also conducted studies on the selectivity of various mesh sizes. This codend mesh size has been approved for use in a previous EFP issued to Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc. Only a small number of trips were taken under that EFP, which limited the ability to produce statistically reliable results.
During Phase 1, the captain and crew of the F/V
In Phase 2, the off-bottom trawl would be evaluated during a 5-day controlled study on-board the F/V
Catch from the F/V
All trips would carry a GMRI sampler, an assigned at-sea observer, or an independently contracted data collection technician. In Phases 1 and 2, a GMRI sampler would be onboard to document the operational performance of the off-bottom trawl, and sample catch. In Phase 3, a GMRI sampler would be onboard the F/V
GMRI needs this exemption to allow them to conduct testing of a net configuration that is prohibited by the current regulations. If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permits and permit amendments.
Notice is hereby given that permits or permit amendments have been issued to the following entities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as applicable.
The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone: (301) 427-8401; fax: (301) 713-0376.
Jennifer Skidmore (Permit No. 21339), Erin Markin (Permit Nos. 21169 and 21301), Amy Hapeman (Permit No. 21367); Courtney Smith (Permit Nos. 16479-04 and 21059), Carrie Hubard (Permit Nos. 19655-01, 19703, and 20993), and Shasta McClenahan (Permit No. 21966) at (301) 427-8401.
Notices were published in the
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permit was based on a finding that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in Section 2 of the ESA.
The requested permits have been issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is proposing to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection, titled, “State Official Notification Rule—12 CFR 1082.”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before May 23, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Comments in response to this notice are to be directed towards OMB and to the attention of the OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included.
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
This is a routine request for OMB to renew its approval of the collections of information currently approved under this OMB control number. The Bureau is not proposing any new or revised collections of information pursuant to this request.
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 23, 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 Ashley Higgins, 202-453-6097.
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.
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Department of Energy.
Notice of extension.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) are extending the public scoping period for the
The public scoping period is extended until Friday, May 25, 2018. DOE and NYSERDA invite public comments on the scope of the SEIS for the West Valley Site. Comments must be submitted by May 25, 2018, to ensure consideration; late comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
Written comments on the scope of the SEIS, requests to be placed on the SEIS mailing list, and requests for information may be submitted by U.S. mail to the DOE Document Manager, Mr. Martin Krentz, West Valley Demonstration Project, U.S. Department of Energy, 10282 Rock Springs Road, AC-DOE, West Valley, New York 14171-9799, by email to
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, please be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available. If you wish for DOE to withhold your name and/or other personally identifiable information, please state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. You may also submit comments anonymously. Documents and information about the SEIS process are available online at the SEIS website at
For information regarding the West Valley Demonstration Project or the SEIS, contact Mr. Martin Krentz at the address given above; telephone: (716) 942-4007; or email:
The Notice of Intent (NOI) and draft scope for the SEIS for the West Valley Site was published in the
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB).
Notice.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 54,
The Statement is available on the FASAB website at
Ms. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 23, 2018.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
47 CFR 73.1212 requires a broadcast station to identify at the time of broadcast the sponsor of any matter for which consideration is provided. For advertising commercial products or services, generally the mention of the name of the product or service constitutes sponsorship identification. In the case of television political
47 CFR 73.1212(e) states that, when an entity rather than an individual sponsors the broadcast of matter that is of a political or controversial nature, the licensee is required to retain a list of the executive officers, or board of directors, or executive committee, etc., of the organization paying for such matter in its public file. Pursuant to the changes contained in 47 CFR 73.1212(e) and 47 CFR 73.3526(e)(19), this list, which could contain personally identifiable information, would be located in a public inspection file to be located on the Commission's website instead of being maintained in the public file at the station. Burden estimates for this change are included in OMB Control Number 3060-0214.
47 CFR 76.1615 states that, when a cable operator engaged in origination cablecasting presents any matter for which money, service or other valuable consideration is provided to such cable television system operator, the cable television system operator, at the time of the telecast, shall identify the sponsor. Under this rule section, when advertising commercial products or services, an announcement stating the sponsor's corporate or trade name, or the name of the sponsor's product is sufficient when it is clear that the mention of the name of the product constitutes a sponsorship identification. In the case of television political advertisements concerning candidates for public office, the sponsor shall be identified with letters equal to or greater than four (4) percent of the vertical height of the television screen that airs for no less than four (4) seconds.
47 CFR 76.1715 state that, with respect to sponsorship announcements that are waived when the broadcast/origination cablecast of “want ads” sponsored by an individual, the licensee/operator shall maintain a list showing the name, address and telephone number of each such advertiser. These lists shall be made available for public inspection.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 22, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Further, section 80.59(d) states that the Commission may, upon a finding that the public interest would be served, grant a waiver of the annual inspection required by section 362(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, for a period of not more than 90 days for the sole purpose of enabling the United States vessel to complete its voyage and proceed to a port in the United States where an inspection can be held. An information application must be submitted by the ship's owner, operator or authorized agent. The application must be submitted to the Commission's District Director or Resident Agent in charge of the FCC office nearest the port of arrival at least three days before the ship's arrival. The application must provide specific information that is in rule section 80.59.
Additionally, the Communications Act requires the inspection of small passenger ships at least once every five years.
The Safety Convention (to which the United States is a signatory) also requires an annual inspection.
The Commission allows FCC-licensed technicians to conduct these inspections. FCC-licensed technicians certify that the ship has passed an inspection and issue a safety certificate. These safety certificates, FCC Forms 806, 824, 827 and 829 indicate that the vessel complies with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended and the Safety Convention. These technicians are required to provide a summary of the results of the inspection in the ship's log that the inspection was satisfactory.
Inspection certificates issued in accordance with the Safety Convention must be posted in a prominent and accessible place on the ship (third party disclosure requirement).
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Federal Communications Commission announces that the charter for the Advisory Committee for the 2019 World Radio Conference (WRC-19 Advisory Committee) has been renewed by the General Services Administration (GSA) for a two-year period. The WRC-19 Advisory Committee is a federal advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Renewed for two years, starting April 6, 2018.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554.
Michael Mullinix, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), WRC-19 Advisory Committee, FCC International Bureau, Global Strategy and Negotiations Division, at (202) 418-0491. Email:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, this notice advises interested persons that the GSA renewed the charter of the WRC-19 Advisory Committee for two years, commencing April 6, 2018. Its scope of activities is to address issues contained in the agenda for the 2019 World Radio Conference (WRC-19). The WRC-19 Advisory Committee will continue to provide to the FCC advice, data, and technical analyses, and will formulate recommendations relating to the preparation of U.S. proposals and positions for WRC-19.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 22, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The purposes of the revision of OMB Control No. 3060-1063 are to reflect a slight decrease in the number of satellite operators and/or GMPCS equipment manufacturers and changes resulting from the elimination of Form 740. Specifically, the number of respondents changed from 19 to 17 due to a decrease in the number of satellite operators and/or GMPCS equipment manufacturers. As a result of the elimination of the Form 740, the total annual burden hours changed from 684 to 595 and the total annual costs decreased from $13,110 to zero.
The purpose of this information collection is to maintain OMB approval of a certification requirement for portable GMPCS transceivers to prevent interference, reduce radio-frequency (“RF”) radiation exposure risk, and make regulatory treatment of portable GMPCS transceivers consistent with treatment of similar terrestrial wireless devices, such as cellular phones.
The Commission is requiring that applicants obtain authorization for the equipment by submitting an application and exhibits, including test data. If the Commission did not obtain such information, it would not be able to ascertain whether the equipment meets the FCC's technical standards for operation in the United States. Furthermore, the data is required to ensure that the equipment will not cause catastrophic interference to other telecommunications services that may impact the health and safety of American citizens.
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 10, 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
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled
CDC must receive written comments on or before June 22, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0035 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 Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
National HIV Prevention Program Monitoring and Evaluation (NHM&E) (OMB Control Number 0920-0696, Expiration Date 02/28/2019)—Revision—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC seeks to request a three-year Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to revise the previously approved project and continue the collection of standardized HIV prevention program evaluation data from health departments and community-based organizations (CBOs) who receive federal funds for HIV prevention activities. Health department grantees have the options to key-enter or upload data to a CDC-provided web-based software application (EvaluationWeb®). CBO grantees may only key-enter data to the CDC-provided web-based software application.
This revision includes changes to the data variables to adjust to the different monitoring and evaluation needs of new funding announcements without a substantial change in burden.
The evaluation and reporting process is necessary to ensure that CDC receives standardized, accurate, thorough evaluation data from both health department and CBO grantees. For these reasons, CDC developed standardized NHM&E variables through extensive consultation with representatives from health departments, CBOs, and national partners (
CDC requires CBOs and health departments who receive federal funds for HIV prevention to report non-identifying, client-level and aggregate level, standardized evaluation data to: (1) Accurately determine the extent to which HIV prevention efforts are carried out, what types of agencies are providing services, what resources are allocated to those services, to whom services are being provided, and how these efforts have contributed to a reduction in HIV transmission; (2) improve ease of reporting to better meet these data needs; and (3) be accountable to stakeholders by informing them of
CDC HIV prevention program grantees will collect, enter or upload, and report agency-identifying information, budget data, intervention information, and client demographics and behavioral risk characteristics with an estimate of 207,186 burden hours, an increase from the previously approved, 206,226 burden hours. Data collection will include searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining data, document compilation, review of data, and data entry or upload into the web based system.
There are no additional costs to 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 the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled “Formative Research and Tool Development”.
CDC must receive written comments on or before June 22, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0036 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 Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Formative Research and Tool Development (OMB Control Number 0920-0840, Expiration Date 1/31/2019)—Extension—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP) requests approval for an approval of a three-year extension to the generic information collection plan titled “Formative Research and Tool Development.” CDC designed this information collection project to allow CDC's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP) to conduct formative research information collection activities used to inform many aspects of surveillance,
Formative research is the basis for developing effective strategies including communication channels, for influencing behavior change. It helps researchers identify and understand the characteristics—interests, behaviors and needs of target populations that influence their decisions and actions.
Formative research is integral in developing programs as well as improving existing and ongoing programs. Formative research also looks at the community in which a public health intervention is being or will be implemented and helps the project staff understand the interests, attributes and needs of different populations and persons in that community. Formative research is research that occurs before a program is designed and implemented, or while a program is being conducted.
NCHHSTP formative research is necessary for developing new programs or adapting programs that deal with the complexity of behaviors, social context, cultural identities, and health care that underlie the epidemiology of HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, STDs, and TB in the U.S. as well as for school and adolescent health.
CDC conducts formative research to develop public-sensitive communication messages and user friendly tools prior to developing or recommending interventions, or care. Sometimes these studies are entirely behavioral but most often they are cycles of interviews and focus groups designed to inform the development of a product.
Products from these formative research studies will be used for prevention of HIV/AIDS, Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI), viral Hepatitis, and Tuberculosis. Findings from these studies may also be presented as evidence to disease-specific National Advisory Committees, to support revisions to recommended prevention and intervention methods, as well as new recommendations.
Much of CDC's health communication takes place within campaigns that have fairly lengthy planning periods— timeframes that accommodate the standard Federal process for approving data collections. Short term qualitative interviewing and cognitive research techniques have previously proven invaluable in the development of scientifically valid and population-appropriate methods, interventions, and instruments.
This information collection approval request will include CDC studies to investigate the utility and acceptability of proposed sampling and recruitment methods, intervention contents and delivery, questionnaire domains, individual questions, and interactions with project staff or electronic data collection equipment. These activities will also provide information about how respondents answer questions and ways in which question response bias and error can be reduced.
This information collection approval request will also include collection of information from public health programs to assess needs related to initiation of a new program activity or expansion or changes in scope or implementation of existing program activities to adapt them to current needs. CDC will use the information collected to advise programs and provide capacity-building assistance tailored to identified needs.
Overall, these development activities are intended to provide information that will increase the success of the surveillance or research projects through increasing response rates and decreasing response error, thereby decreasing future data collection burden to the public. The studies that CDC will cover under this request will include one or more of the following investigational modalities: (1) Structured and qualitative interviewing for surveillance, research, interventions and material development; (2) cognitive interviewing for development of specific data collection instruments; (3) methodological research; (4) usability testing of technology-based instruments and materials; (5) field testing of new methodologies and materials; (6) investigation of mental models for health decision-making, to inform health communication messages; and (7) organizational needs assessments to support development of capacity.
Respondents who will participate in individual and group interviews (qualitative, cognitive, and computer assisted development activities) are selected purposively from those who respond to recruitment advertisements.
In addition to utilizing advertisements for recruitment, respondents who will participate in research on survey methods may be selected purposively or systematically from within an ongoing surveillance or research project. Participation of respondents is voluntary.
There is no cost to participants other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting for the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (BSC, NCEH/ATSDR). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by available seating. The meeting room accommodates approximately 60 people. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by calling 888-989-4501, passcode 9885805, limited by 100 lines. The deadline for notification of attendance is May 14, 2018. The public comment period is scheduled on June 5, 2018 from 2:30 p.m. until 2:45 p.m., EDT and June 6, 2018 from 10:10 a.m. until 10:25 a.m., EDT. Individuals wishing to make a comment during Public Comment period, please email your name, organization, and phone number by May 7, 2018 to Amanda Malasky at
The meeting will be held on June 5, 2018, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., EDT and June 6, 2018, 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., EDT.
CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, CDC Building 106, Room 1B, Atlanta, GA 30341.
Shirley Little, Program Analyst, NCEH/ATSDR, CDC, 4770 Buford Hwy., Mail Stop F-45, Atlanta, GA 30341, telephone (770) 488-0577; email
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; renewal of advisory committee.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the renewal of the Arthritis Advisory Committee by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that it is in the public interest to renew the Arthritis Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until April 5, 2020.
Authority for the Arthritis Advisory Committee will expire on April 5, 2020, unless the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public interest.
Yinghua Wang, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, email:
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 45 CFR part 11 and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Arthritis Advisory Committee (the Committee). The Committee is a discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner.
The Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective drugs for human use and, as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility.
The Committee reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of arthritis, rheumatism, and related diseases, and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner.
The Committee shall consist of a core of 11 voting members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities
Further information regarding the most recent charter and other information can be found at
This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory committees, please check
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 “Opioid Dependence: Developing Depot Buprenorphine Products for Treatment.” This draft guidance addresses drug development and trial design issues relevant to the study of depot buprenorphine products (
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by June 22, 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
Silvana Borges, Center for Drug
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Opioid Dependence: Developing Depot Buprenorphine Products for Treatment.” This draft guidance addresses drug development and trial design issues relevant to the study of depot buprenorphine products (
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 “Opioid Dependence: Developing Depot Buprenorphine Products for Treatment.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services is hereby giving notice that the National Advisory Committee on Children and Disasters (NACCD) and National Preparedness and Response Science Board (NPRSB) will hold a joint public teleconference on May 10, 2018.
The NACCD and NPRSB Teleconference is May 10, 2018, from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
We encourage members of the public to attend the teleconference. To register, send an email to
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), and section 2811A of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300hh-10a), as added by section 103 of the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-5), the HHS Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, established the NACCD. The purpose of the NACCD is to provide advice and consultation to the HHS Secretary with respect to the medical and public health needs of children in relation to disasters.
The NPRSB is authorized under Section 319M of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-7f), as added by section 402 of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act of 2006 and amended by section 404 of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act, and by Section 222 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 217a). The Board is governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. The NPRSB provides expert advice and guidance on scientific, technical, and other matters of special interest to the Department regarding current and future chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological agents, whether naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate.
We encourage members of the public to provide written comments that are relevant to the NACCD and NPRSB teleconference prior to May 10, 2018. Send written comments by email to
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAMS.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This document announces that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), is modifying and reopening the National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) test pertaining to the submission of certain import data and documents for commodities regulated by FWS (“FWS test”) through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). The modifications in this notice apply to the participation and discontinuation of participation in the test, submission options for test participants, and restrictions to the initial participation in the test. Except to the extent expressly announced or modified by this document, all aspects, rules, terms and conditions announced in a previous notice regarding the FWS test remain in effect.
As of May 23, 2018, the modifications to the FWS test will become operational. This test will continue until concluded by way of announcement in the
Comments concerning this notice and any aspect of this test may be submitted at any time during the test via email to Christopher Mabelitini, Trade Transformation Office, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection at (571) 468-5095 or
For Partner Government Agency (PGA)-related questions, contact Bill Scopa, Trade Policy and Programs, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection at (202) 863-6554 or
The National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) was established by Subtitle B of Title VI—Customs Modernization in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act (Customs Modernization Act) (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, 2170, December 8, 1993) (19 U.S.C. 1411). Through NCAP, the thrust of customs modernization was on trade compliance and the development of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), the planned successor to the Automated Commercial System (ACS) as the electronic data interchange (EDI) system authorized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). ACE is an automated and electronic system for commercial trade processing which is intended to streamline business processes, facilitate growth in trade, ensure cargo security, and foster participation in global commerce, while ensuring compliance with U.S. laws and regulations and reducing costs for CBP and all of its communities of interest. The ability to meet these objectives depends on successfully modernizing CBP's business functions and the information technology that supports those functions.
CBP's modernization efforts are accomplished through phased releases of ACE component functionality designed to replace specific legacy ACS functions and add new functionality. Section 101.9(b) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 101.9(b)) provides for the testing of NCAP components.
On May 5, 2016, CBP published a notice in the
This document announces the reopening of the FWS test with
The original test notice announced that a party seeking to participate in the test program had to send an email to its CBP client representative, Trade Transformation Office, Office of Trade (formerly known as ACE Business Office, Office of International Trade). This notice announces that applications to participate in the test program should be submitted by email to FWS at
The original notice was silent as to the discontinuation of participation in the test program. This notice announces that requests to discontinue participation in the test program should be submitted by email to FWS at
Under the original test program, test participants were required to submit the Declaration data electronically to ACE when filing an entry, using the PGA Message Set, and the participants had to refrain from filing the Declaration data and accompanying documents in eDecs. This notice announces that CBP established a design that provides participants with different filing options when submitting data, disclaimers or documents in ACE. Participants do not need to notify CBP or FWS about which option they plan on using. Participants may use different filing options for different entries.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
This test notice announces two restrictions to the initial participation in this reopened test program. Initially, participation will be restricted to certain FWS ports. FWS will notify participants of the ports they may use to enter commodities under the test procedures. In addition, initial participation in the test program will exclude entries of live and perishable commodities. Once FWS determines that a participant has fully tested its software for filing entries in ACE, FWS will notify the participant of its eligibility to file for entries of live and perishable commodities.
For purposes of this test, those provisions of 19 CFR parts 10 and 12 that are inconsistent with the terms of this test are waived for the test participants only.
To be eligible to apply for this test, the applicant must:
(1) Be a self-filing importer who has the ability to file ACE entry/cargo release and ACE Entry Summaries certified for cargo release or a broker who has the ability to file ACE entry/cargo release and ACE Entry Summaries certified for cargo release;
(2) File Declarations and disclaimers for FWS-regulated commodities; and
(3) Have an FWS eDecs filer account that contains the CBP filer code when filing under Option 1.
Test participants must meet all the eligibility criteria described in this document in order to participate in the test program.
As of April 23, 2018, FWS will accept applications throughout the duration of the test. FWS will notify the selected applicants by an email message of their selection and the starting date of their participation. Selected participants may have different starting dates. Anyone providing incomplete information, or otherwise not meeting participation requirements, will be notified by an email message and given the opportunity to resubmit the application. There is no limit on the number of participants.
The modifications announced in this test will become operational on May 23, 2018. At the conclusion of the test pilot, an evaluation will be conducted to assess the effect that the PGA Message
The collection of information contained in this FWS PGA Message Set test has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) and assigned OMB control number 1018-0012. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Inez C. Downs, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Downs.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond: including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Inez C. Downs, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Downs.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), invite the public to comment on applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), prohibits certain activities affecting endangered and threatened species unless that activity is covered under a Federal permit authorizing take of the species or authorizing otherwise prohibited activities. The ESA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
We must receive your written comments by May 23, 2018.
•
•
Colleen Henson, Recovery Permit Coordinator, Ecological Services, (503) 231-6131 (phone);
The Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
A permit issued by the Service under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancment of propagation of survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA 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.
We invite local, State, and Federal agencies, Tribes, and the public to comment on the following applications:
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—might be made publicly available at any time. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Please make your comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations.
If the Service decides to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
April 13, 2018.
Abu B. Kanu (202-205-2597), 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 (
Effective September 15, 2017, the Commission established a general schedule for the conduct of the final phase of its investigations on tool chests and cabinets,
The Commission's supplemental schedule is as follows: The deadline for filing supplemental party comments on Commerce's final determinations is April 23, 2018. The staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record and a public version will be issued thereafter. Supplemental party comments may address only Commerce's final determinations regarding imports of certain tool chests and cabinets from China and Vietnam. These supplemental final comments may not contain new factual information and may not exceed five (5) pages in length.
For further information concerning these investigations see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
April 16, 2018.
Keysha Martinez (202-205-2136), 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 (
Effective September 25, 2017, the Commission established a general schedule for the conduct of the final phase of its investigations on cold-drawn mechanical tubing from China, Germany, India, Italy, Korea, and Switzerland,
The Commission's supplemental schedule is as follows: The deadline for filing supplemental party comments on
Supplemental party comments may address only Commerce's final antidumping duty determinations regarding cold-drawn mechanical tubing from China, Germany, India, Italy, Korea, and Switzerland. These supplemental final comments may not contain new factual information and may not exceed five (5) pages in length.
For further information concerning these investigations see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-606 and 731-TA-1416 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of quartz surface products from China, provided for in subheading 6810.99.00 (statistical reporting number 6810.99.0010) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Government of China. Unless the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by June 1, 2018. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by June 8, 2018.
April 17, 2018.
Amanda Lawrence (202) 205-3185, 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 investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on February 20, 2018, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC of Bridgewater, New Jersey and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. of Canada. An amended complaint was filed on March 20, 2018. The complaint, as amended, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States or the sale after importation of certain clidinium bromide and products containing same by reason of unfair acts or methods of competition, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a general exclusion order, in the alternative a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.
The amended complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(A) of section 337 in the importation into the United States or the sale after importation of certain clidinium bromide and products containing same by reason of false advertising and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States;
(2) Notwithstanding any Commission Rules that would otherwise apply, the presiding Administrative Law Judge shall hold an early evidentiary hearing, find facts, and issue an early decision, as to whether the complainants have demonstrated an injury or threat of injury to an industry in the United States. Any such decision shall be in the form of an initial determination (ID). Petitions for review of such an ID shall be due five calendar days after service of the ID; any replies shall be due three business days after service of a petition. The ID will become the Commission's final determination 30 days after the date of service of the ID unless the Commission determines to review the ID. Any such review will be conducted in accordance with Commission Rules 210.43, 210.44, and 210.45, 19 CFR 210.43, 210.44, and 210.45. The Commission expects the issuance of an early ID relating to the requirement of an injury to an industry in the United States within 100 days of institution, except that the presiding ALJ may grant an extension of the ID of up to 50 days for good cause shown. The issuance of an early ID finding that complainants failed to demonstrate an injury or threat of injury to an industry in the United States shall stay the investigation unless the Commission orders otherwise; any other decision shall not stay the investigation or delay the issuance of a final ID covering the other issues of the investigation;
(3) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(4) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the amended complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(5) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the amended complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the amended complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the amended complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the amended complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the amended complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 9) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”), granting complainant's unopposed motion for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to correct the name of respondent Alcatel-Lucent Submarine Networks SAS to Alcatel Submarine Networks and withdrawal of the complaint as to respondents Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V., Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, and Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC.
Amanda Pitcher Fisherow, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on January 26, 2018, based on a complaint, as supplemented, filed on behalf of Neptune Subsea Acquisitions Ltd. of the United Kingdom; Neptune Subsea IP Ltd. of the United Kingdom; and Xtera, Inc. of Allen, Texas (“complainants”). 83 FR 3370 (Jan. 26, 2018). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain subsea telecommunication systems and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of U.S. Patent No. 8,380,068; U.S. Patent No. 7,860,403; U.S. Patent No. 8,971,171; U.S. Patent No. 8,351,798; and U.S. Patent No. 8,406,637. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by section 337. The Notice of Investigation named numerous respondents, including: Nokia Corporation of Espoo, Finland; Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V. of Hoofddorp, The Netherlands; Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy of Espoo, Finland; Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC of Phoenix, Arizona; and Alcatel-Lucent Submarine Networks SAS of Boulogne-Billancourt, France. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was named as a party in this investigation.
On March 8, 2018, complainants filed an unopposed motion to (1) amend the complaint and notice of investigation to correct the name of Alcatel-Lucent Submarine Networks SAS to Alcatel Submarine Networks and (2) withdraw the complaint as to Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V., Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, and Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC. Complainants note that complainants, Nokia Corporation, Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V., Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC, and Alcatel-Lucent Submarine Networks SAS entered into a joint stipulation concerning the subject matter of the investigation where Nokia Corporation, Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V., Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC, and Alcatel-Lucent Submarine Networks SAS represented that Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V., Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, and Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC do not sell, design, or manufacture the accused subsea telecommunication systems and components thereof; and
On March 19, 2018, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting complainants' motion. The ALJ found that good cause exists to amend the complaint and there is no evidence of any prejudice to the parties in the investigation. The ALJ found that no extraordinary circumstances prevent the partial termination of the investigation as to Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V., Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, and Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC. None of the parties petitioned for review of the subject ID.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before June 22, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on March 8, 2018, Cayman Chemical Company, 1180 East Ellsworth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture bulk controlled substances for use in product development of analytical reference standards for distribution to its customers.
The company will manufacture marihuana (7360) and tetrahydrocannabinols (7370) for use by their researchers under the above-listed controlled substances as Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) for clinical trials.
In reference to drug code (7370) the company plans to bulk manufacture a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol. No other activities for this drug code are authorized for this registration.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below.
All comments on the petitions must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before May 23, 2018.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(1) Nonpermissible electronic low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible electronic equipment will be limited to hand-held drill equipment.
(2) All other hand-held drill equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut will be permissible.
(3) Other hand-held drill equipment may be used if approved in advance by the MSHA District Manager.
(4) All nonpermissible low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible hand-held equipment to be used in or inby the last open crosscut will be examined prior to use by a certified person to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition.
(5) The results of the examinations will be recorded and retained for one year and made available to MSHA on request.
(6) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment in or inby the last open crosscut.
(7) Nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When methane is detected at such level while the nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and withdrawn outby the last open crosscut.
(8) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(9) Coal production will cease in the entry or crosscut where the nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment is in use. Accumulations of coal and combustible materials referenced in 30 CFR 75.400 will be removed before drilling begins to provide additional safety to miners.
(10) Nonpermissible electronic hand-held drill equipment will not be used when float coal dust is in suspension.
(11) All hand-held drill equipment will be used in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended safe use procedures.
(12) Qualified personnel who use nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of such equipment in areas where methane could be present.
(13) The nonpermissible electronic hand-held drill equipment will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all of the above terms and conditions.
(14) Cables supplying power to low-voltage hand-held drill equipment will only be used when permissible hand-held drill equipment is not available.
Within 60 days after the Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) becomes
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) Nonpermissible electronic low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible electronic equipment will be limited to hand-held drill equipment.
(2) All other hand-held drill equipment used in return airways will be permissible.
(3) Other hand-held drill equipment may be used if approved in advance by the MSHA District Manager.
(4) All nonpermissible low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible hand-held equipment to be used in return airways will be examined prior to use by a certified person to ensure equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition.
(5) The results of the examinations will be recorded and retained for one year and made available to MSHA on request.
(6) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment in return airways.
(7) Nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When methane is detected at such level while the nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and withdrawn out of return airways.
(8) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(9) Coal production will cease in the entry or crosscut where the nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment is in use. Accumulations of coal and combustible materials referenced in 30 CFR 75.400 will be removed before drilling begins to provide additional safety to miners.
(10) Nonpermissible electronic hand-held drill equipment will not be used when float coal dust is in suspension.
(11) All hand-held drill equipment will be used in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended safe use procedures.
(12) Qualified personnel who use nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of such equipment in areas where methane could be present.
(13) The nonpermissible electronic hand-held drill equipment will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all of the above terms and conditions.
(14) Cables supplying power to low-voltage hand-held drill equipment will only be used when permissible hand-held drill equipment is not available.
Within 60 days after the Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its Part 48 training plan to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions in the PDO.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) Nonpermissible electronic low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible electronic equipment will be limited to hand-held drill equipment.
(2) All other hand-held drill equipment used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces will be permissible.
(3) Other hand-held drill equipment may be used if approved in advance by the MSHA District Manager.
(4) All nonpermissible low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible hand-held equipment to be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces will be examined prior to use by a certified person to ensure equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition.
(5) The results of the examinations will be recorded and retained for one year and made available to MSHA on request.
(6) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.
(7) Nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When methane is detected at such level while the nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and withdrawn further than 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.
(8) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(9) Coal production will cease in the entry or crosscut where the nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment is in use. Accumulations of coal and combustible materials referenced in 30 CFR 75.400 will be removed before drilling begins to provide additional safety to miners.
(10) Nonpermissible electronic hand-held drill equipment will not be used when float coal dust is in suspension.
(11) All hand-held drill equipment will be used in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended safe use procedures.
(12) Qualified personnel who use nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of such equipment
(13) The nonpermissible electronic hand-held drill equipment will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all of the above terms and conditions.
(14) Cables supplying power to low-voltage hand-held drill equipment will only be used when permissible hand-held drill equipment is not available.
Within 60 days after the Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its Part 48 training plan to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions in the PDO.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) Nonpermissible electronic low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible electronic equipment will be limited to hand-held drill equipment.
(2) All other hand-held drill equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut will be permissible.
(3) Other hand-held drill equipment may be used if approved in advance by the MSHA District Manager.
(4) All nonpermissible low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible hand-held equipment to be used in or inby the last open crosscut will be examined prior to use by a certified person to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition.
(5) The results of the examinations will be recorded and retained for one year and made available to MSHA on request.
(6) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment in or inby the last open crosscut.
(7) Nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When methane is detected at such level while the nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and withdrawn outby the last open crosscut.
(8) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(9) Coal production will cease in the entry or crosscut where the drill is in use. Accumulations of coal and combustible materials referenced in 30 CFR 75.400 will be removed before drilling begins to provide additional safety to miners.
(10) Nonpermissible electronic hand-held drill equipment will not be used when float coal dust is in suspension.
(11) All hand-held drill equipment will be used in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended safe use procedures.
(12) Qualified personnel who use nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of such equipment in areas where methane could be present.
(13) The nonpermissible electronic hand-held drill equipment will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all of the above terms and conditions.
(14) Cables supplying power to low-voltage hand-held drill equipment will only be used when permissible hand-held drill equipment is not available.
Within 60 days after the Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its Part 48 training plan to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions in the PDO.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) Nonpermissible electronic low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible electronic equipment will be limited to hand-held drill equipment.
(2) All other hand-held drill equipment used in return airways will be permissible.
(3) Other hand-held drill equipment may be used if approved in advance by the MSHA District Manager.
(4) All nonpermissible low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible hand-held equipment to be used in return airways will be examined prior to use by a certified person to ensure equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition.
(5) The results of the examinations will be recorded and retained for one year and made available to MSHA on request.
(6) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment in return airways.
(7) Nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When methane is detected at such level while the nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and withdrawn out of return airways.
(8) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(9) Coal production will cease in the entry or crosscut where the drill is in use. Accumulations of coal and combustible materials referenced in 30 CFR 75.400 will be removed before drilling begins to provide additional safety to miners.
(10) Nonpermissible electronic hand-held drill equipment will not be used when float coal dust is in suspension.
(11) All hand-held drill equipment will be used in accordance with the
(12) Qualified personnel who use nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of such equipment in areas where methane could be present.
(13) The nonpermissible electronic hand-held drill equipment will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all of the above terms and conditions.
(14) Cables supplying power to low-voltage hand-held drill equipment will only be used when permissible hand-held drill equipment is not available.
Within 60 days after the Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its Part 48 training plan to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions in the PDO.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) Nonpermissible electronic low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible electronic equipment will be limited to hand-held drill equipment.
(2) All other hand-held drill equipment used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces will be permissible.
(3) Other hand-held drill equipment may be used if approved in advance by the MSHA District Manager.
(4) All nonpermissible low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible hand-held equipment to be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces will be examined prior to use by a certified person to ensure equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition.
(5) The results of the examinations will be recorded and retained for one year and made available to MSHA on request.
(6) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.
(7) Nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When methane is detected at such level while the nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and withdrawn further than 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.
(8) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(9) Coal production will cease in the entry or crosscut where the drill is in use. Accumulations of coal and combustible materials referenced in 30 CFR 75.400 will be removed before drilling begins to provide additional safety to miners.
(10) Nonpermissible electronic hand-held drill equipment will not be used when float coal dust is in suspension.
(11) All hand-held drill equipment will be used in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended safe use procedures.
(12) Qualified personnel who use nonpermissible hand-held drill equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of such equipment in areas where methane could be present.
(13) The nonpermissible electronic hand-held drill equipment will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all of the above terms and conditions.
(14) Cables supplying power to low-voltage hand-held drill equipment will only be used when permissible hand-held drill equipment is not available.
Within 60 days after the Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its Part 48 training plan to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions in the PDO.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below.
All comments on the petitions must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before May 23, 2018.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(1) The proposed alternative safety measures place the primary focus on facilitating escape and emphasize survivable refuge as a last resort. The utilization of SCBS along with ChargeAir Filling Stations provides the best opportunity for mine evacuation due to the SCBS making verbal communication possible and eliminating potential hazards that exist within transfer between Self-Contained Self Rescuers (SCSRs).
(2) If mine escape is not possible, the utilization of a centrally located BIP RA as last resort provides the best opportunity for survival due to its inherent advantages. Utilizing a borehole to the surface to supply continuous fresh air to trapped miners, the BIP RA is able to maintain a superior environment, as compared to portable RAs. The result is an improved psychological and physiological environment that can be advantageous to the health and safety of miners in the stress of an emergency. The location and construction of the BIP RA has a higher likelihood of avoiding damage from both primary and secondary explosions that often occur at the face area. The communication system to the BIP RA has a higher likelihood of surviving a disaster because it is protected inside the borehole to the surface and behind the structure walls.
(3) Mine No. 1 extracts coal from the Herrin No. 6 coal seam by both continuous mining and longwall extraction methods. The average mining height at Mine No. 1 is approximately 8.5 feet. Mine No. 1 utilizes both SCSRs and SCBAs which are approved by MSHA and/or NIOSH. These devices include the Ocenco M-20 SCSR, Ocenco EBA 6.5 SCSR, CSE Self Rescuer Long Duration (SLRD) SCSR, and the Dräger PAS Lite® SCBA. The breathable air units are provided in the underground mine workings as follows:
The petitioners request for modification of the application of 30 CFR 75.1506 will be conditioned upon compliance with the following:
The BIP RA will provide a minimum of 60 cubic feet of volume per person and a minimum of 15 square feet of floor space per person.
a. The ChargeAir Filling Station is an automatic cascading refill system that is
b. The ChargeAir Filling Station utilizes specialized valves that allow for the cascading process to be done automatically with no need for the user to open and close storage cylinder valves. Typically cascading is done with a user manually opening and closing valves at a control panel. The sequence in which the banks are opened is very important. If the wrong bank of cylinders is opened, the number of SCBA's that can be refilled will be fewer than anticipated. Draeger has made the ChargeAir Filling Station an automatic cascade system to help eliminate errors by removing the human factor in this process.
c. Once the user has donned their SCBA they proceed to exit the mine. The ChargeAir Filling Station is pressurized at all times while underground making it ready for use at any moment. When the SCBA user arrives at the ChargeAir Filling Station, they access the control panel and open the main pressure valve. Once the valve is opened, high pressure air is sent to all of the refill lines. The user grasps an individual refill line and connects it to their SCBA. The SCBA is instantly recharged.
d. The user then disconnects from the ChargeAir Filling Station and proceeds to the next ChargeAir Filling Station, replenishing their 60-minute SCBA air supply. This refilling of the users SCBA is repeated along the escapeways until the SCBA user exits the mine.
e. In an emergency situation when visibility is minimal and the atmosphere is toxic, changing out escape equipment becomes increasingly difficult. With the Dräger PAS Lite® SCBA refill system, the units are not exchanged during an escape, but rather recharged while donned and miners are breathing clean air.
f. An SCBA utilizes a positive pressure system, which means that breathing air flows into the face piece upon each inhalation. In addition, the air is cool due to the expansion from compression.
g. Wearing a full face mask makes verbal communication possible, which is very important in an emergency.
h. The system removes the potential hazards that exist within transfer between SCSRs and the potential hazards created by use of a negative pressure system.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) The proposed towing system will only apply to vehicles with a “fail safe” braking system and emergency steering capabilities.
(2) The tow ropes used to tow a disabled vehicle will be a minimum of 3
(3) Radio communications between the towed and the towing vehicles must be maintained at all time when the vehicles are moving. The towed vehicle driver must be able to see at least 10 feet in front of the vehicle. Towing speed will not exceed 5 miles per hour.
(4) The engine driven hydraulic “power pack” will be adequately designed to supply the correct hydraulic pressure recommended by the towed vehicle manufacturer. The power pack will be securely mounted to the towed vehicle as to not impede the operation of the vehicle or pose safety hazards such as a broken hydraulic line or exhaust fumes that may enter the operator's compartment. The power pack will not impede the ability to exit the vehicle quickly.
(5) The power pack will operate at all times when the vehicle is being towed to maintain normal braking and steering functions. The power pack must be examined prior to each use by a qualified mechanic trained to perform the examination.
(6) Prior to towing operation, testing of the brakes and steering will be performed at a protected location. The test must include fully pressurizing the air system to assure the brakes function properly and depleting the air system to assure the “fail safe” brakes reapply at the proper pressures.
(7) All qualified mechanics will be trained to perform the installation of the power pack and to recognize conditions that would prohibit use of the power pack to tow a vehicle.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) The Hutchinson Salt Mine maintains an electrical system throughout the mine. That system includes the use of underground transformer stations where the voltage coming into the mine is stepped down for use of the electrical equipment in the mine.
(2) Petitioner proposes to use an LBU II Loadbreaker fuse cutouts as disconnects at each underground transformer station on the incoming sides of the transformers.
(3) There are approximately 20 transformers throughout the underground portion of the mine. These areas are accessed as needed for maintenance purposes. This condition exposes persons to fatal electrical hazards.
(4) The petitioner currently has a means to disconnect the 480-volt power at the output side of the step down transformers in the mine. The petitioner
(5) The petitioner proposes the following alternative method to be utilized.
(a) Petitioner will install LBU II Loadbreaker fuse cutouts at each transformer station underground (branch power station) where feasible as a means of disconnecting the 2,300-volt power supply.
(b) Such cutouts will be installed at least 9 feet above the mine floor in the open air. It will be possible to operate such switches from the mine floor.
(c) A properly rated hot stick will be utilized to break the fuse under load if necessary.
(d) The miner using such hot stick will utilize appropriate Personal Protective Equipment.
(e) If it becomes necessary to lock and tag out the Loadbreaker cutouts, appropriate procedures will be utilized, including, either disabling the hot stick with a lockout device covering the hook or removing the fuse cutouts from their holders and locking them in a box.
(f) Within 60 days after the Proposed Decision and Order becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plan to the District Manager for the area in which the mine is located. These proposed revisions will specify task training for miners designated to perform electrical work under the requirements of this petition.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, and the President's 2004 U.S. Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Policy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Advisory Board.
Wednesday, May 16, 2018, 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and Thursday, May 17, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., Local Time.
Sheraton Inner Harbor in Baltimore, Harborview Ballroom, 300 South Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21201.
Mr. James J. Miller, Designated Federal Officer, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-4417, fax (202) 358-4297, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitor's register.
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Submission for OMB review, comment request.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services announces the following information collection has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. This notice proposes the clearance of the IMLS National Medals Nomination forms and instructions.
A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
OMB is particularly interested in comments that help the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Dr. Sandra Webb, Director of Grant Policy and Management, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024-2135. Dr. Webb can be reached by Telephone: 202-653-4718 Fax: 202-653-4608, or by email at
The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the nation's libraries and museums. We advance, support, and empower America's museums, libraries, and related organizations through grant making, research, and policy development. Our vision is a nation where museums and libraries work together to transform the lives of individuals and communities. To learn more, visit
The National Medals are designed to recognize outstanding libraries and museums that have made significant contributions in service to improve the wellbeing of their communities. These institutions exceed expected levels of community outreach beyond a single program or exhibit by building community cohesion and serving as catalysts for positive community change. Nominees should review the IMLS strategic plan (
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License renewal application; withdrawal by applicant.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted the request of Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E or the licensee) to withdraw its application, and all associated correspondence and commitments, dated November 23, 2009, for license renewal of Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82, respectively). The license renewal application had requested 20 additional years of operation for DCPP, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. By withdrawing the license renewal application, the current operating licenses will expire on November 2, 2024, for DCPP Unit No. 1, and on August 26, 2025, for Unit No. 2.
The effective date of the withdrawal of the license renewal application is April 23, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2009-0052 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Elaine Keegan, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8517; email:
The licensee submitted its application for license renewal for DCPP, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, on November 23, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML093340086). DCPP, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, are located in San Luis Obispo County, California, approximately 7 miles northwest of Avila Beach and 12 miles west-southwest of San Luis Obispo. On April 10, 2011, PG&E requested the deferral of a final decision on the license renewal application until seismic studies and a report addressing the results of those studies were completed (ADAMS Accession No. ML111010592).
The NRC staff issued a safety evaluation report on June 2, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11153A103),
The NRC staff resumed the review of the license renewal application after PG&E submitted the annual update for the application on December 22, 2014 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML14364A259). Subsequently, on June 21, 2016, PG&E requested that the NRC staff suspend the license renewal review (ADAMS Accession No. ML16175A561). At that time, PG&E also requested approval from the California Public Utilities Commission not to proceed with license renewal. The NRC staff suspended the license renewal review in July 2016. On January 11, 2018, the California Public Utilities Commission approved PG&E's proposal to close DCPP, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, when its current licenses expire. By letter dated March 7, 2018, PG&E requested withdrawal of its license renewal application, including all associated correspondence and commitments, for DCPP, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18066A937).
Pursuant to the requirements in part 2 of title 10 of the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service will rezone Inbound Mail from APO/FPO/DPO ZIP Codes to coordinate the Origin/Destination ZIP Codes with the designated International Service Centers (ISC) through which each originating ZIP Code dispatches mail.
Direct questions or comments to Kimberly G. Forehan by email at
Effective with the ZIP Code Zone Charts update on June 1, 2018, Inbound Mail from APO/FPO/DPO ZIP Codes will be rezoned to coordinate the Origin/Destination ZIP Codes with the designated International Service Centers (ISC) through which each originating ZIP Code dispatches mail. This means that mail being sent from the various APO/FPO/DPO ZIP codes will be realigned so that both outbound and inbound ZIPs will be paired with the areas they serve. The US Postal Service refers to these relationships as “reciprocal” or “retrograde” pairs. This is a change from the current process where Pacific ZIP Codes are zoned through the San Francisco ISC and the European ZIP Codes are zoned through the JFK ISC. After June 1, 2018, each of the five ISCs will be aligned with reciprocal pairs for inbound mail from APO/FPO/DPO ZIP Codes. This will result in a more accurate pricing model for Military customers mailing items back to the United States.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 206(3)-2, (17 CFR 275.206(3)-2,) which is entitled “Agency Cross Transactions for Advisory Clients,” permits investment advisers to comply with section 206(3) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80b-6(3)) by obtaining a client's blanket consent to enter into agency cross transactions (
The information requirements of the rule consist of the following: (1) Prior to obtaining the client's consent, appropriate disclosure must be made to the client as to the practice of, and the conflicts of interest involved in, agency cross transactions; (2) at or before the completion of any such transaction, the client must be furnished with a written confirmation containing specified information and offering to furnish upon request certain additional information; and (3) at least annually, the client must be furnished with a written statement or summary as to the total number of transactions during the period covered by the consent and the total amount of commissions received by the adviser or its affiliated broker-dealer attributable to such transactions.
The Commission estimates that approximately 426 respondents use the rule annually, necessitating about 50 responses per respondent each year, for a total of 21,300 responses. Each response requires an estimated 0.5 hours, for a total of 10,650 hours. The estimated average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or representative survey or study of the cost of Commission rules and forms.
This collection of information is found at (17 CFR 275.206(3)-2) and is necessary in order for the investment adviser to obtain the benefits of Rule 206(3)-2, The collection of information requirements under the rule is mandatory. Information subject to the disclosure requirements of Rule 206(3)-2 does not require submission to the Commission; and, accordingly, the disclosure pursuant to the rule is not kept confidential.
Commission-registered investment advisers are required to maintain and preserve certain information required under Rule 206(3)-2 for five (5) years. The long-term retention of these records
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 control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to delete the rules related to the Consolidated Audit Trail (“CAT Rules”) currently under Chapter IX, Sections 8 and 9 of Nasdaq's Options Rules, as further described below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to delete the CAT Rules currently under Nasdaq's Options Rules, Chapter IX, Sections 8 and 9 because these rules are already located in General 7, entitled “Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance,” under the “General Equity and Options Rules” in the Exchange's rulebook's shell structure.
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 proposed changes as discussed above do not impose a burden on competition because they are non-substantive and are intended to clarify the Exchange's rulebook in order to eliminate any potential confusion.
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 proposed rule change
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change consists of proposed modifications to the DTC Reorganizations Guide and the DTC Redemptions Guide to make clarifying changes and provide enhanced transparency within DTC's Procedures relating to the processing of transactions in MMI Securities in DTC's MMI Program, as discussed below.
When an issuer of MMI Securities (“Issuer”) issues MMI Securities at DTC, the Issuing and Paying Agent (“IPA”) for that Issuer sends issuance instructions to DTC electronically, which results in crediting the applicable MMI Securities to the DTC Account of the IPA. These MMI Securities are then Delivered to the Accounts of applicable Participants that are purchasing the issuance of MMI Securities in accordance with their purchase amounts. These purchasing Participants typically include broker/dealers or banks, acting as custodians for institutional investors. The IPA Delivery instructions may be free of payment or, most often, Delivery Versus Payment. Deliveries of MMI Securities are processed pursuant to the same Rules and the applicable Procedures set forth in the Settlement Guide, as are Deliveries generally, whether free or versus payment. Delivery Versus Payment transactions are subject to risk management controls of the IPA and Receiving Participants for Net Debit Cap and Collateral Monitor sufficiency,
In 2017, DTC implemented rule changes (“2017 Changes”) relating to the processing of MMI Securities to improve the efficiency and reduce risks associated with the processing of transactions in MMI Securities, as described in the rule filing pursuant to which the 2017 Changes were implemented.
While the Rules and Procedures governing the processing of transactions in MMI Securities are primarily contained in the Rules
The proposed rule change would make clarifying changes to the Reorganizations Guide and Redemptions Guide to add text similar to that included in the Distributions Guide
As mentioned above, provisions governing the processing of transactions in MMI Securities are primarily contained in the Rules and Settlement Guide. The Redemptions Guide currently contains provisions relating to the processing of maturity events for non-MMI Securities and does not contain text relating to the processing of maturities of MMI Securities. In order to provide (i) enhanced clarity for Participants, and (ii) a point of reference within the Redemptions Guide, with respect to processing of transactions in maturing MMI Securities, the proposed rule change would amend the Redemptions Guide to (a) add a brief description of Maturity Presentments and the processing of transactions relating to them, (b) add a brief description of the “Settlement User Interface,” which is used by Participants to submit input and inquiries relating to the processing of transactions in MMI Securities in accordance with the Settlement Guide,
In this regard, the following text would be added to a new section of the Redemptions Guide that would be titled “Maturity Presentments for MMI Issues,” as follows:
A “Maturity Presentment” is a Delivery Versus Payment (as defined in Rule 1) of matured money market instruments (MMI Securities) from the account of a presenting Participant to a designated paying agent account for that issue and is subject to, and is processed in accordance with, Rule 9(A), Rule 9(B), Rule 9(C) of DTC and the Procedures set forth in the DTC Settlement Service Guide. Maturity
As mentioned above, provisions governing the processing of transactions in MMI Securities are primarily contained in the Rules
In this regard, the following text would be added to a new section of the Reorganizations Guide that would be titled “Reorganization Presentments for MMI Issues,” as follows:
A “Reorganization Presentment” is a Delivery Versus Payment (as defined in Rule 1) of money market instruments (MMI Securities) in response to a reorganization action from the account of a presenting Participant to a designated paying agent account for that issue, and is subject to, and is processed in accordance with Rule 9(A), Rule 9(B), Rule 9(C) of DTC and the Procedures set forth in the Settlement Service Guide. Reorganization Presentments are not attempted for processing until the issuer's issuing and paying agent (IPA) makes a funding decision in the form of an “MMI Funding Acknowledgment.” Once a funding decision is made items will be processed subject to risk controls and the sufficient inventory of the relevant Participants. IPAs and other Participants may submit input and inquiries relating to processing of transactions in MMI Securities through the Settlement User Interface. See the DTC Settlement Service Guide, available at
The proposed rule change would become effective upon filing with the Commission.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed rule change would merely clarify and provide enhanced transparency with respect to the processing of transactions in MMI Securities by adding text to the Redemptions Service Guide and the Reorganizations Service Guide that is consistent with existing provisions set forth in the Rules and the Settlement Guide, as described above.
Written comments relating to this proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by DTC.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form
(
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17g-3 contains certain reporting requirements for NRSROs including financial statements and information concerning its financial condition that the Commission, by rule, may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors. Currently, there are 10 credit rating agencies registered as NRSROs with the Commission. The Commission estimates that the total burden for respondents to comply with Rule 17g-3 is 3,650 hours.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Background documentation for this information collection may be viewed at the following website:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.
Rule 17f-6 (17 CFR 270.17f-6) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) permits registered investment companies (“funds”) to maintain assets (
The rule requires a written contract that contains certain provisions designed to ensure important safeguards and other benefits relating to the custody of fund assets by FCMs. To protect fund assets, the contract must require that FCMs comply with the segregation or secured amount requirements of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and the rules under that statute. The contract also must contain a requirement that FCMs obtain an acknowledgment from any clearing organization that the fund's assets are held on behalf of the FCM's customers according to CEA provisions.
Because rule 17f-6 does not impose any ongoing obligations on funds or FCMs, Commission staff estimates there are no costs related to
Thus, Commission staff estimates that any burden of the rule would be borne by funds and FCMs entering into
Based on conversations with fund representatives, Commission staff understands that fund complexes typically enter into contracts with FCMs on behalf of all funds in the fund complex that engage in commodities transactions. Funds covered by the contract are typically listed in an attachment, which may be amended to encompass new funds. Commission staff estimates that the burden for a fund complex to enter into a contract with an FCM that contains the contract requirements of rule 17f-6 is one hour, and further estimates that the burden to add a fund to an existing contract between a fund complex and an FCM is 6 minutes.
Accordingly, Commission staff estimates that funds and FCMs spend 49 burden hours annually complying with the information collection requirements of rule 17f-6.
Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on the rule. 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 control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days after this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15g-5 requires brokers and dealers to disclose to customers the amount of compensation to be received by their sales agents in connection with penny stock transactions. The purpose of the rule is to increase the level of disclosure to investors concerning penny stocks generally and specific penny stock transactions.
The Commission estimates that approximately 195 broker-dealers will spend an average of 87 hours annually to comply with the rule. Thus, the total compliance burden is approximately 16,965 burden-hours per year.
Written 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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15g-6 requires brokers and dealers that sell penny stocks to provide their customers monthly account statements containing information with regard to the penny stocks held in customer accounts. The purpose of the rule is to increase the level of disclosure to investors concerning penny stocks
The Commission estimates that approximately 195 broker-dealers will spend an average of 78 hours annually to comply with this rule. Thus, the total compliance burden is approximately 15,210 burden-hours per year.
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to delete the rules related to the Consolidated Audit Trail (“CAT Rules”) currently under Chapter IX, Sections 8 and 9 of BX's Options Rules, as further described below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to delete the CAT Rules currently under BX's Options Rules, Chapter IX, Sections 8 and 9 because these rules are already located in General 7, entitled “Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance,” under the “General Equity and Options Rules” in the Exchange's rulebook's shell structure.
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 proposed changes as discussed above do not impose a burden on competition because they are non-substantive and are intended to clarify the Exchange's rulebook in order to eliminate any potential confusion.
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
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.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.
Rule 23c-1(a) under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.23c-1(a)) permits a closed-end fund to repurchase its securities for cash if, in addition to the other requirements set forth in the rule, the following conditions are met: (i) Payment of the purchase price is accompanied or preceded by a written confirmation of the purchase (“written confirmation”); (ii) the asset coverage per unit of the security to be purchased is disclosed to the seller or his agent (“asset coverage disclosure”); and (iii) if the security is a stock, the fund has, within the preceding six months, informed stockholders of its intention to purchase stock (“six month notice”). Commission staff estimates that 91 closed-end funds undertake a total of 364 repurchases annually under rule 23c-1.
In addition, the fund must file with the Commission a copy of any written solicitation to purchase securities given by or on behalf of the fund to 10 or more persons. The copy must be filed as an exhibit to Form N-CSR (17 CFR 249.331and 274.128).
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
Complying with the collection of information requirements of the rule is mandatory. The filings that the rule requires to be made with the Commission are available to the public. 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 control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 02/72-0557 issued to Mercury Capital, L.P. said license is hereby declared null and void.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 01/01-0396 issued to Seacoast Capital Partners II, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and void.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to June 22, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The DS-261 allows the beneficiary of an approved and current immigrant visa petition to provide the Department with his or her current address, which will be used for communications with the beneficiary. The DS-261 also allows the beneficiary to appoint an agent to receive mailings from the National Visa Center (NVC) and assist in the filing of various application forms and/or paying the required fees. The beneficiary is not required to appoint an agent but must provide current contact information. All cases will be held at NVC until the DS-261 is electronically submitted to the Department.
Applicants will complete the form online and submit it electronically to the Department.
Alliance Terminal Railroad, LLC (ATR) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 subpart F-
ATR has certified that: (1) It has handled no local or overhead traffic over the Line for at least two years; (2) any overhead traffic on the Line can be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of a rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line is pending either with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of a complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication) and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
The verified notice states that the Line “constitutes the entirety of ATR's past operations.” Where, as here, the carrier is discontinuing service over its entire system, the Board does not normally impose labor protection under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), unless the evidence indicates the existence of: (1) A corporate affiliate that will continue substantially similar rail operations; or (2) a corporate parent that will realize substantial financial benefits over and above relief from the burden of deficit operations by its subsidiary railroad.
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA)
A copy of any petition filed with Board should be sent to ATR's representative, Bradon J. Smith, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that FHWA will submit the collection of information described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The
Please submit comments by May 23, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID 2018-0027 by any of the following methods:
Jeff Purdy, 202-366-6993, Office of Freight Management & Operations (HOFM-1), Office of Operations, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
State Departments of Transportation = 50 (4 hours each) = up to 200 hours;
State Enforcement Personnel = 50 (1 hour each) = up to 50 hours;
Private Facility Owners/Operators = 229 (1 hour each) = up to 229 hours; and
Trucking Company Representatives and Drivers = 150 (1 hour each) = up to 150 hours;
Total number of respondents = 479 for the survey.
Total burden hours = no more than 629 hours (as allocated above).
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Notice of draft Safety Advisory; request for comment.
This document provides notice of FRA's intent to issue a Safety Advisory addressing railroad operations under temporary signal suspensions. The Safety Advisory would identify existing industry best practices railroads utilize when implementing temporary signal suspensions and would recommend that railroads conducting rail operations under temporary signal suspensions develop and implement procedures and practices consistent with the identified best practices. The Safety Advisory would also recommend that railroads take certain other actions to ensure the safety of railroad operations during temporary signal suspensions. FRA believes that actions consistent with the draft Safety Advisory will reduce the risk of serious injury or death both to railroad employees and members of the public. FRA invites public comment on all aspects of the draft Safety Advisory.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the draft Safety Advisory provided below on or before June 22, 2018.
Comments in response to this notice may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Douglas Taylor, Staff Director, Operating Practices, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 493-6255; or Carolyn Hayward-Williams, Staff Director, Signal & Train Control Division, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 493-6399.
A review of FRA's accident/incident data shows that overall, rail transportation, both passenger and freight, is safe. However, recent rail accidents occurring in areas where a railroad has temporarily suspended the signal system, typically for purposes of maintenance, repair, or installation of additional components for a new or existing system, demonstrate that rail operations during the signal suspension present increased safety risks. Further, these accidents show that if the increased risks associated with rail operations under a temporary signal suspension are not addressed, serious unsafe conditions and practices are introduced into rail transportation.
Most recently, on February 4, 2018, both the engineer and conductor of National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Train P09103 were killed and 115 passengers injured,
While the cause of the February 4, 2018, accident has not yet been determined, FRA's preliminary investigation indicates that despite the CSX train crew reporting to the train dispatcher that the switch was lined correctly, the crew did not restore the main track switch to its normal position as required by Federal regulation (49 CFR 218.105) and CSX's own operating rules. Instead, it appears the crew left the switch misaligned in the reverse position (
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating this accident under its legal authority. 49 U.S.C. 1101
As noted in the NTSB Report, a similar accident occurred on March 14, 2016, near Granger, Wyoming, when at 9:41 p.m., a westbound Union Pacific Railroad (UP) freight train (Train KG1LAC-13) traveled from the main track through a switch into a controlled siding and collided head-on with a standing eastbound UP freight train (Train LCK41-14). The collision occurred at a recorded speed of 30 mph and the engineer of the striking train sustained minor injuries. Similar to the recent accident in Cayce, South Carolina, at the time of this 2016 accident, UP was installing and testing PTC technology on the main track. While this work was in progress, UP suspended the signals in the area and established absolute blocks intended to provide for the safe movement of trains through the area without signals. NTSB determined the probable cause of the accident was the employee-in-charge incorrectly using information from a conversation with the train dispatcher as authorization to send a train into the area where the signal system suspension was in effect. The NTSB also found that a contributing factor was the involved conductor pilot's failure to check the switch position before authorizing the train to enter the area.
The trains involved in both the Cayce, South Carolina, and Granger, Wyoming, accidents were operating under temporary signal suspensions where the signal systems that would normally govern operations through the areas were suspended as the railroads installed additional components to comply with the statutory mandate to implement a PTC system.
FRA realizes that railroads suspend signal systems for a variety of reasons, including for example, maintenance or repair purposes, to install a new system, or to add additional components to an existing system. Although temporary signal suspensions are necessarily common occurrences, rail operations under signal suspensions should be rare and appropriately limited. FRA believes that, as exemplified by the accidents described above, rail operations under the temporary loss of protections provided by an existing signal system have a high potential of introducing new safety risks and amplify the safety risks encountered because railroad employees accustomed to the safety an existing signal system provides must operate in an environment they may not encounter on a regular basis. Indeed, a temporary signal suspension requires operating employees to immediately apply operating rules and practices different than those to which they are accustomed. Because a person's routine may include learned habits that are difficult to set aside when a temporary condition is imposed, operating employees may also need specialized instruction on the applicable rules and practices. Such risks must be addressed to provide for the safety of train operations during the loss of protection afforded by the signal system. Moreover, if a railroad elects to operate trains in signal suspension territory, the scope of the signal suspension should be limited in both geographic area and duration and rail operations through or within the territory should be limited.
Federal regulations do not prohibit railroads from temporarily suspending existing signal systems for purposes of performing maintenance, upgrades, repairs, or implementing PTC technology. However, FRA regulations in 49 CFR part 235 require railroads to apply for FRA approval for certain discontinuances and modifications of signal systems. Specifically, FRA's regulations provide for both a formal approval process in 49 CFR 235.5 for a variety of signal system changes and also an expedited approval process in 49 CFR 235.6 for modifications directly associated with the implementation of a PTC system. Although the safety of railroad operations during temporary signal suspensions may be addressed under these approval processes, part 235 also excludes various signal system changes from FRA approval (49 CFR 235.7).
FRA's regulations also require individual railroads to adopt and comply with operating rules addressing the operation of hand-operated main track switches.
In addition to these regulatory requirements, virtually all railroads have adopted additional operational protections to ensure the safety of rail operations when an existing signal system is temporarily suspended. FRA reviewed the current operating practices of several railroads and engaged in discussions with these railroads to identify the industry's best safety practices related to temporary suspension of an existing signal system. As a result of this outreach, FRA believes that certain operational safeguards railroads already undertake constitute the best practices within the industry when temporarily suspending a signal system. These best practices, include:
• Take all practical measures to ensure sufficient personnel are present to continue signal work until the system is restored to proper operation. If sufficient personnel are not present, the signal suspension should be terminated until such time as sufficient personnel are on hand.
• If a railroad elects to allow train traffic through suspension limits:
○ Establish the smallest limits possible for the signal suspension (if possible, no more than three (3) control points or use phased limits to allow restoration of the signal system as work is completed);
○ Minimize the duration of the signal suspension to the shortest time period possible (if possible, no more than twelve (12) hours); and
○ Take all practical measures to ensure only through traffic is allowed to operate within the limits (avoiding any train meets or any moves requiring the manipulation of switches within the suspension limits).
• If any switches within the suspension limits are manipulated, consistent with 49 CFR 218.105(d), establish an effective means of verifying that all switches have been returned to the proper position prior to any train traffic operating through the limits. (For example, require spiking or clamping of switches followed by locking for through movement after use; utilize a signal employee to tend the switch and to establish agreement between assigned crewmembers and the switch tender that the switch is properly lined; and/or require the first train through the limits after the manipulation of any switch to operate at restricted speed).
1. Develop and implement procedures and practices consistent with the industry best practices discussed above for rail operations conducted under temporary signal suspensions.
2. Inform employees of the circumstances surrounding the February 4, 2018, accident in Cayce, South Carolina, and the March 14, 2016, accident near Granger, Wyoming, discussed above, emphasizing the potential consequences of misaligned switches and the relevant Federal regulations and railroad operating rules intended to prevent such accidents.
3. Review, and as appropriate, revise all operating rules related to operating hand-operated main track switches (including operating rules required by 49 CFR 218.105(d)), to enhance them to ensure (a) train crews and others restore switches to their normal position after use, and (b) the position of switches are clearly communicated to train control employees and/or dispatcher(s) responsible for the movement of trains through the area where the signal system is temporarily suspended. In doing so, railroads should pay particular attention to those main track switches where employees report clear of the main track to the train dispatcher.
4. Increase supervisory operational oversight and conduct operational testing on the applicable operating rules pertaining to the operation of hand-operated main track switches. This should include face-to-face initial job briefings with all train and engine (T&E) crews that will operate in any area where the signal system will be temporarily suspended.
5. Enhance instruction on the relevant operating rules concerning the operation of hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled areas, including the operating rules required by 49 CFR 218.105(d) during both initial and periodic instruction required by 49 CFR 217.11. In doing so, railroads should emphasize the applicability of the rules to area(s) where the signal system is temporarily suspended and the need to ensure and verify that all hand-operated main track switches manipulated within any suspension limits have been returned to the proper position prior to operating any trains through the limits.
6. Stress to T&E employees the importance of thorough and accurate job briefings when operating hand-operated main track switches, particularly in areas where the signal system is temporarily suspended, and specifically when releasing main track authority. Ensure adequate processes and procedures are in place enabling clear and timely communication of switch positions between and among all dispatching, T&E, and train control employees responsible for operating, performing work, or authorizing trains to operate through areas where the signal system is temporarily suspended, including processes and procedures for communicating switch position information during shift handovers. Encourage employees, in case of any doubt or uncertainty regarding the position of such switches, to immediately contact the train dispatcher or take other appropriate action to confirm the position of the switch prior to authorizing a train to operate through the limits of the area.
FRA requests public comment on all aspects of this draft Safety Advisory.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
On February 12, 2018, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a notice in the
During the public comment period, PHMSA received no comments in response to the information collection. PHMSA received six comments that did not pertain to the information collection request. PHMSA is publishing this notice to provide the public with an additional 30 days to comment on the renewal of the information collection referenced above and to announce that the Information Collection Request will be submitted to OMB for approval.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 23, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Angela Dow by telephone at 202-366-1246, by email at
You may submit comments identified by the docket number PHMSA-2018-0008 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for a copy of the Information Collection should be directed to Angela Dow by telephone at 202-366-1246, by fax at 202-366-4566, by email at
Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies an information collection request that PHMSA will submit to OMB for renewal. The following information is provided for this information collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract of the information collection activity; (6) Description of affected public; (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (8) Frequency of collection. PHMSA will request a three-year term of approval for this information collection activity. PHMSA requests comments on the following information collection:
(a) The need for the renewal of this collection of information for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2018.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2018.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before May 8, 2018.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 23, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia D. Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 811 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and public hearings.
The Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to revise its regulations concerning the requirements for classification and declassification of Restricted Data (RD) and Formerly Restricted Data (FRD). Since 1997, when DOE amended the regulations, changes in legislation and DOE and national policies have rendered portions of the existing regulations outdated. The proposed revisions update the regulations to address these changes. Additional changes made are to clarify requirements, as well as allow agencies more flexibility in implementing RD/FRD programs. This proposed rule is rewritten for clarity and reorganized for ease of use.
Written comments must be received by DOE on or before May 23, 2018.
A public meeting will be held if one is requested by May 8, 2018.
Comments submitted should be identified by Docket Number AU60-2016-1045 and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1992-AA49 and may be submitted through the following methods:
•
•
•
As a result of potential delays in the receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, DOE encourages respondents to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt.
Questions concerning submitting written comments and requests to hold public meetings should be addressed to Lesley Nelson-Burns, Office of Quality Management, Department of Energy, AU-61/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, or
A link to the docket web page to read background documents or comments received can be found at:
Lesley Nelson-Burns (Office of Quality Management) at 301-903-4861 or
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011
In 1997, DOE issued a final rule in 10 CFR part 1045 that established the Government-wide responsibilities and requirements for RD and FRD. 62 FR 68502 (Dec. 31, 1997). The DOE affirmed in the preamble to the final rule that this DOE rule would establish the policies and procedures implementing the requirements of the AEA for the classification and declassification of RD and FRD. The rule also implemented the provisions of the E.O. 12958 pertaining to National Security Information that directly affect the public. The final rule included several requirements intended to provide increased transparency and accountability to the process of classifying and declassifying RD and FRD. These included options for the public to submit suggestions and complaints about classification policy, and for persons to submit challenges to classification determinations and declassification proposals. The rule also identified the specific criteria to be used to determine if information is RD, to declassify RD, and prohibitions on the application of classification.
DOE is revising this part to: Update DOE organizational responsibilities; incorporate changes in the Atomic Energy Act; Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information; and 32 CFR part 2001,
Section 142(e) of the AEA authorizes the transclassification of information concerning the atomic programs of other nations. Under section 142(e), RD concerning the atomic energy programs of other nations is transclassified by joint agreement with the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) or the DNI to facilitate sharing in the Intelligence Community (IC). Information transclassified under section 142 of the AEA, did not have a unique name or marking prior to being named TFNI in 2010 under 32 CFR part 2001. Prior to 2010, documents containing this information had no special identifier, were handled in a manner similar to NSI, and were not marked as exempt from automatic declassification. Although the information concerns foreign nuclear programs, the information may be the same or similar to U.S. RD, which is never automatically declassified due to its sensitivity. To ensure this information is not automatically declassified and inadvertently released, E.O. 13526 recognized the Secretary of Energy's authority to determine its declassification. The Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) of the National Archives and Records Administration, in coordination with DOE, developed language to incorporate TFNI marking requirements into 32 CFR 2001.24(i).
Revisions to this part mirror the marking policies jointly developed by DOE and ISOO contained in 32 CFR part 2001 and ISOO Notice 2011-02. These policies ensure matter containing RD, FRD, and TFNI are not automatically declassified. These policies are publicly available from the ISOO website at
In addition, revisions to this part define specific responsibilities and authorities for TFNI, authorities for the return of FRD and TFNI to the RD category as permitted by changes to Section 142 of the AEA, and the marking of matter that commingles RD/FRD/TFNI with NSI or Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). Many changes are based on DOE's experience assisting other agencies in implementing this part.
E.O. 12866 states regulations must be “simple and easy to understand, with the goal of minimizing uncertainty and litigation . . . ” (Sec. 1, Par. (b)(12)) and E.O. 12988 states that each regulation must specify its effect “in clear language” (Sec. 3 Par. (b)(2)). In accordance with these E.O.'s, this proposed regulation is rewritten for clarity and reorganized for ease of use.
DOE consulted with other agencies and incorporated many of their recommendations in the revision to this part. For example, the revised proposed rule permits RD Derivative Classifiers to remove RD, FRD, and TFNI from matter under certain circumstances when the resulting matter remains classified. The changes to this part do not significantly impact current practices and many of the changes provide greater flexibility for agencies in implementing their RD programs.
Subpart A, previously titled, “Program Management of the Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data Classification System,” was renamed “Introduction.” Subpart A previously contained § 1045.1 to § 1045.9. It now contains § 1045.5 to § 1045.35. Sections are now numbered by fives to allow for future additions. The new sections contain introductory information on this part including: The purpose and application of this part; how to submit comments and requests for equivalencies and exemptions; sanctions that may be implemented against violators of this regulation; and definitions and acronyms used in this part. Information concerning program management and individual responsibilities was moved to Subpart B.
The existing sections of Subpart A were changed as follows: Changes to the content are discussed in the new location noted.
The sections of Subpart A are now as follows:
The following definitions were deleted as they are not used in this part:
Subpart B, previously titled, “Identification of Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data Information,” was renamed “Program Management of Restricted Data (RD), Formerly Restricted Data (FRD), and Transclassified Foreign Nuclear Information (TFNI) Classification Programs” Subpart B previously contained § 1045.10 to § 1045.22. It now contains Sections from § 1045.40 to § 1045.65. Sections from Subparts A, B, and C were moved to this Subpart to locate agency and individual responsibilities and authorities in a single subpart. The section of Subpart B describing processes for classification and declassification of RD and FRD (formerly § 1045.14) has been broken up and distributed throughout the regulation, with each component relocated to its appropriate section. The Subpart also includes new sections on responsibility for TFNI and reflects the comprehensive development of TFNI policy by generally including TFNI wherever it should be included with RD and FRD.
The existing sections of Subpart B were changed as follows: Changes to the content are discussed in the new location noted.
The sections of Subpart B are now as follows:
Subpart C, previously titled, “Generation and Review of Documents Containing Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data,” was renamed “Determining if Information is RD, FRD, or TFNI.” Subpart C previously contained § 1045.30 to § 1045.46. It now contains § 1045.70 to § 1045.110. Subpart C consolidates content from other subparts on the following subjects: The processes for classification and declassification; the presumptions that guide those processes; the status of privately-generated information in the RD realm; classification levels; and classification challenges. Subpart C also contains a new section on the transclassification of information from the RD category into the TFNI category which is part of the addition of TFNI policy.
The existing sections of Subpart C were changed as follows: Changes to the content are discussed in the new location noted.
The sections of Subpart C are now as follows:
Subpart D, previously titled, “Executive Order 12958: `Classified National Security Information” Requirements Affecting the Public,” was renamed “Classifying and Declassifying Matter Containing RD, FRD, or TFNI.” Subpart D previously contained § 1045.50 to § 1045.53. It now contains § 1045.115 to § 1045.165. The sections of Subpart D that deal with DOE's NSI classification program were moved to Subpart F. Sections from Subparts B and C were moved into Subpart D.
Subpart D contains a number of new sections. The new sections addressing TFNI cover: The requirement for a person trained to classify TFNI to review any matter that could potentially contain TFNI; the requirement for classification of TFNI by a person with appropriate authority; and the appropriate procedure for when TFNI guidance cannot be located.
A description of authorities and procedures for redacting RD, FRD, or TFNI from a document was also added to this Subpart. Authorities and procedures for redacting RD, FRD, or TFNI were added to clarify when other agencies may remove RD, FRD, or TFNI from matter.
To assist agencies in developing proper training materials, detail was added to descriptions of training requirements for RD Derivative Classifiers and for persons with access to RD, FRD, or TFNI. The section describing classification by compilation or association provides more detail about these training requirements.
The existing sections of Subpart D were changed as follows: Changes to the content are discussed in the new location noted.
The sections of Subpart D are now as follows:
Subpart E, Government-wide Procedures for Handling Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) Requests for Matter Marked as or Potentially Containing RD, FRD, or TFNI,” is a new addition containing content currently contained in Subpart C and new content. This section describes requirements for other Government agencies when they receive a FOIA or MDR request that potentially contains RD, FRD, or TFNI. Subpart E contains § 1045.170 to § 1045.180. Sections from Subpart C that deal with RD and FRD under a FOIA or an MDR request were moved to this subpart. These sections were also expanded to provide greater detail regarding the processes for appeals and requests.
The sections of Subpart E are as follows:
Subpart F, “DOE-specific procedures for MDR Requests,” is a new addition containing content currently contained in Subpart C and new content. This section describes how a person submits an MDR request to DOE for matter that is marked as or potentially contains NSI, RD, FRD, or TFNI. This section also describes how MDR requests are processed within DOE. As recognized in section 6.2 of E.O. 13526, RD, FRD, and TFNI, which are classified under the Atomic Energy Act. Therefore, MDR procedures in E.O. 13526, which only applies to NSI, do not apply to RD, FRD, or TFNI. This subpart implements DOE procedures for processing MDR requests for NSI, under E.O. 13526, and also ensures the public may request declassification reviews of documents containing RD, FRD, or TFNI. Subpart F contains § 1045.185 to § 1045.225. Sections from Subpart D that deal with MDR requests and appeals by the public were moved to this Subpart. Subpart F contains new sections that describe exemptions to MDR requests, the cost associated with an MDR, the DOE process for MDR reviews and appeals, and DOE's OpenNet online resource.
The sections of Subpart F are as follows:
OMB has determined that this action does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” That Order stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. The Order stated it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” The Order required the head of each agency designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO oversees the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory task force at each agency. The regulatory task force is required to make recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal, replacement, or modification of existing regulations, consistent with applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform task force must attempt to identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information Quality Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(vi) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
This proposed rule, which would update the existing rule to reflect changes in the Atomic Energy Act, E.O. 13526, 32 CFR part 2001, DOE policies and DOE reorganizations that have rendered portions of the existing regulations outdated, as well clarify requirements and allow agencies more flexibility in implementing RD/FRD programs, meets the goals and objectives of the task force.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOE has reviewed this proposed rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and certifies that, if adopted, the rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule applies to Federal agencies and private entities who have access to RD. The number of private entities with access to RD is very small. These include access permittees (covered by 10 CFR part 1016) and private entities whose operations involve isotope separation technologies. The proposed rule does not require significant new requirements for Federal agencies or private entities with access to RD. The proposed changes are administrative changes (
The proposed rule initiates fees for Mandatory Declassification Reviews (MDRs). When 10 CFR part 1045 was initially issued, DOE received very few MDR requests. Due to a significant increase in MDR requests, DOE determined it was necessary to recover some of the cost. Matter requested under an MDR could be requested under the FOIA (but cannot be requested under both), so the fees established mirror DOE fees for FOIA requests rather than creating a different fee structure.
For the above reasons, DOE certifies that the proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule does not contain a collection of information subject to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
DOE has determined that this action meets the requirements for a Categorical
This proposed rulemaking is necessary because changes in DOE and national policies have rendered portions of the existing rule outdated. In addition, changes are needed to clarify requirements and allow agencies more flexibility in implementing programs for RD and FRD.
These changes are administrative in nature reflecting changes to responsibilities and procedures, and amending the rule will not change the environmental effect of the rule. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact analysis is required.
E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to develop a process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have “federalism implications.” Policies that have federalism implications are defined in the E.O. to include regulations that 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.” On March 7, 2011, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations (65 FR 13735, March 14, 2000).
DOE has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further action is required by E.O. 13132.
Section 3 of E.O. 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), instructs each agency to adhere to certain requirements in promulgating new regulations. These requirements, set forth in section 3(a) and (b), include eliminating drafting errors and needless ambiguity, drafting the regulations to minimize litigation, providing clear and certain legal standards for affected legal conduct, and promoting simplification and burden reduction. Agencies are also instructed to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation describes any administrative proceeding to be available prior to judicial review and any provisions for the exhaustion of administrative remedies. DOE has determined that this regulatory action meets the requirements of section 3(a) and (b) of E.O. 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4), requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory action on state, local and tribal governments and the private sector. For proposed regulatory actions likely to result in a rule that may cause expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish estimates of the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. UMRA also requires Federal agencies to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate.” In addition, UMRA requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to small governments that may be affected before establishing a requirement that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under the UMRA (62 FR 12820, March 18, 1997). This policy is available at DOE General Counsel's website (
E.O. 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternates to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
This proposed rule is not a significant energy action, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator of OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may affect family well-being. This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
DOE encourages the maximum level of public participation in this proposed
DOE has established a period of 30 days following publication of this proposed rulemaking for persons and organizations to comment. All public comments and other docket material will be available for review at regulations.gov. The docket material will be found under Docket Number AU60-2016-1045.
Interested persons are invited to participate in this proceeding by submitting written data, views or arguments with respect to the subjects set forth in this proposed rulemaking. Instructions for submitting written comments are set forth at the beginning of this proposed rulemaking and in this section. Where possible, comments should identify the specific section they address.
Comments should be labeled both on the envelope and on the documents as Docket Number AU60-2016-1045 and must be received by the date specified at the beginning of this proposed rule. All comments and other relevant information received by the date specified at the beginning of this proposed rulemaking will be considered by DOE in the subsequent stages of the rulemaking process.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR part 1004, “Freedom of Information,” any person submitting information or data that is believed to be exempt by law from public disclosure should submit one complete copy of the document and three copies, if possible, from which the information believed to be exempt has been deleted. DOE will make its own determination with regard to the confidential status of the information or data and treat it according to its determination.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule.
Classified information, Declassification, Formerly restricted data, Restricted data, Transclassified foreign nuclear information.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 1045 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
42 U.S.C. 2011; E.O. 13526, 75 FR 705, 3 CFR 2010 Comp., pp. 298-327.
(a) This part implements sections 141, 142, and 146 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011
(1) Subpart A—“Introduction” specifies to whom these rules apply, describes how to submit comments or suggestions concerning the policies and procedures in this part, describes how to request an exemption from or an equivalency to a provision in this part; outlines sanctions imposed for violating the policies and procedures in this part; defines key terms; and lists acronyms used in this part.
(2) Subpart B—“Program Management of Restricted Data (RD), Formerly Restricted Data (FRD), and Transclassified Foreign Nuclear Information (TFNI) Classification Programs” specifies responsibilities of officials in DOE and other agencies in the role of identifying RD, transclassifying RD to FRD or to TFNI, and returning FRD or TFNI to RD; discusses the systematic declassification review of information/matter containing RD, FRD, or TFNI; and describes the “no comment” policy.
(3) Subpart C—“Determining if Information is RD, FRD, or TFNI” describes how information is initially classified as RD, transclassified as FRD or TFNI, or declassified; lists criteria for evaluating whether RD, FRD, or TFNI should be classified or declassified; describes the prohibitions against classifying information as RD, FRD, or TFNI; lists areas of information that are presumed to be RD or unclassified; specifies how privately generated information may be classified as RD; defines the classification levels; describes how to submit proposals for RD, FRD, and TFNI; describes how to challenge the classification or declassification of RD, FRD, or TFNI; and describes the issuance of classification guides to promulgate classification and declassification determinations.
(4) Subpart D—“Classifying and Declassifying Matter Containing RD, FRD, or TFNI” describes who has the authority to classify and declassify matter containing RD, FRD, or TFNI; the appointment and training of these individuals; discusses the use of classified addendums; describes classification by association or compilation; specifies who must review matter that potentially contains RD, FRD, or TFNI intended for public release; describes what to do if an RD Derivative Classifier or a person trained to classify matter containing TFNI cannot locate classification guidance to make a determination; describes the classification and declassification marking requirements; and states the prohibition against the automatic declassification of matter containing RD, FRD, or TFNI.
(5) Subpart E—“Government-wide Procedures for Handling Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) Requests for Matter Marked as or Potentially Containing RD, FRD, or TFNI” describes how agencies process FOIA or MDR requests and appeals for matter marked as or potentially containing RD, FRD, or TFNI
(6) Subpart F—“DOE Procedures for MDR Requests” describes how DOE FOIA and MDR requests and appeals for matter marked as or potentially containing NSI, RD, FRD, or TFNI are submitted and processed.
(b) Reserved.
(a) Subparts A, B, C, and D apply to—
(1) Any person or agency with access to RD, FRD, or TFNI;
(2) Any person or agency who generates information that has the potential to be RD, FRD, or TFNI; and
(3) Any person or agency who generates matter that potentially contains RD, FRD, or TFNI.
(b) Subpart E applies to Government agencies who receive Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) requests for matter that is marked as or potentially contains RD, FRD, or TFNI.
(c) Subpart F applies to DOE and to any person submitting a Mandatory Declassification Review request for DOE matter.
Any person who has a question or a comment on DOE's classification and declassification policies and procedures under this part may submit the question or comment in writing to the Director, Office of Classification, AU-60/Germantown Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. The correspondence should contain the question or comment, include applicable background information and/or citations, as appropriate, and must provide an address for the response. The Director will make every effort to respond within 60 days. Under no circumstance will anyone be subject to retribution for asking a question or making a comment regarding DOE's classification and declassification policies and procedures.
The agency must submit a request for an exemption or an equivalency to the procedural provisions under this part in writing to the Director, Office of Classification, AU-60/Germantown Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. The request must provide all relevant facts, to include any applicable citations, describing the procedure and why the exemption or equivalency is required. If the request is for an equivalency, it must include a proposed alternate procedure to meet the intent of the procedure for which the equivalency is being requested.
Any knowing, willful, or negligent action contrary to the requirements of this part that results in the misclassification of information is subject to appropriate sanctions. Such sanctions may range from administrative sanctions (
The following definitions apply to this part:
(1) Information determined to be RD, FRD, or TFNI under the AEA and this part, or
(2) Information that has been determined pursuant to E.O. 13526 or any predecessor order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure and is marked to indicate its classification status when in documentary form.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Information no longer warrants protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interest of the national security, or
(2) Matter no longer contains or reveals classified information.
(1) A decision by DOE that information classified as RD or TFNI is classified at a lower level than currently identified in a DOE or joint classification guide;
(2) A joint decision by DOE and the Department of Defense (DoD) that FRD is classified at a lower level than currently identified in a DOE or joint classification guide; or
(3) A decision by an RD Derivative Classifier (or in the case of TFNI, a person trained to derivatively classify TFNI) based on classification guides and bulletins that matter containing RD, FRD, or TFNI is classified at a lower level than currently marked.
(4) A decision, based on a DOE or joint classification guide, by an authorized person that matter containing RD, FRD, or TFNI is classified at a less sensitive category (
(1) Any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution, group, Government agency other than the Commission, any State or any political subdivision of, or any political entity within a State, any foreign government or nation or any political subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity; and
(2) Any legal successor, representative, agent, or agency of the foregoing.
TFNI does not include:
(1) RD or FRD concerning United Kingdom (U.K.) or Canadian programs;
(2) Any U.S. RD or FRD, including that which the U.S. has transmitted to other nations;
(3) Any evaluation of foreign information based on the use of U.S. RD or FRD unless also specifically transclassified to TFNI or any evaluation that could reveal such data concerning the U.S., U.K., or Canadian programs;
(4) Classified atomic energy information received from a foreign government pursuant to an agreement imposing security measures equivalent for those in effect for RD; or
(5) Classified information on the Tripartite Gas Centrifuge and its successor programs, including data on the gas centrifuge work of each of the participants.
(1) A decision by DOE that information classified as RD or TFNI is classified at a higher level than currently identified in a DOE or joint classification guide;
(2) A joint decision by DOE and DoD that FRD is classified at a higher level than currently identified in a DOE or joint classification guide; or
(3) A decision by an RD Derivative Classifier, (or in the case of TFNI, a person trained to classify TFNI) based on classification guidance, that matter containing RD, FRD, or TFNI is classified at a higher level or category than currently marked. This includes correcting the classification level or category of matter that was never marked as well as matter erroneously marked as unclassified.
The following acronyms are commonly used throughout this part:
(a) Yes. The head of each agency with access to RD, FRD, or TFNI:
(1) Must appoint at least one Federal official to serve as an RDMO who ensures the proper implementation of this part within his or her agency and serves as the primary point of contact for coordination with the Director, Office of Classification, for classification and declassification issues involving RD, FRD, and TFNI. Within DoD, a minimum of at least one RDMO must be appointed in each military department.
(2) May appoint or authorize the RDMO to appoint one or more Associate RDMOs if there is more than one organization that has access to RD, FRD, or TFNI. In such cases, the RDMO is the lead official and the primary point of contact with the Director, Office of Classification.
(3) Must ensure contact information for each RDMO and ARDMO is sent to the Director, Office of Classification, within 30 days of the appointment.
(a) The Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Energy must determine in writing whether information privately generated by persons in the United States but not under a Government contract is classified as RD. This responsibility cannot be delegated.
(b) The Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security:
(1) Determines if RD and TFNI may be published without undue risk to the common defense and security and declassified;
(2) Jointly with DoD, determines which information in the RD category relating primarily to the military utilization of nuclear weapons may be transclassified to the FRD category;
(3) Jointly with DoD, determines which information in the FRD category may be removed from that category and
(4) Jointly with DoD, declassifies FRD and RD relating primarily to the military utilization of nuclear weapons that may be published without undue risk to the common defense and security;
(5) Jointly with the DNI, determines which information in the RD category concerning nuclear energy programs of foreign governments may be transclassified to the TFNI category to carry out the provisions of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended;
(6) Jointly with the DNI, determines which information in the TFNI category may be removed from that category and returned to the RD category and notifies all appropriate agencies as necessary of the change;
(7) Considers declassification proposals received from the public or other agencies or their contractors concerning RD, FRD, and TFNI, and coordinates responses with the appropriate agencies;
(8) Makes the final appeal determination concerning the denial of any RD, FRD, or TFNI contained in matter requested under statute or Executive Order; and
(9) Makes the final appeal determination for any formal classification challenges for RD, DOE FRD, and TFNI.
(c) The Director, Office of Classification:
(1) Issues the Government-wide requirements for the classification and declassification of RD, FRD, and TFNI in accordance with the AEA and this part;
(2) Grants exemptions and equivalencies to provisions of this part;
(3) Develops and interprets policies to implement RD, FRD, and TFNI classification programs in coordination with DoD for FRD, as appropriate;
(4) Determines whether nuclear-related information is RD;
(5) Determines if new information in a previously declassified subject area warrants classification as RD based on the criteria in § 1045.70, except where the information has been widely disseminated in the open literature;
(6) Assigns a classification level to RD and TFNI, and, jointly with DoD, to FRD, that reflects the sensitivity of the information to the national security;
(7) Serves as the Denying Official for RD, DOE FRD, and TFNI portions of records requested under statute or Executive Order;
(8) Establishes a system for processing, tracking, and recording formal classification challenges and declassification proposals made by persons with access to RD, FRD, and TFNI;
(9) Considers challenges to RD, FRD, and TFNI, coordinates challenges with other agencies, as appropriate, and makes the initial determination pertaining to the challenge of a classification determination concerning RD, DOE FRD, or TFNI;
(10) Delegates the authority to declassify matter containing RD, FRD, or TFNI to qualified individuals in other Government agencies;
(11) Develops and distributes classification guides to promulgate classification and declassification determinations for RD, FRD, and TFNI, and jointly develops classification guides and TFNI guidelines with DoD, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and other agencies in the RD, FRD, or TFNI categories or subject areas for which DOE and the agencies share responsibility;
(12) Reviews classification guides that contain RD and jointly reviews classification guides that contain FRD topics with the appropriate DoD authority (as specified in DoD Instruction 5210.02 or successor instructions) that are developed by other agencies;
(13) Reviews TFNI guidelines and classification guides containing TFNI topics developed by other agencies;
(14) Assists agencies with the implementation of RD, FRD, and TFNI classification programs to comply with this part;
(15) In consultation with the agency RDMO, determines when to conduct on-site reviews of agency programs established under this part to evaluate the agency's implementation of the requirements;
(16) Coordinates on-site reviews of the Intelligence Community (IC) with the DNI;
(17) Reviews agency implementing policies;
(18) Develops training materials related to implementing this part and provides these materials to RDMOs and other appropriate persons;
(19) Reviews any RD-, FRD-, or TFNI-related training material submitted by other agencies to ensure consistency with current policies;
(20) Periodically hosts a meeting of RDMOs to disseminate information or address issues; and
(21) Responds to questions and considers comments received from any person, including the public, concerning RD, FRD, and TFNI classification and declassification policies and procedures.
(d) DoD jointly with DOE:
(1) Determines which information in the RD category relating primarily to the military utilization of nuclear weapons may be transclassified to the FRD category;
(2) Determines which information in the FRD category may be removed from that category and returned to the RD category;
(3) Assigns a classification level to FRD that reflects the sensitivity of the information to the national security;
(4) Prepares classification guides for FRD; and
(5) Declassifies FRD and RD relating primarily to the military utilization of nuclear weapons that may be published without undue risk to the common defense and security.
(6) Considers challenges to FRD, and coordinates challenges with other agencies, as appropriate.
(e) The DNI jointly with DOE:
(1) Determines which information in the RD category concerning nuclear energy programs of foreign governments may be transclassified to the TFNI category to carry out the provisions of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended;
(2) Determines which information in the TFNI category may be removed from that category and returned to the RD category; and
(3) Coordinates IC Directives (ICD) and IC Policy Guidance (ICPG) concerning RD, FRD, and TFNI to ensure policies are consistent;
(f) NRC:
(1) Jointly with DOE, develops classification guides for programs over which both agencies have cognizance; and
(2) Ensures the review and proper classification of matter containing RD by RD Derivative Classifiers that is generated by NRC or by its licensed or regulated facilities and activities.
(g) Heads of Agencies with access to RD, FRD, or TFNI:
(1) Ensure that matter containing RD, FRD, and TFNI is reviewed by a person with appropriate authority and properly classified.
(2) Must appoint at least one RDMO to manage the implementation of this part within the agency;
(3) Ensure implementing directives for this part are developed, submitted to DOE for review prior to issuance, to ensure consistency with this part, and promulgated;
(4) Should periodically review holdings containing RD, FRD, or TFNI that are likely to have a high degree of public interest and a likelihood of declassification. If any matter containing RD, FRD, or TFNI is
(5) Develop and promulgate procedures for persons with access to RD or FRD to submit classification challenges and declassification proposals for guide topics that are RD or FRD or for matter containing RD or FRD. If the agency possesses TFNI, develops and promulgates procedures for persons with access to TFNI to submit classification challenges and declassification proposals for guide topics that are TFNI or matter containing TFNI;
(6) Ensure joint classification guides for programs over which DOE and the agency have cognizance are developed;
(7) Ensure that any classification guides the agency develops or revises that contain RD or FRD, topics are coordinated with the Director, Office of Classification prior to issuance, to ensure consistency with DOE and DoD guidance;
(8) Ensure that any TFNI guidelines or classification guides containing TFNI topics the agency develops or revises are reviewed by the Director, Office of Classification, prior to issuance for consistency with policies developed by DOE and current transclassification agreements;
(9) Ensure that agency classification guides containing RD, FRD, or TFNI topics are reviewed for consistency with current DOE classification guides at least once every 5 years and that appropriate revisions are made, if necessary;
(10) Ensure that NSI records of permanent historical value are reviewed as required under the “Special Historical Records Review Plan (Supplement)” established under Public Law 105-261 and 106-65 or subsequent statutes;
(11) Ensure that each RDMO and Federal RD Derivative Classifier whose duties involve the classification of a significant amount of matter containing RD or FRD have his or her personnel performance evaluated with respect to such classification activities; and
(12) Ensure that contracting officers are notified of any contracts that have access to or generate matter containing RD, FRD, or TFNI, and that the requirements of this part are incorporated into those contracts.
(13) Ensure DOE classification guides, classification bulletins and matter containing DOE classification guide topics that is not itself classified is safeguarded and its dissemination is limited to persons with a need to know.
(h) Agency RDMOs:
(1) Ensure that procedures for training and designating ARDMOs and RD Derivative Classifiers within the agency are established;
(2) Ensure that persons with access to RD, FRD, and TFNI are trained in accordance with § 1045.120;
(3) Ensure that RD Derivative Classifiers are designated and trained in accordance with §§ 1045.115 and 1045.120, respectively;
(4) Ensure that persons who derivatively classify matter containing TFNI are trained in accordance with § 1045.120;
(5) Ensure that RD Derivative Classifiers and persons who derivatively classify TFNI have access to any classification guides needed;
(6) Ensure that a periodic review of a sample of the agency's RD, FRD, and TFNI derivative classification determinations is conducted that evaluates that each determination was made by appropriately trained and (when required) designated employees acting within his or her authority, that the determination is accurate, and that the markings are applied correctly;
(7) In consultation with the Director, Office of Classification determine when to conduct on-site reviews of their agency program established under this part to evaluate the agency's implementation of the requirements; and
(8) Cooperate with and provide information as necessary to the Director, Office of Classification, to fulfill their responsibilities under this part.
(i) RD Derivative Classifiers:
(1) Must receive training prescribed by § 1045.120;
(2) Must use approved DOE or joint classification guides, in the subject areas in which they have programmatic expertise, or an applicable portion-marked source document as the basis for derivative decisions to classify or upgrade matter containing RD or FRD; and
(3) Must use DOE classification guides and bulletins, joint DOE-agency classification guides, or agency classification guides containing RD or FRD topics that have been coordinated with DOE as the basis to downgrade the level of matter containing RD or FRD. Source documents must not be used as a basis to downgrade matter containing RD or FRD;
(4) Must not downgrade the category of matter containing RD, FRD, or TFNI (
(5) Must not declassify matter containing RD, FRD, or TFNI unless delegated this authority by DOE for RD or TFNI, or by DOE or DoD for FRD; and
(6) Can remove the RD, FRD, and TFNI portions from a portion-marked source document in accordance with § 1045.150.
(j) Persons who derivatively classify matter containing TFNI:
(1) Must receive training prescribed by § 1045.120;
(2) Must use approved TFNI guidelines, DOE or joint classification guides in the subject areas in which they have programmatic expertise, or an applicable portion-marked source document as the basis for derivative decisions to classify or upgrade matter containing TFNI; and
(3) Must not declassify or downgrade the category of matter containing TFNI unless delegated this authority by DOE.
(k) Persons with access to RD, FRD, or TFNI:
(1) Must be trained in accordance with § 1045.120;
(2) Must submit matter that potentially contains RD, FRD, or TFNI to a person with the appropriate authority for review in accordance with § 1045.125;
(3) Must submit matter that potentially contains RD, FRD, or TFNI to a person with the appropriate authority for declassification or public release.
(a) RD, FRD, and TFNI information and matter are considered for declassification during several processes.
(1) DOE reviews all classification guides containing RD, FRD, or TFNI topics at least once every 5 years to determine if information identified as RD, FRD, or TFNI still meets the criteria for classification under § 1045.70. If RD, FRD, and TFNI information contained in a classification guide does not meet the standards for classification, the information is declassified.
(2) TFNI is no longer TFNI when comparable U.S. RD is declassified.
(3) Agencies with holdings containing RD, FRD, or TFNI should periodically review holdings that are likely to have a high degree of public interest and a likelihood of declassification. If any matter containing RD, FRD, or TFNI is identified for declassification, agencies must coordinate the declassification of matter marked as RD, FRD, or TFNI with DOE or DoD, as appropriate.
(4) RD, FRD, or TFNI information or matter containing RD, FRD, or TFNI in particular areas of public interest may
(5) During the FOIA and MDR request process, agencies must refer any responsive matter that is marked as or potentially contains RD, FRD, or TFNI to DOE or DoD, as provided under Subpart F. During this process, the information may be reviewed to determine it still meets the standards for classification.
(6) The public and persons with access to RD, FRD, or TFNI may submit a declassification proposal for RD, FRD, or TFNI under § 1045.105.
The unauthorized disclosure of RD, FRD, or TFNI does not automatically result in its declassification. However, if a disclosure is sufficiently authoritative or credible, the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security will examine the possibility of declassifying the information.
(a) A person with access to RD, FRD, or TFNI, must not confirm or expand upon the classification status or technical accuracy of information in the open literature that is RD, FRD, or TFNI or suspected to be RD, FRD, or TFNI. Commenting on such information can cause greater damage to national security by confirming its location, classified nature, or technical accuracy.
(b) Because the open literature may contain information that is still classified as RD, FRD, or TFNI, a person who has access to RD, FRD, or TFNI who incorporates information from the open literature that is potentially classified as RD, FRD, or TFNI into matter must ensure the matter is reviewed as required under § 1045.125 to ensure the information incorporated is not classified.
(a) For new information to be classified as RD it must fall under the definition of RD that states such information concerns: The design, manufacture, or utilization of nuclear weapons; the production of special nuclear material; or the use of special nuclear material in the production of energy, and the unauthorized release of the information must reasonably be expected to cause undue risk to the common defense and security.
(b) This initial determination is made by the Director, Office of Classification after:
(1) Ensuring the information is not prohibited from being classified under § 1045.75;
(2) Considering whether the information falls within the classification or declassification presumptions in § 1045.80; and
(3) Evaluating the criteria in this paragraph.
(i) Whether the information is so widely known or readily apparent to knowledgeable observers that its classification would cast doubt on the credibility of classification programs;
(ii) Whether publication of the information would assist in the development of countermeasures or otherwise jeopardize any U.S. weapon or weapon system;
(iii) Whether the information would hinder U.S. nonproliferation efforts by significantly assisting potential adversaries to develop or improve a nuclear weapon capability, produce nuclear weapons materials, or make other military use of nuclear energy;
(iv) Whether information would assist terrorists to: Develop a nuclear weapon, produce nuclear materials, or use special nuclear material in a terrorist attack;
(v) Whether publication of the information would have a detrimental effect on U.S. foreign relations;
(vi) Whether publication of the information would benefit the public welfare, taking into account the importance of the information to public discussion and education and potential contribution to economic growth; and
(vii) Whether publication of the information would benefit the operation of any Government program by reducing operating costs or improving public acceptance.
(c) In consideration of the analysis of the criteria of this section, if there is significant doubt about the need to classify the information, then the Director cannot make an initial determination to classify the information.
(a) Yes. Information must not be classified or remain classified as RD, FRD, or TFNI to accomplish the purposes described in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section. Persons must also not prevent information from being declassified as RD, FRD, or TFNI for the purposes described in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section.
(b) Conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(c) Prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
(d) Restrain competition;
(e) Prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection for the national security or nonproliferation reasons;
(f) Unduly restrict dissemination by assigning an improper classification level; or
(g) Prevent or delay the release of information bearing solely on the physical environment or public or worker health and safety.
(a) The Director, Office of Classification and the Associate Under Secretary of Environment, Health Safety and Security consider the presumptions in paragraph (b)(1) of this section before applying the criteria in § 1045.70. These presumptions concern information in certain but not all nuclear-related areas that may generally be presumed to be RD or are generally unclassified. The term “generally” here means that as a rule, but not necessarily in every case, the information in the identified area is presumed classified or not classified as indicated. Inclusion of specific existing information in one of the presumption categories does not mean that new information in a category is or is not classified, but only that arguments to differ from the presumed classification status of the information should use the appropriate presumption as a starting point.
(b) Information in the following areas is presumed to be RD—
(1) Detailed designs, specifications, and functional descriptions of nuclear explosives, whether in the active stockpile or retired;
(2) Material properties under conditions achieved in nuclear explosions that are principally useful only for design and analysis of nuclear weapons;
(3) Vulnerabilities of U.S. nuclear weapons to sabotage, countermeasures, or unauthorized use;
(4) Nuclear weapons logistics and operational performance information (
(5) Details of the critical steps or components in nuclear material production processes; and
(6) Features of military nuclear reactors, especially naval nuclear propulsion reactors, that are not common to or required for civilian power reactors
(c) Information in the following areas is presumed to be unclassified—
(1) Basic science: Mathematics, chemistry, theoretical and experimental physics, engineering, materials science, biology, and medicine;
(2) Magnetic confinement fusion technology;
(3) Civilian power reactors, including nuclear fuel cycle information but excluding technologies for uranium enrichment;
(4) Source materials (defined as uranium and thorium and ores containing them);
(5) Fact of use of safety features (
(6) Generic nuclear weapons effects;
(7) Physical and chemical properties of uranium and plutonium, most of their alloys and compounds, under standard temperature and pressure conditions;
(8) Nuclear fuel reprocessing technology and reactor products not revealing classified production rates or inventories;
(9) The fact, time, location, and yield range (
(10) General descriptions of nuclear material production processes and theory of operation;
(11) DOE special nuclear material aggregate inventories and production rates not revealing the size of or details concerning the nuclear weapons stockpile;
(12) Types of waste products resulting from all DOE weapon and material production operations;
(13) Any information solely relating to the public and worker health and safety or to environmental quality; and
(14) The simple association or simple presence of any material (
(a) To be eligible to become FRD or TFNI, information must first be classified as RD in accordance with the AEA and this part. FRD and TFNI are removed from and may be returned to the RD category under section 142 of the AEA. The process by which information is removed from the RD category and placed into the FRD or TFNI category or returned to the RD category is called transclassification and involves the following decisions:
(1) For information to be transclassified from RD to the FRD category, the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security and the appropriate official within DoD (as specified in DoD Instruction 5210.02 or subsequent instructions) must jointly determine that the information relates primarily to the military utilization of nuclear weapons and can be adequately protected in a manner similar to NSI.
(2) For information to be transclassified from RD to the TFNI category, the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security and the DNI must jointly determine that information concerning a foreign nuclear energy program that falls under the RD definition must be removed from the RD category in order to carry out the provisions of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, and can be adequately protected in a manner similar to NSI.
(b) The process to return FRD and TFNI to the RD category is as follows:
(1) FRD may be returned to the RD category if the DOE and DoD jointly determine that the programmatic requirements that caused the information to be removed from the RD category no longer apply, the information would be more appropriately protected as RD and returning the information to the RD category is in the interest of national security. DOE jointly with DoD must notify all appropriate agencies of the change.
(2) TFNI may be returned to the RD category if the DOE and the DNI jointly determine that the programmatic requirements that caused the information to be removed from the RD category no longer apply, the information would be more appropriately protected as RD and returning the information to the RD category is in the interest of national security. DOE jointly with the DNI must notify all appropriate agencies of the change.
Yes. Under the AEA, DOE may classify information that is privately generated (
(a) When the Director, Office of Classification, makes the initial determination that information is RD, he or she determines the appropriate level of the information based on the damage that would occur if there was an unauthorized disclosure of the information. The Director, Office of Classification, also determines the level for TFNI, and, jointly with the appropriate DoD official (as specified in DoD Instruction 5210.02 or successor instructions) determines the level for FRD information.
(b) The three classification levels of RD, FRD, and TFNI are:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a) This section addresses the declassification of information, not derivatively classified matter. See Subpart D for requirements for the declassification of matter containing RD, FRD, or TFNI.
(b) RD and TFNI are declassified by the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and
(a) If a person believes RD, FRD, or TFNI should not be classified, he or she may submit a declassification proposal. Proposals must be submitted in writing and must include a description of the information concerned and may include a reason for the request. If submitted by a person with access to RD, FRD, or TFNI the request must be submitted through secure means. The proposal is processed as follows:
(b) The Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security considers declassification proposals from the public and Government agencies and their contractors for the declassification of RD, FRD, and TFNI on an ongoing basis. For FRD, the Director, Office of Classification, will coordinate the declassification proposal with the appropriate DoD official (as specified in DoD Instruction 5210.02 or subsequent instructions).
(c) Declassification proposals may be sent to the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security, AU-1/Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. For FRD, the proposal may be sent to the Director, Office of Classification, or the appropriate DoD official (as specified in DoD Instruction 5210.02 or subsequent instructions). DOE and DoD must coordinate with one another concerning declassification proposals for FRD.
(a) Any person with access to RD, FRD, or TFNI who believes that RD, FRD, or TFNI is improperly classified is encouraged and expected to challenge the classification. The challenge may be to information RD, FRD, or TFNI (
(b) Challenges are submitted in accordance with agency procedures.
(c) Each agency must establish procedures for a person to challenge the classification status of RD, FRD, or TFNI if they believe that the classification status is improper. These procedures must:
(1) Advise the person of their right to submit a challenge directly to the Director, Office of Classification, AU-60/Germantown Building; U.S. Department of Energy; 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, at any time.
(2) Ensure that under no circumstances is an employee subject to retribution for challenging the classification status of RD, FRD, or TFNI;
(3) Require the agency that initially receives the challenge to provide an initial response within 60 days to the person submitting the challenge.
(4) Require the agency to advise the person of their appeal rights. If the employee is not satisfied with the agency response or the agency has not responded to the challenge within 180 days, the challenge involving RD, FRD, or TFNI may be appealed to the Director, Office of Classification.
(i) In the case of FRD and RD related primarily to the military utilization of nuclear weapons, the Director, Office of Classification, coordinates with the appropriate DoD official (as specified in DoD Instruction 5210.02 or subsequent instructions).
(ii) In the case of TFNI, the Director, Office of Classification, coordinates with DNI.
(5) If the response to the initial appeal and its justification for classification does not satisfy the person making the challenge, a further appeal may be made to the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security, AU-1/Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585.
(d) Agency responses to RD or TFNI challenges are limited to interpreting the application of guidance to derivatively classify matter. Except for DoD, agency responses to FRD are limited to interpreting the application of guidance to derivatively classify matter. An agency may coordinate challenges regarding interpreting guidance for RD or TFNI with DOE, and may coordinate challenges regarding interpreting guidance for FRD with DOE or DoD.
(e) Agencies must forward challenges that require decisions other than interpreting the application of guidance (
(a) Specific authority and/or training is required to derivatively classify matter containing RD, FRD, or TFNI. These derivative classification decisions must be based on a classification guide, a classification bulletin, or a portion-marked source document and must only be made in the RD Derivative Classifier's subject areas of expertise. In cases where guidance does not exist, for RD the Director, Office of Classification must make an initial determination that information is RD or that the matter contains RD, and for FRD DOE and DoD must jointly determine that the information is FRD or the matter contains FRD. No other agency or agency personnel has the authority to make an initial determination regarding RD or FRD. See § 1045.135 for the process for requesting a determination in cases where guidance does not exist.
(b) Each person who derivatively classifies matter containing RD or FRD must be an RD Derivative Classifier.
(c) Except for DoD military and DoD Federal civilian employees, each RD Derivative Classifier must be designated by name or position in writing in accordance with agency procedures.
(d) An agency contractor employee may be an RD Derivative Classifier. All contractor employees, including DoD contractors, must be designated by name or position as such in writing in accordance with agency procedures.
(e) Once a person is an RD Derivative Classifier for an agency, he or she may classify matter containing RD or FRD in those subject areas in which they have programmatic expertise for any agency, provided the other agency or agencies accept the existing authority.
(f) No specific designation as an RD Derivative Classifier is required to classify matter containing TFNI. Any person who has received training required by § 1045.120 may classify matter containing TFNI.
(a) Prior to being authorized access to RD and FRD, a person must receive training that explains:
(1) What information is potentially RD and FRD;
(2) Matter that potentially contains RD or FRD must be reviewed by an RD Derivative Classifier to determine whether it contains RD or FRD;
(3) DOE must review matter that potentially contains RD or TFNI for public release and DOE or DoD must review matter that potentially contains FRD for public release;
(4) RD Derivative Classification authority is required to classify or upgrade matter containing RD or FRD, or to downgrade the level of matter containing RD or FRD;
(5) Only a person trained in accordance with this section, may classify matter containing TFNI;
(6) Matter containing RD, FRD, and TFNI is not automatically declassified and only DOE authorized persons may downgrade the category or declassify matter marked as containing RD; only DOE or DoD authorized persons may downgrade the category or declassify matter marked as containing FRD;
(7) How to submit a challenge if they believe RD, FRD, or TFNI information (
(8) Access requirements for matter marked as containing RD or FRD.
(b) Each person with access to RD and FRD must also receive periodic refresher briefings covering these same topics.
(c) In addition to the training in paragraph (a) of this section, prior to derivatively classifying matter containing RD, or FRD and every 2 years thereafter, each RD Derivative Classifier must also receive training that explains:
(1) The use of classification guides, classification bulletins, and portion-marked source documents to classify matter containing RD and FRD;
(2) What to do if applicable classification guidance is not available;
(3) Limitations on an RD Derivative Classifier's authority to remove RD or FRD portions from matter; and
(4) Marking requirements for matter containing RD and FRD.
(d) Prior to having access to TFNI, and periodically thereafter, each person must receive the following training (which may be combined with the training required for access to RD or FRD):
(1) What information is potentially TFNI;
(2) Only a person with appropriate training may determine if matter contains TFNI;
(3) Marking requirements for matter containing TFNI;
(4) Matter containing TFNI is not automatically declassified and only DOE authorized persons may downgrade the category or declassify matter marked as containing TFNI; and
(5) How to submit a challenge if they believe TFNI information (
(e) In addition to the training in § 1045.120(d), prior to derivatively classifying matter containing TFNI and every 2 years thereafter, each person who derivatively classifies matter containing TFNI must also receive training that explains:
(1) The markings applied to matter containing TFNI;
(2) Limitations on their authority to remove TFNI portions from matter;
(3) Only DOE authorized persons may determine that classified matter no longer contains TFNI;
(4) Only DOE authorized persons may declassify matter marked as containing TFNI; and
(5) DOE must review matter that potentially contains TFNI for public release.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) An RD Classifier may review the matter to determine if it contains RD or FRD. If the matter is determined to contain RD or FRD, the matter must be appropriately marked and is exempt from automatic declassification.
(2) A person trained to classify TFNI may review the matter to determine if it contains TFNI. If the matter is determined to contain TFNI, the matter must be appropriately marked and is exempt from automatic declassification.
(3) If an authorized person is unable to make a determination for RD, FRD, or TFNI, the matter must be referred to DOE. Matter containing FRD may also be referred to DoD. The matter may not be automatically declassified until DOE or DoD makes a determination as to its classification status.
(a) For RD or FRD, an RD Derivative Classifier makes the derivative classification determination using:
(1) A DOE classification guide or bulletin, a joint DOE-agency classification guide, an agency guide with RD/FRD topics that is within his or her programmatic area of expertise; or
(2) An applicable portion-marked source document.
(b) For TFNI, a person who is trained to derivatively classify matter containing TFNI makes the determination using:
(1) Approved TFNI guidelines;
(2) A DOE classification guide or bulletin, a joint DOE-agency classification guide, an agency guide with RD, FRD, or TFNI topics within his or her programmatic area of expertise; or
(3) An applicable portion-marked source document.
(c)
(1)
(2)
(d)
(a) No. If an RD Derivative Classifier or a person trained to classify matter containing TFNI is unable to locate a classification guide or classification bulletin that applies to the nuclear-related information within his or her programmatic expertise and does not have an applicable portion-marked source document to use for derivative classification, then he or she must contact the RDMO or an ARDMO for assistance. The RDMO/ARDMO may be aware of other classification guidance that could apply to the information.
(b) If no guidance is identified, the RDMO must forward the matter to the Director, Office of Classification, for a determination. Within 30 days, the Director, Office of Classification must:
(1) Determine whether the information is already classified as RD, FRD, or TFNI under current classification guidance and, if so, provide such guidance to the RDMO who forwarded the matter.
(2) If the information is not already classified as RD, FRD, or TFNI, the procedures for initially classifying information as RD, FRD, or TFNI under § 1045.70 must be followed. The Director, Office of Classification, must notify the RDMO of the results of the initial classification determination within 90 days of receiving the matter. Initial determinations must be incorporated into classified guides, as appropriate.
(c) Pending a determination, the matter under review must be protected at a minimum as Secret RD, Secret FRD, or Secret TFNI, as appropriate.
(a) Matter determined to contain RD, FRD, or TFNI must be clearly marked to convey to the holder of that matter that it contains such information.
(b)
(c)
(1) Released outside the originating activity;
(2) Retained more than 180 days from the date of origin or the date of the last change; or
(3) Filed permanently.
(d)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(A) If the matter contains RD or RD and FRD, use the following admonishment:
This document contains RESTRICTED DATA as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Unauthorized disclosure subject to administrative and criminal sanctions.
(B) If the document contains FRD and no RD, use the following admonishment:
Unauthorized disclosure subject to administrative and criminal sanctions. Handle as RESTRICTED DATA in foreign dissemination. Section 144b, Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
(iii)
(iv)
(A)
(B)
If a source document is used to classify the matter, it must be identified, including the office of origin and the date of the source document. If more than one classification guide or source document is used, the words “Multiple Sources” may be included. In the case of multiple sources, a source list identifying each guide or source document must be included with all copies of the matter.
(C)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(f)
(1)
(2)
(g)
(1) If matter containing RD and/or FRD and CUI is not portion marked, CUI markings are not required.
(2)
(i) If the matter contains RD or FRD and is not portion marked, then CUI decontrol instructions must not be included.
(ii) If the matter is portion marked and decontrol instructions are applied, the decontrol instructions for the CUI portions must not be on the front page. Where they appear, they must be clearly labeled as decontrol instructions for CUI.
(iii) If the matter contains TFNI, and decontrol instructions are applied, the decontrol instructions for the CUI portions must not be on the front page. Where they appear they must be clearly labeled as decontrol instructions for CUI.
(h)
If the output is a final product that has been reviewed by a person with appropriate authority, and is properly marked, or is a working paper that is properly marked, no additional review is required. Otherwise, the output must be reviewed in accordance with § 1045.30.
(a) No. Specific authority is required to remove RD, FRD, or TFNI portions from matter. The authority required depends on whether the matter is intended for public release, the category of information in the matter, and whether the matter is portion marked.
(b)
(c)
(1) An RD Derivative Classifier may remove the portions marked as containing RD or FRD and remove the RD or FRD markings.
(2) A person trained in accordance with § 1045.120(e) may remove the portions containing TFNI and the TFNI markings.
(3) In all cases under § 1045.150(b) this may be done only if the matter is originated by the authorized person's agency and the matter is portion marked, and the resulting matter is reviewed to ensure it does not contain RD, FRD, or TFNI by a person authorized to review the matter.
(a) RD, FRD, and TFNI are never automatically declassified. No date or event for automatic declassification ever applies to RD, FRD, or TFNI, even when commingled with NSI. It takes positive action by an authorized person to declassify matter potentially containing or marked as containing RD, FRD, or TFNI.
(b) Only authorized persons within DOE may declassify matter marked as RD or TFNI and only authorized persons within DOE or DoD may declassify matter marked as FRD. Only these same persons may identify the portions of classified matter that contain RD, FRD, or TFNI that must be redacted prior to public release.
(c)
(d)
(e)
When an appropriate authority removes the RD, FRD, or TFNI from matter and it still contains NSI, the matter must be marked following E.O. 13526 and 32 CFR part 2001 or successor orders and regulations, including portion marking if the matter was not previously portion marked, and the classification authority block of the matter must be changed to contain declassification instructions for the NSI. This does not apply to matter produced as part of the coordination process for declassification or public release reviews.
(a) Matter that is determined to no longer contain RD, FRD, or TFNI and also does not or no longer contains NSI must be clearly marked to convey to the holder of that matter that the matter is declassified;
(b) The front page must identify the person authorizing the declassification by name and position or title, if not otherwise evident, agency, and office of origin; or with a unique identifier; the classification guide that served as the basis for the declassification by short title, date, agency and, when available, the office of origin; and the declassification date. For example:
(c) The person authorizing the declassification must line through but not obliterate the classification markings and apply or authorize the application of the appropriate markings.
This subpart contains requirements that apply when Federal agencies other than DOE receive FOIA or MDR requests for matter that is marked as or potentially contains RD, FRD, or TFNI. RD, FRD, and TFNI are classified under the Atomic Energy Act and are not subject to the provisions governing MDR requests under E.O. 13526 or successor orders. To ensure RD, FRD, and TFNI are considered and appropriately reviewed when requested under a FOIA or MDR request, this section describes the process Federal agencies must follow for FOIA and MDR requests for matter that is marked as or potentially contains RD, FRD, or TFNI.
(a) When an agency receives a FOIA or MDR request for which any responsive matter is marked as or potentially contains RD, FRD, or TFNI, the agency must forward the matter to the appropriate agency as follows:
(1) Forward any matter marked as or potentially containing RD or TFNI to the Director, Office of Classification or a DOE official granted authority by delegation, regulation, or DOE directive.
(2) Forward any matter originated by DOE and marked as or potentially containing FRD to either the Director, Office of Classification or a DOE official granted authority by delegation, regulation, or DOE directive. Forward any matter originated by DoD and marked as or potentially containing FRD to the appropriate DoD program (as specified in DoD Manual 5400.07, DoD Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Program, subsequent manuals, or other applicable manuals). Matter not originated by DOE or DoD may be submitted to either agency as provided in this paragraph.
(b) DOE and DoD must coordinate the review of matter marked as or potentially containing RD and FRD, when appropriate. DOE and the DNI must coordinate the review of matter marked as or potentially containing TFNI, when appropriate.
(c) DOE, DoD, or the DNI may refuse to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of the requested matter
(d) If the information contained in the requested matter has been reviewed for declassification within the past 2 years, another review need not be conducted, but instead the agency may inform the requester of this fact and of the results of the prior review decision.
(e) When paragraph (c) or (d) of this section do not apply, the appropriate DOE or DoD authority must conduct a line-by-line review of matter forwarded under paragraph (a); identify the information that is classified under current classification guidance as RD, FRD, or TFNI; and respond to the agency that forwarded the matter. The response to the agency who forwarded the request must identify the RD, FRD, or TFNI that is exempt from public release; provide the FOIA exemption or appropriate MDR notation for the RD, FRD, or TFNI withheld; identify the Denying Official for the RD, FRD, or TFNI withheld; and explain the applicable appeal procedures identified in § 1045.180.
(1) The Denying Officials are as follows:
(i) The Denying Official for matter containing RD or TFNI is the Director, Office of Classification.
(ii) The Denying Official for matter containing FRD is the Director, Office of Classification, or the appropriate DoD Component's Initial Denying Authority (as specified in applicable DoD manuals).
(iii) The Denying Official for Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information is the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Deputy Director, Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors.
(f) Upon receipt of the response from DOE or DOD, the agency processing the initial request must inform the requester of the results of the review; provide the name of the Denying Official identified for any RD, FRD, or TFNI withheld; and advise the requester of his or her appeal rights concerning the RD, FRD, or TFNI.
(a) If an agency receives a FOIA appeal for RD, FRD, or TFNI denied by DOE, the appeal must be submitted to the DOE Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals as required under 10 CFR 1004.8. If an agency receives a FOIA appeal for FRD denied by DoD, it must be submitted to DoD in accordance with applicable DoD FOIA regulations or instructions.
(b) Appeals of MDR responses when DOE denied RD, FRD, or TFNI may be submitted to the agency that replied to the initial MDR request or directly to DOE.
(1) When an appeal concerning DOE-withheld RD, FRD, or TFNI is sent to the agency that replied to the initial MDR request, the agency must forward the appeal to the Associate Under Secretary of Environment, Health, Safety and Security at the following address: Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security, AU-1/Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. The appeal must be received by the agency who replied to the initial request within 60 days of receipt of the denial and contain the information required under § 1045.210(b).
(2) When sent directly to DOE, the appeal must be received by the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security within 60 days of the denial and contain the information required under § 1045.210(b).
(3) MDR appeals received by DOE are processed consistent with § 1045.220.
(c) If an agency receives an MDR appeal for FRD withheld by DoD, the agency must submit the appeal to the appropriate DoD Component as identified in applicable DoD manuals.
(d) The MDR appeal authorities for RD, FRD, or TFNI are as follows:
(1) The MDR appeal authority for RD and TFNI is the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security.
(2) The MDR appeal authority for FRD is the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security or the appropriate DoD Component appellate authority.
(3) The appeal authority for Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information is the NNSA Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors.
(e)
(f)
This subpart describes the process for MDR requests submitted for DOE matter classified under E.O. 13526 or successor orders, and the Atomic Energy Act.
(a) DOE matter marked as containing NSI, RD, FRD, or TFNI is subject to review for declassification by DOE if the request for a declassification review describes the matter containing the information with sufficient specificity to enable DOE to locate it with a reasonable amount of effort.
(b) The request must be sent to the Director, Office of Classification, AU-60/Germantown Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585.
(a) MDR requests are not accepted for:
(1) Matter containing RD technical engineering, blueprints, and design regarding nuclear weapons, if they contain no NSI.
(2) Matter required to be submitted for prepublication review or other administrative process pursuant to an approved nondisclosure agreement;
(3) Matter that is the subject of pending litigation; or
(4) Any matter contained within an operational file exempted from search and review, publication, and disclosure under the FOIA in accordance with law.
(b) Current Presidential records as described in section 3.5(b) of E.O. 13526 or successor orders that are in the custody of DOE are exempt from release in response to an MDR request.
Yes. The fees for an MDR are the same as for providing records under the FOIA as defined in 10 CFR 1004.9.
(a) If DOE has reviewed the information contained in the requested matter for declassification within the past 2 years, DOE need not conduct another review. DOE may instead inform the requester of this fact and of the prior review decision, as well as advise the requester of his or her appeal rights as provided in § 1045.210.
(b) DOE performs an MDR as follows:
(1) Conducts a line-by-line review of the matter;
(2) Coordinates the review with appropriate programs and agencies, as necessary;
(3) Identifies and withholds any information that meets the standards for classification;
(4) Declassifies any NSI that no longer meets the standards for classification under E.O. 13526 or successor orders and any RD, FRD, or TFNI that no longer meets the standards for classification under this part;
(5) If the matter also contains unclassified information that is potentially exempt from release under the FOIA, the matter is further processed to ensure unclassified information that is exempt from public release is identified and that the appropriate officials responsible for denying any unclassified portion of the matter are provided and listed with the notice of denial.
(6) Upon completion of the review, releases the matter to the requester unless withholding is authorized by law. If NSI, RD, FRD, or TFNI, is withheld, the response must advise the requester of his or her appeal rights under § 1045.210.
(a) When the Director, Office of Classification, denies NSI, RD, FRD, or TFNI, or the NNSA Deputy Director, Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors, denies Naval Nuclear Propulsion information, in matter requested under an MDR, the requester may appeal the determination to the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security. The appeal must be received within 60 days of the receipt of the denial.
(b) The appeal must be in writing and submitted to the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security, AU-1/Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. The appeal:
(1) Must contain a concise statement of grounds upon which it is brought, and a description of the relief sought.
(2) Must include a copy of the letter containing the determination being appealed.
(3) Should include a discussion of all relevant authorities that include but are not limited to DOE (and predecessor agencies) rulings, regulations, interpretations, and decisions on appeals, as well as any judicial determinations being relied upon to support the appeal.
(a) An appeal for NSI requested under the provisions of E.O. 13526 or successor orders is processed as follows:
(1) The Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security must act upon the appeal within 60 working days of its receipt. If no determination on the appeal has been issued at the end of this 60-day period, the requester may consider his or her administrative remedies to be exhausted and may seek a review by the ISCAP. When no determination can be issued within the applicable time limit, the appeal must nevertheless continue to be processed. On expiration of the time limit, DOE must inform the requester of the reason for the delay, of the date on which a determination may be expected to be issued, and of the requester's right to seek further review by the ISCAP. Nothing in this subpart precludes the appeal authority and the requester from agreeing to an extension of time for the decision on an appeal. The Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security must confirm any such agreement in writing and clearly specify the total time agreed upon for the appeal decision.
(2) The Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security's action on an appeal must be in writing and set forth the reason for the decision. DOE may refuse to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of requested information whenever the fact of its existence or nonexistence is itself classified under E.O. 13526 or successor orders.
(3)
(a) Final appeals for DOE matter containing RD, FRD, or TFNI are submitted to the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security. The Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security will coordinate appeals concerning Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information with the NNSA Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors.
(b) The classification and declassification of RD, FRD, and TFNI is governed by the AEA and this part and is not subject to E.O. 13526 or successor orders. Therefore, appeal decisions concerning RD, FRD, or TFNI by the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security, or the NNSA Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors are not subject to review by ISCAP.
Yes. Once the classified and unclassified information exempt from public release is redacted, DOE responses to MDR requests, as well as FOIA requests for matter containing classified information, are posted on DOE's OpenNet System 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 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR