| Page Range | 17737-17898 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 17791 - Antidumping Duty Investigations on Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan; Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances | |
| 83 FR 17873 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Toward a Concrete Utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia, 1948-1980” Exhibition | |
| 83 FR 17858 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 83 FR 17869 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 17823 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17746 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines | |
| 83 FR 17836 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Management Reviews of Multifamily Housing Programs: HUD-9834 | |
| 83 FR 17898 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 2587 | |
| 83 FR 17744 - Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc. Model 700 Airplane; Occupant Protection for Side-Facing Seats Installed Forward of Aft-Facing Seats | |
| 83 FR 17876 - Notice of Intent of Waiver With Respect to Land; Willoughby Lost Nation Municipal Airport, Willoughby, Ohio | |
| 83 FR 17807 - DoD Guidance for Reviewing System Security Plans and the NIST SP 800-171 Security Requirements Not Yet Implemented | |
| 83 FR 17762 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; Lifting the Stay on Inclusion of Shrimp and Abalone in the Seafood Traceability Program | |
| 83 FR 17806 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 17762 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Educational Service Agreements (DFARS Case 2017-D039) | |
| 83 FR 17825 - Severely Debilitating or Life-Threatening Hematologic Disorders: Nonclinical Development of Pharmaceuticals; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 17810 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Magnet Schools Assistance Program- Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Table Form | |
| 83 FR 17835 - Notice of Final Determination for the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indian Tribe's Request for Expansion of Their Formula Area | |
| 83 FR 17813 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah River Site | |
| 83 FR 17810 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada | |
| 83 FR 17814 - Environmental Management Advisory Board Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17812 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth | |
| 83 FR 17876 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; The Boeing Company | |
| 83 FR 17826 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request Information Collection Request Title: The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Statewide Needs Assessment Update | |
| 83 FR 17802 - Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 17757 - Approval of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Missouri; Hospital, Medical, and Infectious Waste Incineration (HMIWI) Units | |
| 83 FR 17839 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Oil and Gas, or Geothermal Resources; Transfers and Assignments | |
| 83 FR 17840 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing and Drainage Protection | |
| 83 FR 17823 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 17854 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Local Area Unemployment Statistics Program | |
| 83 FR 17853 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Annual Funding Notice for Defined Benefit Pension Plans | |
| 83 FR 17788 - Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 17885 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal of an Approved Information Collection: Commercial Motor Vehicle Marking Requirements | |
| 83 FR 17884 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal of an Approved Information Collection: Lease and Interchange of Vehicles | |
| 83 FR 17894 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently-Approved Information Collection Request: Annual Report of Class I and Class II Motor Carriers of Property | |
| 83 FR 17806 - Ocean Exploration Advisory Board (OEAB) Public Meeting of the Ocean Exploration Advisory Board | |
| 83 FR 17768 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dishwashers, Notification of Petition for Rulemaking | |
| 83 FR 17814 - Agency Information Collection Extension | |
| 83 FR 17811 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Representative Average Unit Costs of Energy | |
| 83 FR 17749 - Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Clarification on the Collection and Confidentiality of Kimberley Process Certificates | |
| 83 FR 17888 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 83 FR 17892 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 83 FR 17889 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 83 FR 17856 - NASA International Space Station Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17756 - Technical Correction to Combined Ratings Table | |
| 83 FR 17881 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing | |
| 83 FR 17893 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 83 FR 17883 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application for an Exemption From Castignoli Enterprises | |
| 83 FR 17879 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 83 FR 17880 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 83 FR 17877 - Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; American Pyrotechnics Association | |
| 83 FR 17886 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption; Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler) | |
| 83 FR 17805 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17805 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17804 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17837 - Receipt of Application for Renewal of Incidental Take Permits; Interim Programmatic Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Endangered Mount Hermon June Beetle and Ben Lomond Spineflower, Santa Cruz County and Scotts Valley, CA | |
| 83 FR 17803 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17805 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17803 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17838 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Availability of Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Sand Skink, Orange County, FL | |
| 83 FR 17867 - Evaluating Electromagnetic and Radio-Frequency Interference in Safety-Related Instrumentation and Control Systems | |
| 83 FR 17855 - Proposed Extension of the Approval of Information Collection Requirements | |
| 83 FR 17819 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 17815 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 17819 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 17849 - Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same: Notice of Request for Statements on the Public Interest | |
| 83 FR 17873 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 17868 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Revised Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17822 - GenH, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene | |
| 83 FR 17817 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice | |
| 83 FR 17821 - San Diego County Water Authority; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, Protests, Recommendations, and Terms and Conditions | |
| 83 FR 17816 - Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order; Nevada Power Company; Saguaro Power Company | |
| 83 FR 17816 - Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference; Old Dominion Electric Cooperative v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Advanced Energy Management Alliance v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. | |
| 83 FR 17820 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 83 FR 17818 - GenH, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene | |
| 83 FR 17897 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SUITE BLUE MIDNIGHT; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 17823 - Draft-National Occupational Research Agenda for Wholesale and Retail Trade | |
| 83 FR 17824 - Research Plan, Continuing To Protect the Nanotechnology Workforce: NIOSH Nanotechnology Research Plan for 2018-2025 | |
| 83 FR 17896 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel THE BLUE PETER; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 17896 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel DELPHINE; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 17794 - Certain Steel Wheels From the People's Republic: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
| 83 FR 17793 - Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Turkey: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2016 | |
| 83 FR 17798 - Certain Steel Wheels From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation | |
| 83 FR 17790 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 81-Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Textiles Coated International Inc. (Polytetrafluoroethylene Products); Manchester and Londonderry, New Hampshire | |
| 83 FR 17789 - Approval of Subzone Status; Orgill, Inc.; Sikeston, Missouri | |
| 83 FR 17790 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 38-Spartanburg, South Carolina; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; AFL Telecommunications, LLC, (Optical Cable for Data Transfer), Duncan, South Carolina | |
| 83 FR 17751 - Special Local Regulation; Black Warrior River, Tuscaloosa, AL | |
| 83 FR 17872 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request | |
| 83 FR 17754 - Safety Zone; Mississippi Sound, Biloxi, MS | |
| 83 FR 17856 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 17839 - Public Meeting of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP) and National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program (NGGDPP) Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 17841 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Nomination of Properties for Listing in the National Register of Historic Places | |
| 83 FR 17783 - World Trade Center Health Program; Petition 018-Hypertension; Finding of Insufficient Evidence | |
| 83 FR 17849 - Foundry Coke From China | |
| 83 FR 17766 - Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/ALL-041 External Biometric Records (EBR) System of Records | |
| 83 FR 17829 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 17852 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Amendment To Consent Judgment Under the Safe Drinking Water Act | |
| 83 FR 17808 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 17833 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Case Assistance Form (Ombudsman Form DHS-7001, and Instructions) | |
| 83 FR 17842 - Minor Boundary Revision at Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site | |
| 83 FR 17852 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 17828 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD); Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17827 - National Cancer Institute Cancellation Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17828 - National Cancer Institute Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 17829 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 17827 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 17829 - National Library of Medicine Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 17851 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act Of 1993-Pistoia Alliance, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 17851 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on Corrosion Under Insulation | |
| 83 FR 17852 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-National Fire Protection Association | |
| 83 FR 17850 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 17851 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 17869 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Establish an Electronic Price Improvement Auction for Complex Orders | |
| 83 FR 17869 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Exchange Rule 503, Openings on the Exchange | |
| 83 FR 17812 - Notice of Orders Issued Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act During February 2018 | |
| 83 FR 17843 - Summary of Commission Practice Relating to Administrative Protective Orders | |
| 83 FR 17789 - Concurrence With OIE Risk Designations for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy | |
| 83 FR 17782 - User Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) | |
| 83 FR 17758 - State of North Dakota Underground Injection Control Program; Class VI Primacy Approval | |
| 83 FR 17897 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
| 83 FR 17777 - Approval Criteria for Rates Charged for Community Residential Care | |
| 83 FR 17858 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations | |
| 83 FR 17737 - Regulatory Capital Rules: Removal of Certain Capital Rules That Are No Longer Effective Following the Implementation of the Revised Capital Rules |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Wage and Hour Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Maritime Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Final rule.
This final rule rescinds certain capital regulations of the FDIC's codified rules (superseded capital rules) that were no longer effective following the January 1, 2015 implementation of the revised capital rules. The final rule also makes conforming changes to sections in the FDIC's codified rules that refer to the superseded capital rules. The FDIC has concluded that good cause exists to publish this rule as final without a period of notice and comment and with an effective date as of the date of its publication in the
The final rule is effective April 24, 2018.
Benedetto Bosco, Chief, Capital Policy Section;
In 2014, the FDIC comprehensively revised and strengthened its capital regulations applicable to FDIC-supervised institutions (revised capital rule).
The final rule rescinds part 325, subpart A—Minimum Capital Requirements, subpart B—Prompt Corrective Action and appendices A through D, as the rules contained therein have been superseded by part 324. Under the final rule, the annual stress testing rule will remain in part 325. Part 325 will be retitled to Annual Stress Test and the stress testing rule will be renumbered to reflect the removed capital rules. Similarly, the final rule removes the superseded capital rules contained in part 390 subpart Y—Prompt Corrective Action and part 390, subpart Z—Capital and related appendices. Under the final rule, sections in part 390 that are not removed will remain codified in part 390, including certain enforcement authorities related to savings association's capital requirements. The final rule also makes conforming technical changes to provisions of the FDIC's codified rules that refer to part 325 for state nonmember banks and subparts Y and Z of part 390 for state savings associations in conjunction with the FDIC's capital rules. However, this final rule does not impact the legal status of any reference to the superseded capital rules in outstanding compliance and enforcement orders, agreements, and memoranda of understanding entered into by the FDIC prior to the effective date of this final rule. Regardless of whether an outstanding enforcement order refers to the superseded capital rule, all FDIC-supervised institutions are subject to the revised capital rule and must be in compliance with the minimum capital requirements in part 324.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not require an agency to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) in the
Section 553(d)(3) of the APA provides that, for good cause found and published with the rule, an agency does not have to comply with the requirement that a substantive rule be published not less than 30 days before its effective date.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The FDIC reviewed the rule and determined that it does not create any new, or revise any existing, collection of information under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Consequently, no information collection request will be submitted to the OMB for review.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that the final rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Title II, Pub. L. 104-121).
The FDIC has determined that the final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681).
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the federal banking agencies to use plain language in all final rules published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC has sought to present the final rule in a simple and straightforward manner.
Under the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, 12 U.S.C. 4802, (RCDRIA), there is a requirement that “[n]ew regulations and amendments to regulations prescribed by a Federal banking agency which impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions shall take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter which begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form” absent a good cause determination by the agency.
Administrative practice and procedure, Bank deposit insurance, Banks, banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Administrative practice and procedure, Bank deposit insurance, Banks, banking, Claims, Crime, Equal access to justice, Fraud, Investigations, Lawyers, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Banks, banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirement.
Bank deposit insurance, Banks, banking, Savings associations.
Banks, banking.
Banks, banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Bank deposit insurance, Banks, banking, Credit, Foreign banking, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, U.S. Investments abroad.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Swaps.
Savings associations.
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Bank deposit insurance, Banks, banking, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Banks, banking, Information.
Banks, banking, Mortgages.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Aged, Civil rights, Conflict of interests, Credit, Crime, Equal employment opportunity, Fair housing, Government employees, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation amends 12 CFR parts 303, 308, 324, 325, 327, 333, 337, 347, 349, 360, 362, 363, 364, 365, and 390 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 378, 1464, 1813, 1815, 1817, 1818, 1819(a) (Seventh and Tenth), 1820, 1823, 1828, 1831a, 1831e, 1831o, 1831p-1, 1831w, 1835a, 1843(l), 3104, 3105, 3108, 3207; 5414; 15 U.S.C. 1601-1607.
(b)
(ee)
(ff)
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Immediately following the merger transaction, the resulting institution will be well-capitalized pursuant to subpart H of part 324 of this chapter (12 CFR part 324); and
(c) * * *
(4) Is well-capitalized as defined in subpart H of part 324 of this chapter; and
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The applicant is at least adequately capitalized as defined in subpart H of part 324 of this chapter;
(a) * * *
(2) Definitions of the capital categories referenced in this Prompt Corrective Action subpart may be found in subpart H of part 324 of this chapter.
(b)
(c) * * *
(4) If the proposal involves a series of transactions affecting Tier 1 capital components which will be consummated over a period of time which shall not exceed twelve months, the application shall certify that the insured depository institution will maintain itself as a well-capitalized institution as defined in part 324 of this chapter both before and after each of the proposed transactions;
5 U.S.C. 504, 554-557; 12 U.S.C. 93(b), 164, 505, 1464, 1467(d), 1467a, 1468, 1815(e), 1817, 1818, 1819, 1820, 1828, 1829, 1829b, 1831i, 1831m(g)(4), 1831o, 1831p-1, 1832(c), 1884(b), 1972, 3102, 3108(a), 3349, 3909, 4717, 5412(b)(2)(C), 5414(b)(3); 15 U.S.C. 78(h) and (i), 78o(c)(4), 78o-4(c), 78o-5, 78q-1, 78s, 78u, 78u-2, 78u-3, 78w, 6801(b), 6805(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 330, 5321; 42 U.S.C. 4012a; Pub.L. 104-134, sec. 3100(s), 110 Stat. 1321; Pub.L. 109-351, 120 Stat. 1966; Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376; Pub.L. 114-74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 584.
The rules and procedures set forth in this subpart apply to banks, insured branches of foreign banks and senior executive officers and directors of banks that are subject to the provisions of section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (section 38) (12 U.S.C. 1831o) and subpart H of part 324 of this chapter.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(
(
(ii)
(b) * * *
(2)
(c)
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) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
12 U.S.C. 5365(i)(2), 12 U.S.C. 5412(b)(2)(C), 12 U.S.C. 1818, 12 U.S.C. 1819(a)(Tenth), 12 U.S.C. 1831o, and 12 U.S.C. 1831p-1.
(c) * * *
(5) Notice and comment procedures: In exercising its authority to require different or additional stress tests and different or additional scenarios (including components for the scenarios) under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the Corporation will apply notice and response procedures in the same manner and to the same extent as the notice and response procedures in 12 CFR 324.5, as appropriate.
12 U.S.C. 1441, 1813, 1815, 1817-19, 1821.
VI. * * *
I. * * *
A. * * *
5. * * *
Higher-risk securitizations are defined as securitization exposures (except securitizations classified as trading book), where, in aggregate, more than 50 percent of the assets backing the securitization meet either the criteria for higher-risk C & I loans or securities, higher-risk consumer loans, or nontraditional mortgage loans, except those classified as trading book. A securitization exposure is as defined in 12 CFR 324.2, as it may be amended from time to time. * * *
12 U.S.C. 1816, 1818, 1819 (“Seventh”, “Eighth” and “Tenth”), 1828, 1828(m), 1831p-1(c).
(a)
12 U.S.C. 375a(4), 375b, 1463(a)(1), 1816, 1818(a), 1818(b), 1819, 1820(d), 1828(j)(2), 1831, 1831f, 5412.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(iii) * * *
12 U.S.C. 1813, 1815, 1817, 1819, 1820(d), 1828, 3103, 3104, 3105, 3108, 3109; Title IX, Pub. L. 98-181, 97 Stat. 1153 (12 U.S.C. 3901
(u) Tier 1 capital means Tier 1 capital as defined in § 324.2 of this chapter.
(v) Well capitalized means well capitalized as defined in § 324.403 of this chapter.
12 U.S.C. 1813(q), 1818, 1819, and 3108; 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(E), 27
An FDIC-supervised insured depository institution offering or entering into retail forex transactions must be well capitalized as defined by 12 CFR part 324, unless specifically exempted by the FDIC in writing.
12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(1), 1821(d)(10)(C), 1821(d)(11), 1821(e)(1), 1821(e)(8)(D)(i), 1823(c)(4), 1823(e)(2); Sec. 401(h), Pub. L. 101-73, 103 Stat. 357.
(b)
(e) * * *
(6) Notwithstanding the general requirements of this paragraph (e), on a case-by-case basis, the FDIC may accelerate, upon notice, the implementation timeframe of all or part of the requirements of this section for a covered institution that: Has a composite rating of 3, 4, or 5 under the Uniform Financial Institution's Rating System, or in the case of an insured branch of a foreign bank, an equivalent rating; is undercapitalized, as defined under the prompt corrective action provisions of 12 CFR part 324; or is determined by the appropriate Federal banking agency or the FDIC in consultation with the appropriate Federal banking agency to be experiencing a significant deterioration of capital or significant funding difficulties or liquidity stress, notwithstanding the composite rating of the institution by its appropriate Federal banking agency in its most recent report of examination. In implementing this paragraph (e)(6), the FDIC must consult with the covered institution's primary federal regulator and consider the: Complexity of the institution's deposit systems and operations, extent of the institution's asset quality difficulties, volatility of the institution's funding sources, expected near-term changes in the institution's capital levels, and other relevant factors appropriate for the FDIC to consider in its roles as insurer and possible receiver of the institution.
12 U.S.C. 1816, 1818, 1819(a)(Tenth), 1828(j), 1828(m), 1828a, 1831a, 1831e, 1831w, 1843(l).
(s)
(t)
(e) * * *
(3) Use such regulatory capital amount for the purposes of the bank's assessment risk classification under part 327 of this chapter and its categorization as a “well-capitalized”, an “adequately capitalized”, an “undercapitalized”, or a “significantly undercapitalized” institution as defined in § 324.403(b) of this chapter, provided that the capital deduction shall not be used for purposes of determining whether the bank is “critically undercapitalized” under part 324 of this chapter.
(d)
12 U.S.C. 1831m.
12 U.S.C. 1818 and 1819 (Tenth), 1831p-1; 15 U.S.C. 1681b, 1681s, 1681w, 6801(b), 6805(b)(1).
I. * * *
A. * * *
* * * Nothing in these Guidelines limits the authority of the FDIC pursuant to section 38(i)(2)(F) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1831o) and part 324 of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
12 U.S.C. 1828(o) and 5101
Loans in Excess of the Supervisory Loan-to-Value Limits
12 U.S.C. 1819.
This section, and § 390.265, issued pursuant to section 18(o) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, (12 U.S.C. 1828(o)), prescribe standards for real estate lending to be used by State savings associations and all their includable subsidiaries, as defined in part 324 of this chapter, over which the State savings associations exercise control, in adopting internal real estate lending policies.
(c) This definition does not apply for purposes of determining the capital adequacy requirements under part 324 of this chapter.
(a)
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(G) State or refer to a document stating that the State savings association must obtain FDIC approval before the voluntarily prepayment of principal on subordinated debt securities, the acceleration of payment of principal on subordinated debt securities, or the voluntarily redemption of mandatorily redeemable preferred stock (other than scheduled redemptions), if the State savings association is undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, or critically undercapitalized as described in subpart H of part 324 of this chapter, fails to meet the regulatory capital requirements in part 324, or would fail to meet any of these standards following the payment.
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The State savings association is at least adequately capitalized under subpart H of part 324 of this chapter and meets the regulatory capital requirements in part 324.
(b) Your payment to repurchase, redeem, retire or otherwise acquire any of your shares or other ownership interests, any payment to repurchase, redeem, retire, or otherwise acquire debt instruments included in your total capital under part 324 of this chapter, and any extension of credit to finance an affiliate's acquisition of your shares or interests;
(d) Any other distribution charged against your capital accounts if you would not be well capitalized, as set forth in subpart H of part 324 of this chapter, following the distribution; and
(a) You will be undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, or critically undercapitalized as set forth in subpart H of part 324 of this chapter, following the capital distribution. If so, the FDIC will determine if your capital distribution is permitted under 12 U.S.C. 1831o(d)(1)(B).
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) You do not comply with all minimum capital requirements under part 324 of this chapter;
(iii) The FDIC has notified you, in connection with its review of a capital restoration plan required under section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or subpart H of part 324 of this chapter or otherwise, that a notice is required under §§ 390.360 through 390.368; or
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Pursuant to § 324.403(d) of this chapter, the FDIC may reclassify a well capitalized State savings association as adequately capitalized or subject an adequately capitalized or undercapitalized institution to the supervisory actions applicable to the next lower capital category if:
(
(
(ii)
By order of the Board of Directors.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Model 700 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is side-facing seats installed forward of aft-facing seats. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on Textron on April 24, 2018. Send your comments by June 8, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0637 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Alan Sinclair, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Section, AIR-675, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2195; facsimile 425-227-1320.
The substance of these special conditions has been published in the
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On November 20, 2014, Textron applied for a type certificate for their new Model 700 airplane. The Model 700 airplane is a turbofan-powered executive-jet airplane with seating for two crewmembers and 12 passengers. This airplane will have a maximum takeoff weight of 38,514 pounds.
Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Textron must show that the Model 700 airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 700 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Textron Model 700 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: Side-facing seats installed forward of aft-facing seats.
Many of the Textron Model 700 interior configurations include a multiple-place side-facing seat installed just forward of an aft-facing seat. There is the possibility of interaction between the aft-facing seat and the occupant in the aft-most seating position on the multiple-place side-facing seat. Textron is proposing to install a structural armrest aft of the multiple-place side-facing seat and forward of the aft-facing seat. See Figure 1.
Dynamic seat testing is required of all applicants who plan to install side-facing and oblique-angled seats in passenger airplanes. The intent of dynamic seat testing is to evaluate airplane seats, restraints, and related interior systems to demonstrate their structural strength and their ability to protect an occupant from serious injuries in a survivable crash. The current regulations in §§ 25.561, 25.562, and 25.785 address occupant injury protection for forward and aft-facing seats.
The FAA will issue special conditions separately to address the additional occupant-injury protection concerns raised for side-facing seats. However, the aft occupant of the side-facing seat (see Figure 1 in these special conditions) may interact with the aft-facing seat, a scenario that the regulations do not specifically address.
The aft-facing seat back could deform during the dynamic-test event, and could contact the occupant in the aft side-facing seat. The point that the seat back contacts the occupant could be in an area of the body that has no defined, acceptable, injury-evaluation method, such as the shoulder. This type of contact is addressed in these side-facing-seat special conditions, which prohibit body-to-body contact.
The applicant proposed installing a structural armrest between the side-facing seat and the aft-facing seat to help prevent contact between the aft-facing seat and the aft occupant of the side-facing seat. This contact would be likely to occur if the structural armrest failed to perform as intended in an emergency landing. Therefore, the purpose of these special conditions is to define the specific structural requirements of the proposed structural armrest, and the additional requirements necessary to protect the seated occupant from both the side-facing seat and the adjacent aft-facing seat.
The applicant is likely to have to conduct two or more 16g forward structural tests with the combination of the side-facing seat, structural armrest, and aft-facing seat to account for all critical cases.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Textron Model 700 airplane. Should Textron apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Textron Model 700 airplanes with a structural armrest installed between a side-facing seat, located forward of aft-facing seats, and the aft-facing seats.
1. The applicant must propose a certification strategy for the structural armrest. This strategy must address the structural integrity of the structural armrest and occupant protection after a survivable crash. The strategy must define how the applicant will ensure that the installation, when permanently deformed due to the application of static, dynamic, and interaction (with aft-facing seat) loads, and while complying with the applicable §§ 25.561 and 25.562 requirements, meets the following conditions:
a. The proposed structural armrest must not contact the occupant in the aft-most seating position of the side-facing seat, such that the armrest imparts any load, other than incidental and non-injurious contact, with the seat occupant.
b. The backrest of the aft-facing seat must not touch the occupant in the aft-most seating position of the side-facing seat.
c. The proposed structural armrest must not impose loads to the side-facing seat structure, and;
d. The seat back of the aft-facing seat must not, as a result of contact with the structural armrest, result in damage or permanent deformation of the seat back that could be injurious to the occupant of the aft-facing seat.
2. In addition, the applicant must:
a. Test, to the emergency-landing conditions listed in § 25.562, the structural armrest and the aft-facing seat together, as a system, with pitch and roll of the seat track to ensure that the armrest continues to protect the occupant of the side-facing seat.
b. Conduct 16g forward structural tests with the combination of the side-facing seat, structural armrest, and the aft-facing seat, accounting for all critical cases. For these tests, the applicant should account for all structural requirements and post-test conditions. Anthropomorphic test dummies are required as part of § 25.562 structural testing.
c. Apply to the seat track the worst-case floor deformation that:
i. Produces the maximum load into the structural armrest for armrests that are integrally a part of any seat structure. This maximum load includes the load caused by the floor deformation and the load from the aft-facing seat back.
ii. Allows the aft-facing seat back the most forward dynamic deformation in the area of the side-facing seat's aft occupant. No contact between the aft-facing seat and the side-facing seat aft occupant is acceptable.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Trent 1000-A2, Trent 1000-AE2, Trent 1000-C2, Trent 1000-CE2, Trent 1000-D2, Trent 1000-E2, Trent 1000-G2, Trent 1000-H2, Trent 1000-J2, Trent 1000-K2, and Trent 1000-L2 turbofan engines. This AD requires initial and repetitive inspections of the intermediate-pressure compressor (IPC) stage 1 rotor blades, IPC stage 2 rotor blades, and IPC shaft stage 2 dovetail posts, and removing any cracked parts from service. This AD was prompted by IPC blade separations resulting in engine failures. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 24, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 24, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by June 8, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2018-0084, dated April 13, 2018 (referred to after this as the MCAI), to address an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Occurrences were reported on RR Trent 1000 `Pack C' engines, where some IPC Rotor 1 and Rotor 2 blades were found cracked.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-flight blade release, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, RR initially issued Alert NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AJ814 and 72-AJ819 to provide inspection instructions for IPC Rotor 1 blades, and IPC Rotor 2 blades and IPC shaft Stage 2 dovetail posts, respectively. RR also issued NMSB TRENT 1000 72-J871 to provide rework instructions for the affected parts, and Alert NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AJ869 to inspect those post-rework parts. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2017-0248 to require repetitive inspections of the affected IPC Rotor blades and IPC shaft Stage 2 dovetail posts and, depending on findings, removal from service of the engine for corrective action.
After that [EASA] AD was issued, prompted by further analysis, it was determined that, for certain engines, the front face of IPC Rotor 2 Blades and the dovetail posts of the IPC Shaft Stage 2 Rotor assembly needed to be inspected earlier. RR issued Alert NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AK058 to provide instructions for a one-time on-wing inspection. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2018-0073, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2017-0248, which was superseded, to require an additional borescope inspection of certain engines and, depending on findings, removal from service of the engine for corrective action.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was determined that repetitive borescope inspections are necessary on all engines to ensure fleet-wide continued safe operation. Consequently, RR revised Alert NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AJ869, Alert NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AJ814, Alert NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AJ819 and NMSB TRENT 1000 72-J871, and issued the NMSB to consolidate all inspection instructions.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2018-0073, which is superseded, and requires repetitive on-wing borescope inspections of the affected Rotor 1 and Rotor 2 parts and, depending on findings, removal from service of the engine for corrective action. This [EASA] AD also introduces specific requirements for engines installed on aeroplanes involved in ETOPS, and inspection following operation in asymmetric power conditions.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We reviewed RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000 72-AJ819, Revision 2, dated April 12, 2018, and RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK060, dated April 13, 2018. RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ819 describes procedures for performing a visual borescope inspection of the IPC stage 2 rotor blades and IPC shaft stage 2 dovetail posts. RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK060 defines the initial inspection threshold and repeat inspection intervals for Trent 1000 IPC stage 1 blade, stage 2 blade and IPC shaft stage 2 dovetail posts. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by EASA and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires initial and repetitive inspections of the IPC stage 1 rotor blades, IPC stage 2 rotor blades, and IPC stage 2 shaft dovetail posts, and removing any cracked parts from service.
We consider this AD interim action. RR is developing a modification which is expected to be terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD.
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 compliance time for the action is less than the time required for public comment. The FAA has reviewed and agrees with EASA's determination that certain affected IPC rotor blades and dovetail posts must be inspected and, if needed, replaced with a part eligible for installation prior to further flight. Failure to inspect and replace these parts within the required compliance times could lead to failure of the IPC, failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the airplane. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 28 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective April 24, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Trent 1000-A2, Trent 1000-AE2, Trent 1000-C2, Trent 1000-CE2, Trent 1000-D2, Trent 1000-E2, Trent 1000-G2, Trent 1000-H2, Trent 1000-J2, Trent 1000-K2, and Trent 1000-L2 turbofan engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by reports of intermediate-pressure compressor (IPC) rotor blade separations resulting in engine failures. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the IPC. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Inspect the IPC stage 1 rotor blades before exceeding the applicable initial inspection thresholds specified in Table 1 of RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000 72-AK060, dated April 13, 2018, or within 80 flight cycles (FCs) after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. If Direct Accumulation Count cycles, as specified in Table 1 of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK060, are not available, then use FCs, regardless of Engine Health Monitoring alerts. Thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 FCs, repeat the inspection of the IPC stage 1 rotor blades. Use the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A., of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK060, dated April 13, 2018 to perform the inspections.
(2) Perform an initial inspection of the IPC stage 2 rotor blades and IPC shaft stage 2 dovetail posts, using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B., of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK060, dated April 13, 2018. Perform the initial inspection based on engine operations as specified in the following paragraphs and within the following compliance times:
(i) For engines with less than 300 FCs since new on the effective date of this AD:
(A) For engines that are not operated on ETOPS (extended operations) flights, prior to exceeding 300 FCs or within 50 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(B) For engines that are operated on ETOPS flights, before exceeding 300 FCs or before the next ETOPS flight, whichever occurs later.
(ii) For engines with 300 or more FCs since new on the effective date of this AD:
(A) For engines that are not operated on ETOPS flights, prior to exceeding 50 days after the effective date of this AD or within 80 FCs since the last inspection performed in accordance with RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ819, whichever occurs later. This inspection is not to exceed 200 FCs since the previous inspection.
(B) For engines that are operated on ETOPS flights, before the next ETOPS flight, or within 80 FCs since the last inspection performed in accordance with RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ819, whichever occurs later.
(3) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 80 FCs, repeat the inspections of the IPC stage 2 rotor blades and IPC shaft stage 2 dovetail posts required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. Use the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B., of RR Alert Trent 1000 72-AK060, dated April 13, 2018, to perform these inspections.
(4) For engines involved in ETOPS operations, inspect the rear face of IPC stage 2 rotor blades, part number KH25730, at each inspection interval defined in paragraph
(5) As of the effective date of this AD, before the next flight after each occurrence where engine operation in asymmetric power conditions was sustained for more than 30 minutes at less than 25,000 feet, either resulting from engine power reduction, or from engine in-flight shut-down (IFSD), perform an on-wing borescope inspection of the IPC stage 2 rotor blades and IPC shaft stage 2 dovetail posts on the unaffected engine (no power reduction, no IFSD) installed on the airplane. Use the Accomplishment Instructions, either paragraph 3.B. for engines not involved in ETOPS operations, or paragraphs 3.B. and 3.C. for engines involved in ETOPS operations, of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK060, dated April 13, 2018, to perform this inspection.
(6) If any IPC stage 1 rotor blade, IPC stage 2 rotor blade, or an IPC shaft stage 2 dovetail post is found cracked during any inspection required by this AD, replace the part with a part eligible for installation before further flight.
For the purpose of this AD, flight cycles indicated in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD are those accumulated by the engine. FCs indicated in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD are those accumulated by each affected IPC stage 2 rotor blade since first installation on an engine. If FCs accumulated by an affected IPC stage 2 rotor blade are unknown, then engine FCs since new apply.
(1) If you performed the initial inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD before the effective date of this AD, using any of the following you met the initial inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD; however, all of the repetitive actions still apply:
(i) RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ814, Initial Issue, dated August 17, 2017, or Revision 1, dated September 26, 2017; or
(ii) RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK058, Initial Issue, dated March 30, 2018;
(iii) RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ819, Revision 1, October 9, 2017, or Initial Issue, dated August 17, 2017.
(2) Reserved.
(1) Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are subject to the requirements of paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this AD.
(i) Operators who are prohibited from further flight due to an IPC stage 1 rotor blade, IPC stage 2 rotor blade, or an IPC shaft stage 2 dovetail post being found cracked, may perform a one-time non-revenue ferry flight to a location where the engine can be removed from service. This ferry flight must be performed without passengers, involve non-ETOPS operation, and consume no more than three FCs.
(ii) Reserved.
(2) Reserved.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-0084, dated April 13, 2018, for more information. You may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000 72-AJ819, Revision 2, dated April 12, 2018.
(ii) RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK060, Initial Issue, dated April 13, 2018.
(3) For RR service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.
(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:
Bureau of the Census, Commerce Department.
Final rule.
The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) issues this final rule amending its regulations to clarify that the data collected from the Kimberley Process Certificates (KPCs) are collected in compliance with the Clean Diamond Trade Act. In addition, this rule clarifies the submission requirements and permissible uses of the KPCs.
This final rule is effective July 23, 2018.
Dale C. Kelly, Chief, International Trade Management Division, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233-6010, by phone at 301-763-6937; by fax at 301-763-8835; or by email at
The Census Bureau is amending the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR) (15 CFR part 30) to clarify that the Kimberley Process Certificates (KPCs) are not collected under Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.). Instead, the KPCs are collected under the Clean Diamond Trade Act (CDTA) (Pub. L. 108-19, 19 U.S.C. 3901,
Consistent with the CDTA, Executive Order 13312, and the KPCS, the Office of Foreign Assets Control's Rough Diamonds Control Regulations (31 CFR part 592) require that an original KPC accompany all shipments of rough diamonds imported into, or exported from, the United States. The FTR requires that Participants provide an original KPC to the Census Bureau for all import and export shipments of rough diamonds. The data collected from the KPCs are separate and distinct from the statistical data collected under Title 13, U.S.C., and are not governed by the confidentiality provisions of that title.
Finally, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of State concur with the revisions to the FTR as required by 13 U.S.C. 302 and Public Law 107-228, div. B, title XIV, section 1404.
The Census Bureau received two comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the
As discussed above, after consideration of the comment received, the Census Bureau includes in this final rule an additional clarifying sentence at the end of the language in the proposed rule regulatory text for the Note to § 30.60. For clarification, consistent with terminology used in the FTR, the Census Bureau also includes in this final rule the addition of the phrase “by the USPPI or U.S. authorized agent” to the proposed rule regulatory text revising § 30.7(c).
This final rule amends relevant sections of the FTR in order to clarify requirements, consistent with the CDTA and Executive Order 13312. Specifically, in addition to the clarifying changes described above, this final rule makes the following revisions to the FTR in 15 CFR part 30:
• Revise § 30.1(c) to add the definition “Kimberley Process Certificate” as a technical amendment.
• Revise § 30.1(c) to add the definition “Voided Kimberley Process Certificate” to clarify the term.
• Revise § 30.4 to add paragraph (e) to clarify the filing procedures for voided KPCs and to address that the collection of KPCs is not pursuant to Title 13, United States Code.
• Revise § 30.7(c) to clarify that KPCs must be provided to the Census Bureau immediately after export of the shipment from the United States.
• Revise § 30.50(c) to clarify that KPCs must be provided to the Census Bureau immediately after entry of the shipment in the United States.
• Revise § 30.60 to add a note clarifying that KPCs are not considered Electronic Export Information (EEI) and are not confidential under Title 13, U.S.C.
• Revise § 30.70 to clarify how violations of the CDTA will be enforced.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Currently, a KPC must be submitted for all imports or exports of rough diamonds. This rule requires that KPCs be provided to the Census Bureau immediately after either entry in or export from the United States. It replaces the previous requirement to provide the KPC to the Census Bureau in advance.
This action requires that U.S. Principal Party in Interests (USPPIs) or authorized agents in the United States file export information to the Automated Export System (AES) for all shipments where an EEI record is required by the FTR. The SBA's table of size standards indicates that businesses that are the USPPI or authorized agent and file EEI are considered small businesses if they employ less than 500 people. Based on Exhibit 7a of the 2015
The Census Bureau does not expect these clarifications of requirements to significantly affect the small businesses that file through the AES. The majority of agents require use of a computer to perform routine tasks, such as filing through the AES. These agents are unlikely to be significantly affected by these clarifications of requirements, as they already possess the necessary technology and equipment to submit the information through the AES. It is not necessary for small businesses to purchase software for this task, because AES
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a
Economic statistics, Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Census Bureau amends 15 CFR part 30 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 13 U.S.C. 301-307; Reorganization plan No. 5 of 1990 (3 CFR 1949-1953 Comp., p. 1004); Department of Commerce Organization Order No. 35-2A, July 22, 1987, as amended, and No. 35-2B, December 20, 1996, as amended; Pub. L. 107-228, 116 Stat. 1350.
(c) * * *
(e)
(c) Exports of rough diamonds classified under HS subheadings 7102.10, 7102.21, and 7102.31 require the proof of filing citation, as stated in paragraph (b) of this section, to be indicated on the Kimberley Process Certificate (KPC). In addition, the KPC must be faxed by the USPPI or U.S. authorized agent to the Census Bureau on (800) 457-7328, or provided by other methods as permitted by the Census Bureau, immediately after export of the shipment from the United States.
(c) The Kimberley Process Certificate (KPC) for all imports of rough diamonds classified under HS subheadings 7102.10, 7102.21, 7102.31 must be faxed by the importer or customs broker to the Census Bureau on (800) 457-7328, or provided by other methods as permitted by the Census Bureau, immediately after entry of the shipment in the United States.
Section 8(c) of the Clean Diamond Trade Act (CDTA) authorizes U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to enforce the laws and regulations governing exports of rough diamonds. The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) also has enforcement authority pursuant to section 5(a) of the CDTA, Executive Order 13312, and Rough Diamonds Control Regulations (31 CFR part 592). CBP, ICE, and OFAC are authorized to enforce provisions of the CDTA providing the following civil and criminal penalties:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation on the Black Warrior River, extending the entire width of the river, from mile marker (MM) 338.5 to MM 339.5 in Tuscaloosa, AL. This special local regulation is necessary to protect the persons participating in the USA Triathlon Collegiate National Championships marine event. This regulation restricts transit into, through, and within the regulated area unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 4 a.m. on April 27, 2018 through 6 p.m. on April 28, 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 LT Kyle D. Berry, Sector Mobile, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 251-441-5940, email
On November 31, 2017, the sponsor for the USA Triathlon Collegiate National Championships marine event submitted an application for a marine event permit for the event from 4 a.m. on April 27, 2018 through 6 p.m. on April 28, 2018. In response, on March 2, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Special Local Regulation; Black Warrior River, Tuscaloosa, AL (83 FR 8955). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this triathlon event. During the comment period that ended April 2, 2018, we received one comment.
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 Mobile (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the triathlon event on April 27, 2018 and April 28, 2018 will be a safety concern for anyone within the area of the Black Warrior River between mile markers (MMs) 338.5 and 339.5. The purpose of this rule is to protect participants, spectators, and other persons and vessels before, during, and after the Triathlon event.
As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published March 2, 2018. The comment received was unrelated to the subject matter of this rulemaking. However, the regulatory text has been changed from the proposed rule in the NPRM to include specific times for daily enforcement during the effective period.
This rule establishes a special local regulation on April 27, 2018 and April 28, 2018, which will be enforced between the hours of 4 a.m. and 6 p.m. daily. The regulated area will cover all navigable waters of the Black Warrior River between MMs 338.5 and 339.5, extending the entire width of the navigable channel. The duration of the regulation is intended to protect participants, spectators, and other persons and vessels before, during, and after the triathlon event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter, transit within or through, or exit the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”.
All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Mobile to patrol the regulated area.
Spectator vessels desiring to enter, transit through or within, or exit the regulated area may do so only with permission from the Patrol Commander, and when permitted, must operate at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner which will not endanger participants in the regulated area or any other vessels. No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through an official patrol vessel. Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the duration of the event.
The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property. The COTP or a designated representative would terminate enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the event.
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 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the regulation. The special local regulation will take place on a one-mile stretch of navigable waterway, during a short duration of eleven hours on two days on the Black Warrior River from mile marker 338.5 to 339.5 on April 27, 2018 and April 28, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulation so that waterway users may plan accordingly for transits during this restriction. The rule also allows vessels to seek permission from the COTP or a designated representative to enter 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
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 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation on the Black Warrior River, extending the entire width of the river, from MM 338.5 to MM 339.5. 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 Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) 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)
(c)
(d)
(2) All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Mobile to patrol the regulated area.
(3) Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the Patrol Commander and when so directed by that officer will be operated at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner which will not endanger participants in the regulated area or any other vessels.
(4) No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of participants or official patrol
(5) Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the duration of the event.
(6) The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(7) The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.
(8) The COTP or a designated representative will terminate enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the event.
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters on the Mississippi Sound over the Biloxi Harbor Channel in Biloxi, MS. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on these navigable waters during the 2018 Biloxi Air Show. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 9 a.m. on July 19, 2018 through 5 p.m. on July 22, 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 Lieutenant Kyle D. Berry, Sector Mobile, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 251-441-5940, email
On January 3, 2018, the sponsor for the 2018 Biloxi Air Show submitted an application for a marine event permit for the air show that will take place every day from 9 a.m. through 5 p.m. from July 19, 2018 through July 22, 2018. In response, on March 9, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Mississippi Sound, Biloxi, MS (83 FR 10419). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this air show. During the comment period that ended April 9, 2018, we received no comments.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the air show on July 19, 2018 and July 22, 2018 will be a safety concern for any vessels or persons in the vicinity of waters of the navigable waters on the Mississippi Sound over the Biloxi Harbor Channel in Biloxi, MS. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of vessels and persons before, during, and after the air show.
As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published on March 9, 2018. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the NPRM.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the Mississippi Sound within the positions of 30°23′22.6″ N 88°50′54.9″ W; 30°23′25.5″ N 88°53′12.1″ W; 30°22′52.3″ N 88°50′55.8″ W; 30°22′56.3″ N 88°53′11.9″ W over the Biloxi Harbor Channel in Biloxi, MS from 9 a.m. through 5 p.m. on July 19, 2018 through July 22, 2018. This rule is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and persons before, during, and after the 2018 Biloxi Air Show. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM maybe aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”. All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the COTP to patrol the zone.
Spectator vessels desiring to transit the zone may do so only with prior approval of the PATCOM and when so directed by that officer shall be operated at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner that will not endanger any other vessels. No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of official patrol vessels in the zone during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through an official patrol vessel. Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the zone, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the zone in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the air show. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the zone and remain moored through the duration of the air show.
The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the zone.
The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property. The COTP or a designated representative can terminate enforcement of the safety zone at the conclusion of the air show.
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 protectors.
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 size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This rule will take place on a small area of Mississippi Sound, during a short duration of only eight hours, lasting for four days from July 19, 2018 through July 22, 2018. Additionally, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone so that waterway users may plan accordingly for transits during this restriction, and the rule also allows vessels to seek permission from the COTP or a designated representative to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard 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 safety zone 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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone on the Mississippi Sound, within the positions of 30°23′22.6″ N 88°50′54.9″ W; 30°23′25.5″ N 88°53′12.1″ W; 30°22′52.3″ N 88°50′55.8″ W; 30°22′56.3″ N 88°53′11.9″ W over the Biloxi Harbor Channel in Biloxi, MS. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1; 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) All persons and vessels not registered with the event sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the COTP to patrol the regulated area.
(3) Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the COTP or a designated representative and when so directed by that officer will be operated at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner that will not endanger participants in the zone or any other vessels.
(4) No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through an official patrol vessel.
(5) Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the duration of the event.
(6) The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(7) The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.
(8) The COTP or a designated representative can terminate enforcement of the safety zone at the conclusion of the event.
(d)
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published, in the
Effective April 24, 2018.
Gabrielle Mancuso, Consultant, Regulations Staff (211D), Compensation Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9700. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.)
On March 18, 1976, VA published in the
This document now corrects those typographical errors by removing “87” and adding in its place “97” (row 89 column 70) and removing “38” and adding in its place “98” (row 89 column 80). These errors do not affect any benefits which were previously paid as VA's electronic systems have correctly computed the combined degree of disability.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Veterans.
For reasons stated in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 4 by making the following correcting amendments:
38 U.S.C. 1155, unless otherwise noted.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the Missouri state plan for designated facilities and pollutants developed under sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) that were requested by Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) in two separate submissions made on August 8, 2011 and on July 3, 2014. This final action will amend the state regulations referenced in the state's 111(d) plan applicable to existing Hospital, Medical, Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) operating in the state of Missouri. The state rule revisions we are approving with this action update HMIWI regulatory requirements for emission limits for waste management plans, training, compliance and performance testing, monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping to be consistent with updates to Federal rules. These regulatory revisions we are approving into Missouri's state plan do not impact air quality. EPA's approval of this revision is being performed in accordance with the requirements of CAA section 111(d) as further described in the Technical Support Document that is included in this docket.
This rule will be effective May 24, 2018.
Larry Gonzalez, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7041 or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
EPA is approving revisions to the regulations cited in Missouri's state plan for HMIWI facilities and pollutants developed under sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA that were requested by MDNR in two separate submissions made on August 8, 2011, and on July 3, 2014. This regulatory action is a revision to the state's regulatory requirements for existing facilities and not new sources. The amended state rule limits emissions of metals, particulate matter, acid gases, organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and opacity. These rule revisions are necessary to ensure that the state regulations applicable to HMIWI are consistent with updates to Federal rules for HMIWI.
The August 8, 2011, submittal updates requirements for emission limits, waste management plans, training, compliance and performance testing, monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements that apply to existing HMIWI facilities. Additionally, the state's regulatory revisions also include the movement of definitions, previously located in the state rule that applies specifically to HMIWI (10 CSR 10-6.200) to a new regulatory section that contains definitions applicable to air rules in general (10 CSR 10-6.020).
In the July 3, 2014 request, Missouri is seeking approval of additional revisions made to 10 CSR 10-6.200 that revise the regulations to follow the revised Federal standards. In addition to updating the emission standard tables, the revisions remove language from the compliance and performance testing provisions applicable to HMIWI that provided an exemption to compliance with the emission limits during startup, shutdown and malfunction conditions. Additionally, the state revised the hierarchy of definitions to clearly state that the applicable definitions in the Code of Federal Regulations take precedence over those in 10 CSR 10-6.020, and revised the test methods references in the state rule to match how the test methods are referred to in the Federal HMIWI regulations.
This final action addresses both requests to amend the state plan by amending the underlying regulation referenced in the 111(d) plan applicable to HMIWI. For additional information on EPA's rational for approval, see EPA's proposal which contains background information for this action (83 FR 5231, February 6, 2018).
EPA is approving Missouri's August 8, 2011 and July 3, 2014, submittals of its amended 111(d) plan for HMIWI in accordance with our proposed rule dated February 6, 2018 (83 FR 5231), in which we proposed to approve the MDNR request and requested comment regarding our future action. EPA received one comment in response to our proposal which was not related to the proposed rule and therefore a response is not required.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action is not subject to review under Executive
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rulemaking also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hospital, medical, and infectious incineration units, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 62 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is hereby approving an application from the state of North Dakota under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to implement an underground injection control (UIC) program for Class VI injection wells located within the state, except within Indian lands.
This regulation is effective April 24, 2018. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 24, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0280. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Lisa McWhirter, Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4606M), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2317; fax number: (202) 564-3754; email address:
The state of North Dakota received primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for Class I, III, IV and V injection wells under SDWA section 1422 on September 21, 1984, and Class II injection wells under SDWA section 1425 on May 11, 1984. The state of North Dakota has applied to the EPA under SDWA section 1422, 42 U.S.C. 300h-1, for primacy for Class VI injection wells, except within Indian lands. This action is based on a legal and technical review of the state of North Dakota's application as directed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 145. As a result of
These regulations are being promulgated under authority of SDWA sections 1422 and 1450, 42 U.S.C. 300h-1 and 300j-9.
SDWA section 1421 requires the Administrator of the EPA to promulgate minimum requirements for effective state UIC programs to prevent underground injection activities that endanger underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). SDWA section 1422 establishes requirements for states seeking EPA approval of state UIC programs.
For states that seek approval for UIC programs under SDWA section 1422, the EPA has promulgated a regulation setting forth the applicable procedures and substantive requirements, codified in 40 CFR part 145. It includes requirements for state permitting programs (by reference to certain provisions of 40 CFR parts 124 and 144), compliance evaluation programs, enforcement authority, and information sharing.
On June 21, 2013, the state of North Dakota submitted a program revision application to add Class VI injection wells to its SDWA section 1422 UIC program. The EPA reviewed the application and published a
The state of North Dakota held two public hearings with public comment periods on the state's intent to adopt its Class VI UIC regulations. The first public hearing was held on April 24, 2012, and the public comment period closed on June 8, 2012. The second public hearing was held on October 22, 2012, and the public comment period closed on November 1, 2012. Both public hearings were held in Bismarck, North Dakota, and no public comments were received during the two public comment periods.
On August 9, 2013, a notice announcing North Dakota's Underground Injection Control Program Revision was published in the
On May 19, 2017, EPA issued a proposed rulemaking (82 FR 22949) and requested public comment. The public comment period was open for 60 days and ended on July 18, 2017. The EPA received comments from 15 individual commenters. Of these 15 commenters, 11 submitted comments in support of the rule; 1 commenter submitted a comment outside the scope of the rule; and 3 commenters submitted 13 comments asserting that certain provisions in North Dakota's regulations do not meet the federal requirements. After close consideration of these 13 comments, the EPA resolved 11 in its response and determined 2 to be outside the scope of the rule. The comments EPA received and EPA's responses are available in EPA's Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0280.
In this action, the EPA is approving the state of North Dakota's Class VI UIC program; hereby, the state will assume primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for regulating Class VI injection wells in the state, except within Indian lands. Support of this action is part of the public record in EPA's Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0280. This action amends 40 CFR part 147 and incorporates by reference the EPA-approved state statutes and regulations. The EPA will continue to administer the UIC program for all well classes within Indian lands.
The provisions of the state of North Dakota's Code that contain standards, requirements, and procedures applicable to owners or operators of Class VI UIC wells are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR 147.1751. Provisions of the state of North Dakota's Code that contain standards, requirements, and procedures applicable to owners or operators of Class I, III, IV and V injection wells have already been incorporated by reference into 40 CFR 147.1751. Any provisions incorporated by reference, as well as all permit conditions or permit denials issued pursuant to such provisions, will be enforceable by the EPA pursuant to SDWA section 1423 and 40 CFR 147.1(e).
In order to better serve the public, the EPA is reformatting the codification of the EPA-approved North Dakota SDWA section 1422 Underground Injection Control Program Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, III, IV, V and VI. Instead of codifying the North Dakota Statutes and Regulations as separate paragraphs, the EPA is now incorporating by reference a binder that contains the EPA-approved North Dakota Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, III, IV, V and VI. This binder is incorporated by reference into § 147.1751 and is available at
The EPA will continue to oversee the state of North Dakota's administration of the SDWA Class VI program. Part of the EPA's oversight responsibility will require quarterly reports of non-compliance and annual UIC performance reports pursuant to 40 CFR 144.8. The Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and the state of North Dakota, signed by the Regional Administrator on October 28, 2013, provides the EPA with the opportunity to review and comment on all permits.
This final rule is effective immediately upon publication. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. 553(d), provides that final rules shall not become effective until 30 days after publication in the
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0042. Reporting or recordkeeping requirements will be based on the state of North Dakota UIC Regulations, and the state of North Dakota is not subject to the PRA.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This rule does not impose any requirements on small entities as this rule approves a state program. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. EPA's approval of the state of North Dakota's program will not constitute a federal mandate because there is no requirement that a state establish UIC regulatory programs and because the program is a state, rather than a federal program.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action contains no federal mandates for tribal governments and does not impose any enforceable duties on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it approves a state program.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. The binder, “EPA-Approved North Dakota SDWA § 1422 Underground Injection Control Program Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, III, IV, V and VI,” dated December 2013, is described in greater detail in Section VI of this preamble. The material is reasonably available through the rulemaking docket on
The EPA has determined that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This action will simply provide that the state of North Dakota has primacy under SDWA for the Class VI UIC program, pursuant to which the state of North Dakota will be implementing and enforcing a state regulatory program that is as stringent as the existing federal program.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Indian—lands, Intergovernmental relations,
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 147 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 300h-4.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
The UIC program for Class I, III, IV and V wells in the state of North Dakota, except those located on Indian lands, is the program administered by the North Dakota Department of Health, approved by the EPA pursuant to SDWA section 1422. Notification of this approval was published in the
(a) The requirements set forth in the state statutes and regulations cited in the binder entitled “EPA-Approved North Dakota SDWA § 1422 Underground Injection Control Program Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, III, IV, V and VI,” dated December 2013, and listed in Table 1 to paragraph (a) of this section, are incorporated by reference and made a part of the applicable UIC program under SDWA for the state of North Dakota. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the North Dakota regulations that are incorporated by reference in paragraph (a) of this section may be inspected at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Library 2nd Floor, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202; Water Docket, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). If you wish to obtain materials from the EPA Regional Office, please call (303) 312-1226; for materials from a docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, please call the Water Docket at (202) 566-2426. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to
(b) The following statutes and regulations, although not incorporated by reference, also are part of the approved State-administered program:
(e) The Memorandum of Agreement between EPA Region VIII and the North Dakota Industrial Commission, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator on October 28, 2013.
(f) The Memorandum of Understanding between the North Dakota Industrial Commission, Department of Mineral Resources, Oil and Gas Division and the North Dakota Department of Health, Water Quality Division, Related to the Underground Injection Control Program signed on June 19, 2013.
(g) The statement of legal authority, “Class VI Underground Injection Control Program, Attorney General's Statement,” signed by the Attorney General of North Dakota on January 22, 2013.
(h) The Class VI Program Description and any other materials submitted as part of the program revision or as supplements thereto.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule; correction.
DoD is making a correction to the docket number listed in the final rule published on April 13, 2018, which amended the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to remove limiting language related to educational service agreements. This correction will allow DoD to make agreements that permit payment for Masters of Laws degrees and other legal training programs, in accordance with applicable law, regulation, and policy.
Effective April 24, 2018. Applicable beginning April 13, 2018.
Ms. Jennifer Hawes, telephone 571-372-6115.
In the final rule published at 83 FR 16004 on April 13, 2018, on page 16004, in the third column, the docket number cited at the top of the document, DARS-2018-0013, is corrected to read DARS-2018-0024.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; compliance date and lift of stay.
NMFS issued a final rule on December 9, 2016 to establish the Seafood Traceability Program, also known as the Seafood Import Monitoring Program or SIMP. Implementation of the Program for shrimp and abalone species was stayed indefinitely due to NMFS' determination that current data collection for shrimp and abalone aquacultured in the U.S. is not equivalent to the data that would have been required to be reported for imports of these products. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 directed the Secretary of Commerce, within 30 days of enactment of the Act, to lift the stay on the implementation of the Seafood Traceability Program with respect to shrimp and abalone. This rule informs the affected public of the effective and compliance dates for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements, applicable for imports of shrimp and abalone species originating from both wild capture fisheries and aquaculture operations.
Celeste Leroux at (301) 427-8372 or
The Seafood Traceability Program (
NMFS had stayed requirements for abalone and shrimp because gaps existed in the collection of traceability information for domestic aquaculture-raised shrimp and abalone, which is currently largely regulated at the state level. During development of the Seafood Traceability Program, NMFS explored the possibility of working with its state partners to establish reporting and recordkeeping requirements for aquaculture traceability information that could be shared with NMFS. However, this did not prove to be a viable approach.
On March 23, 2018, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141) was signed by the President and became law. Section 539 of Division B of the Act directed the Secretary of Commerce to, within 30 days, lift the stay on the effective date of the final rule for the Seafood Traceability Program published by the Secretary on December 9, 2016, (81 FR 88975) for the species described in 50 CFR 300.324(a)(3), provided that the compliance date for the species described in 50 CFR 300.324(a)(3) shall occur not later than December 31, 2018. This rule implements the Act and provides that shrimp and abalone will be subject to the requirements of the Seafood Traceability Program under 50 CFR 300.324(a)(3) effective May 24, 2018 with a compliance date December 31, 2018.
The Program consists of two components: (1) Reporting of harvest events at the time of entry; and (2)
As of the December 31, 2018 compliance date established by this rule, importers of shrimp and abalone species will be required to obtain an International Fisheries Trade Permit as specified at 50 CFR 300.322, submit harvest and landing information on those products into the U.S. Customs and Border Protection International Trade Data System (ITDS) through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal prior to entry into U.S. Commerce, and maintain supply chain records from the point of harvest to the point of entry into U.S. Commerce for a period of two years after entry. International Fishery Trade Permits are currently available for issuance and it is anticipated that ACE reporting will be available for testing prior to the compliance date. Prior to December 31, 2018, NMFS will publish a notice in the
Section 539 of Title V of Division B of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141) also directed the Secretary of Commerce to “. . . establish a traceability program for United States inland, coastal, and marine aquaculture of shrimp and abalone . . .” and by December 31, 2018 to “. . . promulgate such regulations as are necessary and appropriate to establish and implement the program.” Concurrent with the work to develop import reporting mechanisms, NMFS will develop reporting and recordkeeping requirements for domestic aquaculture-raised shrimp and abalone.
The Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes applicable to the products subject to the requirements of this rule may be revised from time to time by the International Trade Commission. Any such changes will be reflected in the NMFS Implementation Guides for ACE that are posted to the internet by the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). Application of this rule to entries of fish and fish products filed under the following HTS codes will be mandatory as of December 31, 2018, when these shrimp and abalone HTS codes will be designated in ACE as requiring a complete Seafood Traceability Program data set in order to obtain release of the inbound shipment:
Highly processed fish products (fish oil, slurry, sauces, sticks, balls, cakes, puddings, and other similar highly processed fish products) for which the species of fish comprising the product or the harvesting event(s) or aquaculture operation(s) of the product cannot be feasibly identified are not subject to the requirements of this rule.
As part of NOAA's ongoing efforts to provide industry awareness of and support for compliance with the Seafood Traceability Program's traceability data reporting and recordkeeping requirements, NMFS will hold in-person and virtual public meetings to discuss the implementation of the U.S. Seafood Traceability Program and address questions from participants regarding all species covered by the Program, including shrimp and abalone. Meetings will address issues relevant to both foreign exporters and U.S. domestic importers of seafood species whose products are covered by the Seafood Traceability Program. Information on future Program implementation meetings and transcripts of prior meetings and webinars can be found at
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) has determined that this final action is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
The AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this final action as they are unnecessary because the public already had such opportunity during the proposed rule stage of the Seafood Traceability Program rulemaking. At that time, the public had an opportunity to comment both on the Program's requirements and on delayed implementation of the Program for shrimp and abalone. In the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS stated, “While it remains NMFS' full intention to include shrimp and abalone in the final rule, implementation of measures to address those gaps [in domestic reporting and recordkeeping requirements for aquaculture-raised shrimp and abalone] may affect the timing of implementation of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for imports of shrimp and abalone. In particular, if gaps remain unaddressed by the time of publication of a final rule, NMFS intends to delay implementation of the rule for shrimp and abalone until such time as, working with its state and federal partners, it is able to determine that the gaps have been addressed and publishes a notice in the
In addition, this final rule does not change substantive requirements of the Seafood Traceability Program. Rather, as directed by statute (Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-141), it lifts the stay for species (shrimp and abalone) described in 50 CFR 300.324(a)(3) and provides a compliance date of December 31, 2018.
Later this year, NMFS will publish a proposed rule establishing reporting and recordkeeping requirements for domestic producers of aquaculture-raised shrimp and abalone, as directed by Congress in Section 539 of Title V of Division B of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018. At that time, NMFS will provide the public with an opportunity to comment on that proposed rule.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared a Regulatory Impact Review and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/FRFA) for the Seafood Traceability Program which described the Program, its economic impact on small entities, and the legal basis for the action. The RIR/FRFA included an analysis of the economic impact of adding shrimp and abalone to the Program. Copies of the final RIR/FRFA are available from NMFS (see
This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB had previously approved the information collection requirements for the Seafood Traceability Program under Control Number 0648-0739, but the burden estimates did not include the requirements for shrimp and abalone given the stay. The requirements for permitting, reporting and recordkeeping for imports of shrimp and abalone will be submitted to OMB for approval. In a separate
Public comment will be sought regarding: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Exports, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Illegal, Unreported or unregulated fishing, Foreign relations, Imports, International trade permits, Treaties.
Accordingly, 50 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 951
Privacy Office, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is giving concurrent notice of a new system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-041 External Biometric Records (EBR) System of Records” and this proposed rulemaking. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.
Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0040, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general and privacy questions please contact: Philip S. Kaplan,
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, DHS proposes a Privacy Act exemption for a new DHS system of records titled, “DHS/ALL-041 External Biometric Records (EBR) System of Records.”
DHS has developed this system of records to receive, maintain, and disseminate biometric and associated biographic information from non-DHS entities (not already covered by a component system of records notices (SORNs)), both foreign and domestic, for the following purposes pursuant to formal or informal information sharing agreements or arrangements (“external information”), or with the express approval of the entity from which the Department received biometric and associated biographic information: Law enforcement; national security; immigration screening; border enforcement; intelligence; national defense; and background investigations relating to national security positions, credentialing, and certain positions of public trust, consistent with applicable DHS authorities.
In 2007, DHS published the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) SORN. Since then, the Department's Privacy Act framework has evolved as the Department has matured and the complexity of the IDENT system increased. DHS Component SORNs now govern the function and use of the biometrics records collected by each component. However, the Department still requires a SORN to cover biometrics received from non-DHS entities. Therefore, DHS is establishing DHS/ALL-041 External Biometric Records (EBR) System of Records, which governs the maintenance and use of biometrics and associated biographic information received from non-DHS entities that are not covered by an existing Component SORNs. In addition, a forthcoming technical SORN will cover the limited information created by the IDENT system. Eventually, both this EBR SORN and the planned technical SORN will replace the IDENT SORN. In the meantime, to avoid any gap in SORN coverage for biometrics and associated biographic information, the EBR and IDENT SORNs will co-exist. After the technical SORN is published, DHS will rescind the IDENT SORN by publishing a
External information is collected by non-DHS entities, including the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Justice (DOJ), State and local law enforcement authorities, or foreign governments. External information shared with DHS includes biometric (including latent fingerprints) and associated biographic information that may be used by DHS for the following purposes: Law enforcement; national security; immigration screening; border enforcement; intelligence; national defense; and background investigations relating to national security positions, credentialing, and certain positions of public trust, consistent with applicable DHS authorities.
DHS also maintains this information to support its information sharing agreements and arrangements with foreign partners to: Prevent travelers from assuming different identities to fraudulently gain admission or immigration benefits; identify individuals who seek to enter the United States for unauthorized purposes; identify those who have committed serious crimes or violated immigration law; and enable informed decisions on visas, admissibility, or other immigration benefits. Such sharing augments the law enforcement and border control efforts of both the United States and its partners. Additionally, DHS is using this information in concert with external partners to facilitate the screening of refugees in an effort to combat terrorist travel consistent with DHS's and Components' authorities.
Consistent with DHS's mission, information covered by DHS/ALL-041 External Biometric Records may be shared with DHS Components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In
DHS is issuing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate personally identifiable information. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides a statutory right to covered persons to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the JRA, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the JRA prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.
The Privacy Act allows government agencies to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. If an agency claims an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed.
DHS is claiming exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act for DHS/ALL-041 External Biometric Records (EBR) System of Records, under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(2), and (k)(5). Information in DHS/ALL-041 External Biometric Records (EBR) System of Records relates to official DHS law enforcement, national security, immigration screening, border enforcement, intelligence, national defense, and background investigations relating to national security positions, credentialing, and certain positions of public trust, consistent with applicable DHS authorities. These exemptions are needed to protect information relating to DHS activities from disclosure to subjects or others related to these activities. Specifically, the exemptions are required to preclude subjects of these activities from frustrating these processes; to protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants and law enforcement personnel; to ensure DHS's ability to obtain information from third parties and other sources; to protect the privacy of third parties; and to safeguard classified information. Disclosure of information to the subject of the inquiry could also permit the subject to avoid detection or apprehension.
In appropriate circumstances, when compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived on a case by case basis.
A notice of system of records for DHS/ALL-041 External Biometric Records (EBR) System of Records is also published in this issue of the
Freedom of information; Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
6 U.S.C. 101
78. The DHS/ALL-041 External Biometric Records (EBR) System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its components. The DHS/ALL-041 External Biometric Records (EBR) System of Records is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with its several and varied missions and functions, including the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings there under; and national security and intelligence activities. The DHS/ALL-041 External Biometric Records (EBR) System of Records contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its components and may contain personally identifiable information collected by other Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(5), and (e)(8); (f); and (g)(1) through (5). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (k)(5), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); and (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H); and (f). When a record received from another system has been exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here.
Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:
(a) From subsection (c)(3) and (4) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.
(b) From subsection (d) (Access and Amendment to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.
(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.
(d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from the subject of an investigation would alert the subject to the nature or existence of the investigation, thereby interfering with that investigation and related law enforcement activities.
(e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because providing such detailed information could impede law enforcement by compromising the existence of a confidential investigation or reveal the identity of witnesses or confidential informants.
(f) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H), (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and confidential informants.
(g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because with the collection of information for law enforcement purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. Compliance with subsection (e)(5) would preclude DHS agents from using their investigative training and exercise of good judgment to both conduct and report on investigations.
(h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with DHS's ability to obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.
(i) From subsections (g)(1) through (5) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notification of petition for rulemaking; request for comment.
On March 21, 2018, the Department of Energy (DOE) received a petition from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) to define a new product class under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) for residential dishwashers. The new product class would cover dishwashers with a cycle time of less than one hour from washing through drying. Through this notification, DOE seeks comment on the petition, as well as any data or information that could be used in DOE's determination whether to proceed with the petition.
Written comments and information are requested on or before June 25, 2018.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments, identified by “Dishwasher Petition,” by any of the following methods:
Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. Email:
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551
On March 21, 2018, CEI petitioned DOE to initiate a rulemaking to define a new product class under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) for residential dishwashers. (The petition is presented at the end of this document.) The new product class would cover dishwashers with a cycle time of less than one hour from washing through drying. CEI did not suggest specific energy and water requirements for this new product class, stating that these details could be determined during the course of the rulemaking. CEI stated that dishwasher cycle times have become dramatically longer under existing DOE energy conservation standards, and that consumer satisfaction/utility has dropped as a result of these longer cycle times. CEI also provided data regarding the increase in dishwasher cycle time, including data that correlated increased cycle time with DOE's adoption of amended efficiency standards for dishwashers.
CEI cites to section 6295(q) of EPCA as the authority for DOE to undertake the requested rulemaking. Section 6295(q) requires that DOE, for a rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a type (or class) of covered products, specify a level of energy use or efficiency higher or lower than the level that applies (or would apply) to such type (or class) for any group of covered products that have the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that covered products within such group either: (1) Consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (2) have a capacity or other performance-related feature that other products within such type (or class) do not have, and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard from that which applies (or will apply) to other products within such type (or class). In making a determination under paragraph (q) concerning whether a performance-related feature justifies a higher or lower standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of
CEI also cites to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4), which prohibits DOE from prescribing a standard that interested person have established by a preponderance of the evidence would likely result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics, features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of DOE's finding. CEI states that despite this prohibition, it appears that dishwasher cycle time have been impaired by the DOE standards and that many machines with shorter cycle times are no longer available.
In its petition, CEI proposes a cycle time of 1 hour as the defining characteristic for the suggested new product class, because 1 hour is substantially below all current products on the market. CEI states that energy efficiency standards for current products would therefore not change with the addition of the new product class, and that no backsliding would occur for the energy standards already in place. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) prohibits DOE from prescribing a standard that increases the maximum allowable energy use, or in the case of showerheads, faucets, water closets or urinals, water use, or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency, of a covered product.
DOE invites all interested partied to submit in writing by June 25, 2018 comments and information regarding this petition.
Submitting comments via
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Submitting comments via hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via hand delivery or mail also will be posted to
Include contact information in your cover letter each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of its process for considering rulemaking petitions. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in determining how to proceed with a petition. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this petition should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or via email at
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notification of petition for rulemaking.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
This document proposes to amend the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regulation governing standards applicable to a community residential care facility (CRC) approved by VA. This regulation also addresses the amount that a veteran may be charged for residence in a CRC and how VA determines whether that rate is appropriate. Payment for the charges of CRC care is not the responsibility of the federal government or VA. The cost of community residential care is financed by the veteran's own resources, and the resident or an authorized personal representative and a representative of the community residential care facility must agree upon the charge and payment procedures for community residential care. VA reviews and has approval authority over this agreement. We propose to amend and update the criteria VA uses to determine whether the rate for care charged to a veteran residing in an approved CRC is appropriate, to clarify how VA determines whether a CRC rate should be approved, and to make the regulation consistent with current VA practice. In addition, we propose to define in regulation the level of care that must be provided to a veteran residing in a CRC.
Written comments may be submitted through
Dr. Richard Allman, Chief Consultant, Geriatrics and Extended Care Services (10NC4), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-6750. (This is not a toll-free number.)
VA is authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1730 to assist veterans by referring them for placement, and aiding veterans in obtaining placement, in CRCs. A CRC is a form of enriched housing that provides health care supervision to eligible veterans not in need of hospital or nursing home care, but who, because of medical, psychiatric and/or psychosocial limitations as determined through a statement of needed care, are not able to live independently and have no suitable family or significant others to provide the needed supervision and supportive care. Examples of CRC's enriched housing may include, but are not limited to: Medical Foster Homes, Assisted Living Homes, Group Living Homes, Family Care Homes, and psychiatric CRC Homes. CRC care consists of room, board, assistance with activities of daily living and supervision as required on an individual basis. The size of a CRC can vary from one bed to several hundred. VA maintains a list of approved CRCs. Employees of the CRC are not VA employees, and no employment relationship exists between employees of the CRC and VA.
A veteran may elect to reside in any CRC he or she wants; however, VA will only recommend CRCs that apply for approval and meet our standards. Once approved by the approving official, the CRC is placed on VA's referral list and VA refers veterans for whom CRC care is an option to listed CRCs when those veterans are determining where they would like to live. The term “approving official” is defined at 38 CFR 17.62(e) as the Director or, if designated by the Director, the Associate Director or Chief of Staff of a Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center or Outpatient Clinic which has jurisdiction to approve
VA may directly provide care to a veteran at the CRC when it is medically appropriate to provide such home-based care. The provision of such home-based care is not contingent upon VA approval of a CRC; a veteran's right to such care exists independent of the veteran's residence in a CRC.
To become approved, a CRC must meet the specified criteria in 38 CFR 17.63, which sets forth standards relating to the physical integrity of the facility, the health care provided at the CRC, the standard of living therein, costs charged directly to veteran residents of the CRC, and other criteria for approval. Paragraph (k) of this section addresses the amount that a veteran may be charged for residence in a CRC and how VA determines whether that rate is appropriate. VA proposes to amend and update § 17.63(k) to make it consistent with changes in the practices of approved CRCs since this provision became effective on June 14, 1989, and to clarify the criteria VA uses to determine whether the rate charged by the CRC is reasonable. Currently § 17.63 does not establish the level of care, and components of that care, that the CRC must provide to the veteran in exchange for the monies paid to the CRC. We address this as an initial matter.
It has been longstanding VA practice to require that in order to be an approved CRC the operators must provide, at a minimum, a base level of care in consideration of funds received from the veteran resident. The rate charged by an individual CRC for this base level of care is reflected in an executed agreement between the CRC and resident, and that agreement is reviewed and approved by the VA approving official. If the CRC agrees, at the resident's request, to provide additional care or services, the CRC may charge the resident additional fees, which are reflected in the signed agreement.
We would amend paragraph (b), which is currently reserved, to address the required base level of care as well as additional services and care provided to veteran residents. Consistent with current VA practice, paragraph (b) would state that the CRC must provide the resident, at a minimum, a base level of care to include room and board; nutrition consisting of three meals per day and two snacks, or as required to meet special dietary needs; laundry services; transportation (either provided or arranged) to VA and healthcare appointments; and accompanying the resident to appointments if needed; 24-hour supervision, if indicated; and care, supervision, and assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL).
ADL is a term commonly understood in the healthcare industry to refer to basic daily self-care activities. Health professionals routinely refer to the ability or inability to perform an ADL as a measurement of the functional status of a person, particularly in regards to people with disabilities and the elderly. Likewise, IADL is commonly understood in the healthcare industry to refer to activities that are not necessary for fundamental functioning, but allow an individual to live independently in a community.
The terms “activities of daily living” and “instrumental activities of daily living” are not currently defined for the purpose of §§ 17.61 through 17.72. Instead, the non-standard term “daily living activities” is defined at § 17.62(b) to include various activities that are classified by VA as being either an ADL or IADL. The various tasks listed in the current definition of daily living activities is not a comprehensive list of all activities that could be considered either an ADL or IADL, but is intended by VA to represent the range of activities that can be encompassed under those terms. We would remove the definition of “daily living activities” and substitute the terms “activities of daily living” and “instrumental activities of daily living” where it is used in current §§ 17.61(b) and 17.62. We would define “activities of daily living” as basic daily tasks an individual performs as part of self-care which may be used as a measurement of the functional status of a person including: Walking; bathing, shaving, brushing teeth, combing hair; dressing; eating; getting in or getting out of bed; and toileting. “Instrumental activities of daily living” would be defined as tasks that are not necessary for fundamental functioning, but allow an individual to live independently in a community. Instrumental activities of daily living include: Housekeeping and cleaning room; meal preparation; taking medications; laundry; assistance with transportation; shopping- for groceries, clothing or other items; ability to use the telephone; ability to manage finances; writing letters; and obtaining appointments. The list of tasks in the definitions of ADL and IADL are not substantively different than that found in current § 17.62(b).
In addition, we would revise § 17.62 by removing the paragraph designations for the definitions in that section, arrange the defined terms in alphabetical order, and make non substantive changes to the definitions to make the introductory wording for each definition consistent with that of other defined terms in part 17.
Current 17.63(k) states that payment for the charges of CRC care is not the responsibility of the federal government or VA; the resident or an authorized personal representative and a representative of the CRC must agree upon the charge and payment procedures for CRC care; and the charges for community residential care must be reasonable. Current § 17.63(k)(3)(i) and (ii) establish different reference rates for residents who were in a CRC as of June 14, 1989 and CRCs that were approved after July 31, 1987. For residents in a CRC as of June 14, 1989, the CRC rates are pegged to the facility's basic rate for care as of July 31, 1987. For a CRC approved after July 31, 1987, CRC rates are calculated based on the average rate for approved facilities in that State as of March 31, 1987.
VA's CRC program was established in 1951, but VA did not begin the process of publishing regulations governing the CRC program until August 1987. The final rule published May 15, 1989, with an effective date of June 14, 1989. (54 FR 20842, May 15, 1989.) The intent of § 17.63(k)(3)(i) was to grandfather-in the rate charged for all residents in a CRC prior to the date the regulation became effective. There are no residents currently in a CRC who were in the CRC as of June 14, 1989. Both § 17.63(k)(3)(i) and § 17.63(k)(ii) use dates that are long in the past, and have little or no reasonable connection to the calculation of reasonable rates at the present time. We would address these issues by amending and reorganizing § 17.63(k) to update and clarify how VA determines whether a CRC rate should be approved, and to make the regulation consistent with current VA practice.
Proposed paragraph 17.63(k)(1) would remain the same as current (k)(1). The cost of community residential care is not the responsibility of the U.S. government. Proposed paragraph (k)(2) would state that the cost of community residential care should reflect the cost of providing the base level of care as defined in paragraph (b).
Proposed paragraph 17.63(k)(3) would retain the requirement, currently found in paragraph 17.63(k)(2), that the resident or an authorized personal representative and a representative of the community residential care facility must agree upon the charge and payment procedures for community
It has been VA's longstanding practice to use a multi-step approach in evaluating whether a proposed CRC rate will be approved, and we would amend § 17.63(k) to reflect VA's current practice. Under the proposed rule, VA would first review the resident's medical record to determine the level of care needed by the veteran residing in the CRC. VA would then refer to the current average rate for residential care in the State or Region for the same level of care provided to the resident. Each state has an agency responsible for residential care services provided under Medicare and Medicaid. These agencies publish approved rates in the state or region within the state for different levels of care within the continuum of residential care. These rates are updated annually. There is some variation in how the states refer to the various levels of care. Examples include Family Care Homes, Adult Care Homes, Medical Foster Homes, Residential Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Homes, Residential Care Homes, Personal Care Homes, Psychiatric Group Homes, Board and Care Homes, Boarding Homes, Group Homes, Rest Homes, Senior Homes, Assisted Living Homes, Retirement Centers, and Hospice Care Homes. VA would identify the relevant rate for residential care published by the state and compare this to the charge for care agreed on by the veteran or authorized personal representative and the CRC. The purpose of this inquiry is to ensure that the veteran residing in a VA-approved CRC is treated fairly and equitably by the CRC in terms of the dollar amount charged for CRC care relative to what a CRC would receive for care rendered to a non-veteran in the same state or region receiving the same level of care. We recognize that care plans are individualized, and there may be some variation in the type or scope of care provided to different individuals receiving the same overall level of CRC care. Therefore, VA's inquiry would focus on whether the two rates are comparable, not equal. VA believes this language will provide flexibility to allow the approving official to consider each agreement on a case by case basis, taking into account both the base level of care the resident requires as well as the resident's individual needs.
VA recognizes that veterans residing in a CRC are, more often than not, living on a fixed or limited income. Healthcare sector costs, including that for community residential care, may rise at a greater annual rate than the overall inflation rate. Simply approving a new rate for CRC care because that rate is comparable to the published statewide rate could result in a strain on the veteran's financial status. To address this, VA would also compare the proposed CRC rate to the rate currently being charged to the veteran. We would retain the requirement that any year to year increase in the charge for care in a CRC for the same level of care may not exceed the annual percentage increase in the National Consumer Price Index (CPI) for that year. This is consistent with current § 17.63(k)(3).
If VA determines, after considering all the above criteria, that the proposed CRC rate is reasonable, the approving official would approve the agreement between the veteran or authorized personal representative and the CRC.
VA also recognizes that there may be instances in which the CRC and the veteran or authorized personal representative agree to a rate that is lower than the current average rate for residential care in the State or Region for the same level of care. This type of arrangement could be beneficial to a veteran that is on a fixed or low income. The proposed rule would allow the approving official to approve a lower rate of charges for care, provided such lower rate does not result in a lower level of care than the resident requires. While VA generally supports any agreement that may financially benefit the veteran, we also have an obligation to ensure that that the veteran receives a level of care commensurate with his or her condition.
Care plans are individualized in a CRC, and VA acknowledges that a veteran's care plan may not precisely match specific levels of care reflected in average rates for residential care published by the State. For instance, a state may publish average rates for care for residential care that differentiate between a low level of care and the next highest level. The veteran may require the lower level of care as well as only certain elements of the next highest level of care. In that case, the appropriate rate of charges for care should reflect that reality. Under paragraph 17.63(k)(4)(ii) of the proposed rule, the approving official would have the authority to approve a rate higher than the current average rate for residential care in the State or Region for the same level of care if the CRC and the resident or authorized personal representative agreed to such rate, and the higher rate is related to the individual needs of the resident which exceed the base level of care as defined in proposed paragraph (b). Examples of services which exceed the base level of care include, but are not limited to, handling disbursement of funds solely at the request of the resident; fulfilling special dietary requests by the resident or family member; accompanying the resident to an activity center; assisting in or providing scheduled socialization activities; supervision of an unsafe smoker; bowel and bladder care; intervention related to behavioral issues; and transportation other than for VA and healthcare appointments. A higher rate could be paid in those cases in which additional services are necessary, or the veteran has special needs that must be addressed. This would ensure that the veteran receives the individualized level of care required, and that the CRC is compensated for the level of care provided.
Since the veteran's needs may change over time and the cost of care fluctuates, VA proposes in paragraph 17.63(k)(3) that the charge for care in a CRC must be reviewed annually by the facility and VA, or as required due to changes in care needs. We believe that this requirement, combined with the obligation to consider the required level of care and comparative cost of that care, adequately addresses concerns reflected in current § 17.63(k)(3)(iii). That subparagraph states, in part, that the approving official may approve a deviation from the requirements of current § 17.63(k)(3)(i) and (ii) upon request from a CRC representative, a resident in the facility, or an applicant for residency, if the approving official determines that the cost of care for the resident will be greater than the average cost of care for other residents. Under the proposed rule, the deciding factor is not whether the cost of care for the individual veteran is greater than the average cost of care for other residents in the facility. Rather, the primary focus is on the level of care the veteran requires, and how the proposed cost for that care compares to that of non-veteran community residential care residents in the same State or Region receiving the same level of care. Any change in the level of care may be brought to the attention of the approving official by VA, the CRC, the veteran, or authorized personal representative. Regardless of which party raises the issue, there must be a pre-existing agreement between the veteran or personal representative and the CRC regarding cost of care, and the approving official has review and approval authority over that agreement.
We also address the remaining exception in current § 17.63(k)(3)(iii). There may be instances where a veteran
Finally, we would make a technical edit to §§ 17.61 through 17.74. We would remove the statutory authority citation at the end of each of these sections, and amend the introductory “Authority” section of part 17 to state that §§ 17.61 through 17.74 are authorized under 38 U.S.C. 501 as well as 38 U.S.C. 1730. We would make this change consistent with guidance from the Office of Federal Register.
The Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be revised by this proposed rulemaking, would represent the exclusive legal authority on this subject. No contrary rules or procedures would be authorized. All VA guidance would be read to conform with this proposed rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance would be superseded by this rulemaking.
This proposed rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Under 38 CFR 17.63(i), a CRC must maintain records on each resident, to include a copy of all signed agreements with the resident. This would include any agreement between the CRC and the resident regarding the rate charged for residence in the facility, which is the subject of this proposed rule. This information collection is already approved under OMB control number 2900-0491.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This proposed rule would directly affect only individuals and those small entities that seek inclusion on VA's approved list of CRCs. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking would be exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this proposed rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles affected by this document are 64.011—Veterans Dental Care; 64.012—Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013—Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 64.029—Purchase Care Program; 64.035—Veterans Transportation Program; 64.041—VHA Outpatient Specialty Care; 64.044—VHA Home Care; 64.045—VHA Outpatient Ancillary Services; 64.047—VHA Primary Care; 64.048—VHA Mental Health clinics; 64.050—VHA Diagnostic Care.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Medical and Dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jacquelyn Hayes-Byrd, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on April 16, 2018, for publication.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 17 as follows:
8 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.
Section 17.38 is also issued under 38 U.S.C. 101, 1701, 1705, 1710, 1710A, 1721, 1722, 1782, and 1786.
Sections 17.61 through 17.74 are also issued under 38 U.S.C. 1730.
Section 17.169 is also issued under 38 U.S.C. 1712C.
Sections 17.380, 17.390 and 17.412 are also issued under sec. 260, Pub. L. 114-223, 130 Stat. 857.
Section 17.410 is also issued under 38 U.S.C. 1787.
Section 17.415 is also issued under 38 U.S.C. 7301, 7304, 7402, and 7403.
Sections 17.640 and 17.647 are also issued under sec. 4, Pub. L. 114-2, 129 Stat. 30.
Sections 17.641 through 17.646 are also issued under 38 U.S.C. 501(a) and sec. 4, Pub. L. 114-2, 129 Stat. 30.
Section 17.655 is also issued under 38 U.S.C. 501(a) 7304 and 7405.
For the purpose of §§ 17.61 through 17.72:
The revisions read as follows:
(b)
(k)
(2) The cost of community residential care should reflect the cost of providing the base level of care as defined in paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) The resident or an authorized personal representative and a representative of the community residential care facility must agree upon the charge and payment procedures for community residential care. Any agreement between the resident or an authorized personal representative and the community residential care facility must be approved by the approving official. The charge for care in a community residential care facility must be reviewed annually by the facility and VA, or as required due to changes in care needs.
(4) The charges for community residential care must be reasonable and comparable to the current average rate for residential care in the State or Region for the same level of care provided to the resident. Notwithstanding, any year to year increase in the charge for care in a community residential care facility for the same level of care may not exceed the annual percentage increase in the National Consumer Price Index (CPI) for that year. In establishing an individual residential rate, consideration should be given to the level of care required and the individual needs of the resident. The approving official may approve a rate:
(i) Lower than the current average rate for residential care in the State or Region for the same level of care if the community residential care facility and the resident or authorized personal representative agreed to such rate, provided such lower rate does not result in a lower level of care than the resident requires;
(ii) higher than the current average rate for residential care in the State or Region for the same level of care if the community residential care facility and the resident or authorized personal representative agreed to such rate, and the higher rate is related to the individual needs of the resident which exceed the base level of care as defined in paragraph (b) of this section. Examples of services which exceed the base level of care include, but are not limited to, handling disbursement of funds solely at the request of the resident; fulfilling special dietary requests by the resident or family member; accompanying the resident to an activity center; assisting in or providing scheduled socialization activities; supervision of an unsafe smoker; bowel and bladder care; intervention related to behavioral issues; and transportation other than for VA and healthcare appointments.
(5) The approving official may approve a deviation from the requirements of paragraph (k)(4) of this section if the resident chooses to pay more for care at a facility which exceeds the base level of care as defined in paragraph (b) of this section notwithstanding the resident's needs.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information and extension of comment period.
EPA is extending the comment period for 30 days and is providing notice that EPA has added a supplemental analysis, titled “Supplemental Analysis of Alternative Small Business Size Standard Definitions and their Effect on TSCA User Fee Collection”, to the rulemaking docket for the proposed rule that published in the
Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0401, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may be of particular interest to anyone who manufactures (including imports), distributes in commerce, or processes a chemical substance (or any combination of such activities) or submits or is required to submit information to the EPA under TSCA sections 4 or 5 or anyone who manufactures a chemical substance that is the subject of a risk evaluation under TSCA section 6(b). The following list of North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to, companies found in major NAICS groups:
• Chemical Manufacturers (NAICS code 325),
• Petroleum and Coal Products (NAICS code 324), and
• Chemical, Petroleum and Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code 424).
1.
2.
In the
EPA proposed to increase the current revenue threshold of $40 million using the Producer Price Index (PPI) for Chemicals and Allied Products, as compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Data series WPU06 at
EPA also proposed to change the time frame over which annual sales values are used when accounting for a business's revenue. Instead of using just one year preceding the date of submission, the Agency is proposing to average annual sales values over the three years preceding the submission. EPA proposed to apply this updated definition—adjusted for inflation and averaging sales revenue over three years—to not only TSCA section 5 submissions, but also to TSCA sections 4 and 6 submissions as well.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) an economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with the proposed rulemaking. The Agency has since completed supplemental analysis that estimates the impact of setting the
EPA requests comment on this analysis and whether an employee-based size standard would be more appropriate than a receipts-based size standard and what that employee level should be; whether the size standard, be it receipts-based or employee-based, should vary from industry to industry to reflect differences among the impacted industries; and what other factors and data sources the Agency should consider, besides inflation, when developing the size standard to qualify for reduced fee amounts. The supplemental analysis estimates the impact on fee amounts should an employee-based size standard be used to determine eligibility for reduced fees. In order to ensure that EPA meets the statutory requirement that fees are sufficient to defray 25% of the estimated Agency costs, EPA would need to recoup the revenue loss resulting from moving to one of the two employee-based small business definitions presented in the analysis by increasing the TSCA section 5 proposed general industry fees. The revenue losses would likely arise from TSCA section 5 submissions, given that EPA estimates more businesses would qualify for the lower fee levels under the employee-based definitions. Impacts to TSCA section 4 and 6 fee collections are unlikely as EPA expects that consortia will ensure that the full fee amount is remitted regardless of the proportion of small businesses participating in the consortia. In the supplemental analysis EPA estimated the impact on fees if the revenue loss is recouped by allocating it proportionally among the proposed TSCA section 5 general fees. In this case, in order to recoup the entire amount, the general fee for PMN/MCAN/SNUN would increase by $413, from $16,000 to a new fee of $16,413, and the general fee for Exemptions would increase by $122, from $4,700 to a new fee of $4,822. If rounding to the nearest $100, this results in new fees of $16,400 and $4,800, respectively, with 93% ($196,000) of the $211,000 fee revenue deficit recovered. EPA requests comments on this approach of ensuring that EPA continues to collect 25% of applicable Agency costs.
Comments on this supplemental analysis document should be submitted to the docket for the proposed rule. In addition, in order to give interested parties the opportunity to consider this additional analysis and prepare meaningful comments, EPA is hereby extending the comment period, which is set to end on April 27, 2018, until May 24, 2018.
Chemicals, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, User fees.
Chemicals, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Chemicals, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Imports, Labeling, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Confidential business information, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.
Denial of petition for addition of a health condition.
On January 5, 2018, the Administrator of the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program received a petition (Petition 018) to add hypertension (high blood pressure) to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions (List). Upon reviewing the scientific and medical literature, including information provided by the petitioner, the Administrator has determined that the available evidence does not have the potential to provide a basis for a decision on whether to add hypertension to the List. The Administrator also finds that insufficient evidence exists to request a recommendation of the WTC Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), to publish a proposed rule, or to publish a determination not to publish a proposed rule.
The Administrator of the WTC Health Program is denying this petition for the addition of a health condition as of April 24, 2018.
Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS: C-48, Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855) 818-1629 (this is a toll-free number); email
Title I of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-347, as amended by Pub. L. 114-113), added Title XXXIII to the
All references to the Administrator of the WTC Health Program (Administrator) in this notice mean the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) or his designee.
Pursuant to section 3312(a)(6)(B) of the PHS Act, interested parties may petition the Administrator to add a health condition to the List in 42 CFR 88.15. Within 90 days after receipt of a valid petition to add a condition to the List, the Administrator must take one of the following four actions described in section 3312(a)(6)(B) of the PHS Act and § 88.16(a)(2) of the Program regulations: (1) Request a recommendation of the STAC; (2) publish a proposed rule in the
In addition to the regulatory provisions, the WTC Health Program has developed policies to guide the review of submissions and petitions,
A valid petition must include sufficient medical basis for the association between the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the health condition to be added; in accordance with WTC Health Program policy, reference to a peer-reviewed, published, epidemiologic study about the health condition among 9/11-exposed populations or to clinical case reports of health conditions in WTC responders or survivors may demonstrate the required medical basis.
After the Program has determined that a petition is valid, the Administrator must direct the Program to conduct a review of the scientific literature to determine if the available scientific information has the potential to provide a basis for a decision on whether to add the health condition to the List.
On January 5, 2018, the Administrator received a petition (Petition 018) from a WTC responder who worked at Ground Zero, requesting the addition of “hypertension—high blood pressure” to the List.
In response to Petition 018, and pursuant to the Program policy on the addition of non-cancer health conditions to the List,
The Program found several limitations with the Simeon
Although the results of Trasande
The Program identified several limitations with the Kim
Together, all three studies were assessed to determine whether a causal relationship between 9/11 exposures and hypertension is supported. The Program uses the following Bradford Hill criteria to evaluate studies of 9/11-exposed populations: strength of association, precision of the risk estimate, consistency of findings, biological gradient, and plausibility and coherence. Only one of the three studies demonstrated a statistically significant increase in hypertension among WTC responders (Kim
Finally, the three studies were reviewed to determine whether the studies represent both the WTC responder and survivor populations or a subgroup of those populations, or whether the results can be extrapolated to the entire 9/11-exposed population. The Program found that only one study demonstrated that the results could be extrapolated to the population of WTC responders (Kim
The studies described and evaluated above had limitations and lacked consistency among their results. Neither the one study that showed a statistically significant increase in hypertension among WTC responders, Kim
The Administrator has determined that insufficient evidence is available to take further action at this time, including proposing the addition of hypertension to the List (pursuant to PHS Act, sec. 3312(a)(6)(B)(ii) and 42 CFR 88.16(a)(2)(ii)) or publishing a determination not to publish a proposed
For the reasons discussed above, the Petition 018 request to add hypertension to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions is denied.
The WTC Health Program may consider hypertension to be a condition medically associated with a certified WTC-related health condition in individual cases. Program members who think their hypertension is a progression or side effect of treatment of a certified WTC-related health condition should ask their WTC Health Program medical provider whether their hypertension might be considered a medically associated health condition.
The Secretary, HHS, or his designee, the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), authorized the undersigned, the Administrator of the WTC Health Program, to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as an official document of the WTC Health Program. Robert Redfield M.D., Director, CDC, and Administrator, ATSDR, approved this document for publication on April 18, 2018.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice of reestablishment of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee and second request for nominations.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) intends to reestablish the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee (FVIAC). The purpose of the FVIAC is to examine the full spectrum of issues faced by the fruit and vegetable industry and provide recommendations and ideas to the Secretary on how USDA can tailor its programs to better meet the needs of the fruit and vegetable industry. USDA also seeks additional nominations of individuals to be considered for selection to the FVIAC. Nominees who answered the first call for nominations published in
Written nominations must be postmarked on or before May 24, 2018.
Nomination applications can be sent via email to Marlene Betts at
Marlene Betts (202) 720-5057; Email:
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture intends to reestablish the FVIAC for two years. The purpose of the FVIAC is to examine the full spectrum of issues faced by the fruit and vegetable industry and provide recommendations and ideas to the Secretary on how USDA can tailor its programs to better meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs.
The Deputy Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service's Specialty Crops Program will serve as the FVIAC Executive Secretary. Representatives from USDA mission areas and agencies affecting the fruit and vegetable industry will be called upon to participate in the FVIAC's meetings as determined by the FVIAC Executive Secretary and the FVIAC.
Industry members are appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and will serve staggered terms of up to 2 years. Approximately half of the FVIAC will serve a one-year term, with the remainder serving a two-year term. No member can serve more than six consecutive years. FVIAC membership consists of no more than 25 members who represent the fruit and vegetable industry, and will include individuals representing fruit and vegetable growers/shippers, fruit and vegetable wholesalers/distributors, brokers, retailers/restaurant representatives, fresh-cut and other fruit and vegetable processors, and foodservice suppliers. It should also include individuals representing farmers markets and food hubs, organic and non-organic fruit and vegetable representatives, and representatives from state departments of agriculture, farmer organizations, and produce trade associations.
Through this Notice and the Notice published on August 2, 2017 (82 FR 35926), the USDA seeks to fulfill two goals. Firstly, it is seeking additional nominations to fill all twenty-five (25) seats on the FVIAC. Due to the timing of the publication of renewal notice (83 FR 35926), and the expiration of the members' terms, it was determined that the FVIAC charter be reestablished and all 25 positions on the FVIAC be filled. Therefore, we are calling for additional nominees to fill all positions on the FVIAC. Previous FVIAC members must apply to be considered. The Secretary of Agriculture will appoint one person to each of these twenty-five (25) positions. Approximately one-half of the FVIAC will serve a 1-year term and the remainder of the FVIAC will serve a 2-year term.
Secondly, the USDA is seeking nominations to fill future unexpected vacancies in any of the position categories. These nominations will be held as a pool of candidates that the Secretary of Agriculture can draw upon as replacement appointees if unexpected vacancies occur. A person appointed to fill a vacancy will serve for the remainder of the term of the vacant position.
The Secretary of Agriculture invites those individuals, organizations, and groups affiliated with the categories listed above to nominate individuals or themselves for membership on the FVIAC. Nominations should describe and document the proposed member's fruit and vegetable industry qualifications for membership to the FVIAC. The Secretary of Agriculture seeks a diverse group of members representing a broad spectrum of persons interested in providing suggestions and ideas on how USDA can tailor its programs to meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs.
To nominate yourself or someone else, please submit the following: A resume (required), Form AD-755 (required), which can be accessed at:
Equal opportunity practices will be followed in all appointments to the FVIAC in accordance with USDA policies. To ensure that FVIAC recommendations take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, persons with disabilities and limited resource agriculture producers.
The information collection requirements concerning the nomination process have been previously cleared by the Office of
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public of our preliminary concurrence with the World Organization for Animal Health's (OIE) bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risk designations for four regions. The OIE recognizes these regions as being of negligible risk for BSE. We are taking this action based on our review of information supporting the OIE's risk designations for these regions.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 25, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Rebecca Gordon, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation Services, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 200, Raleigh, NC 27606; (919) 855-7741.
The regulations in 9 CFR part 92 subpart B, “Importation of Animals and Animal Products; Procedures for Requesting BSE Risk Status Classification With Regard To Bovines” (referred to below as the regulations), set forth the process by which the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) classifies regions for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risk. Section 92.5 of the regulations provides that all countries of the world are considered by APHIS to be in one of three BSE risk categories: Negligible risk, controlled risk, or undetermined risk. These risk categories are defined in § 92.1. Any region that is not classified by APHIS as presenting either negligible risk or controlled risk for BSE is considered to present an undetermined risk. The list of those regions classified by APHIS as having either negligible risk or controlled risk can be accessed on the APHIS website at
Under the regulations, APHIS may classify a region for BSE in one of two ways. One way is for regions that have not received a risk classification from the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) to request classification by APHIS. The other way is for APHIS to concur with the classification given to a country or region by the OIE.
If the OIE has classified a region as either BSE negligible risk or BSE controlled risk, APHIS will seek information to support concurrence with the OIE classification. This information may be publicly available information, or APHIS may request that regions supply the same information given to the OIE. APHIS will announce in the
In accordance with this process, we are giving notice in this document that APHIS intends to concur with the OIE risk classifications of the following regions:
•
The OIE recommendations regarding each of the above regions can be viewed at
After reviewing any comments we receive, we will announce our final determination regarding the BSE classification of these countries in the
7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
On February 9, 2018, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the St. Louis County Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 102, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 102, on behalf of Orgill, Inc., in Sikeston, Missouri.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 102F was approved on April 18, 2018, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 102's 2,000-acre activation limit.
Textiles Coated International Inc. (TCI) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities in Manchester and Londonderry, New Hampshire. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on April 10, 2018.
TCI's facilities are located within Site 4 of FTZ 81. The facilities are used for the production of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) products. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components 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 TCI from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production (an estimated 40 percent of production). On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, TCI would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Fluoropolymer film sheeting .152mm in thickness in rolls and not in rolls; PTFE fiberglass colored and not colored; PTFE gaskets; joint sealants; sheet gasketing material with and without adhesives; silicone fiberglass fabrics with and without color; flexible PTFE ducting with coils reinforced and unreinforced; and, PTFE coated fiberglass sheets (duty rate ranges from 3.1% to 7.3%). TCI would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The materials and components sourced from abroad include: PTFE dispersions; PTFE fine powders; fluoropolymer film sheeting 0.152mm in thickness in rolls and not in rolls; woven glass fiber mats; woven glass fiber fabrics colored and not colored; fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) pellets; ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) pellets; and, perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) pellets (duty rate ranges from 4.2% to 7.3%). The request indicates that woven glass fiber mats and woven glass fiber fabrics colored and not colored will be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41), thereby precluding inverted tariff benefits on such items. The request also indicates that, PTFE dispersions and PTFE fine powders are subject to an antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) investigation if imported from certain countries. The FTZ Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.14(e)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders, or items which would be otherwise subject to suspension of liquidation under AD/CVD procedures if they entered U.S. customs territory, be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the 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 Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Christopher Wedderburn at
AFL Telecommunications, LLC (AFL) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Duncan, South Carolina. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on April 11, 2018.
AFL indicates that it will be submitting a separate subzone application for FTZ designation at its facility under FTZ 38. The facility will be used for the production of optical cables for data transfer. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components 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 AFL from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, AFL would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to optical cables for data transfer (duty-free). AFL would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Grease; silicon carbide grit; buffering gel; thixotropic gels of oil and silica; color chips; ink; glue; plastic jacketing compound; epoxy; silicone; acrylic plastic central strength member; plastic filler rod; mylar tape; plastic furcation tubing; jacket additive of polymerized plastic; aramid yarn; ripcord; binder string; water swellable yarn; water block tape; filler rod of fiberglass reinforced plastic; fiberglass reinforced plastic; tape or fiberglass yarn; copper clad steel
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the 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 Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist for imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from certain producers and exporters from Indonesia, the Republic of Korea (Korea), and Taiwan.
Applicable April 24, 2018.
Gene H. Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3586.
On September 26, 2017, Commerce received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of PET resin from Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan, on behalf of DAK Americas LLC; Indorama Ventures USA, Inc. (Indorama Ventures); M&G Polymers USA, LLC; and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America (collectively, the petitioners).
Section 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides that Commerce, upon receipt of a timely allegation of critical circumstances, will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist in AD investigations if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (A)(ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, and (B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.
Sections 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) and (i) provide that imports must increase by at least 15 percent during the “relatively short period” to be considered “massive” and defines a “relatively short period” as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (
To determine whether there is a history of dumping pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, Commerce generally considers current or previous AD orders on subject merchandise from the country in question in the United States and current orders imposed by other countries regarding imports of the same merchandise. The Critical Circumstances Allegations show that other countries have current measures in place covering imports of the same merchandise from the countries subject to these allegations.
To determine whether importers knew or should have known that exporters were selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value pursuant section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, we typically consider the magnitude of dumping margins, including margins alleged in petitions.
To determine whether importers knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury caused by reason of such imports pursuant section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, Commerce normally will look to the preliminary injury determination of the International Trade Commission (ITC).
Because the statutory criteria of section 733(e)(1)(A) of the Act have been satisfied, we next examined whether imports of subject merchandise from Indonesia, Korea, and Taiwan were “massive” over a relatively short period, pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h). In making this determination, Commerce normally compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (
Thus, in order to preliminarily determine whether there has been a massive surge in imports for each cooperating mandatory respondent, using shipment data submitted by the cooperating mandatory respondents, and shipment data of subject merchandise compiled by the ITC, Commerce compared the total volume of shipments from October 2017 through January 2018 (
• Indonesia (A-560-832): Indorama Polymers Public Co., Ltd.; All Other Producers/Exporters
• Korea (A-580-896): Lotte Chemical Corp. (REGD); TK Chemical Corp.; All Other Producers/Exporters
• Taiwan (A-583-862): Far Eastern New Century Corporation; Far Eastern Textile Ltd.; Worldwide Polychem (HK), Ltd.; All Other Producers/Exporters
In addition, based on record information, we also find that certain producers/exporters did not experience an increase of 15 percent or more in imports of subject merchandise during the comparison period when compared to the base period. As such, the following producers/exporters of subject merchandise did not have massive imports, as defined by section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h).
• Indonesia (A-560-832): PT. Indo-Rama Synthetics Tbk.
• Korea (A-580-896): SK Chemicals Co., Ltd.
• Taiwan (A-583-862): Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation
Finally, we note that in the AD investigation regarding imports of subject merchandise from Korea, respondent company SKC Co., Ltd. (SKC) submitted a certification, in lieu of a questionnaire response, that it did not make shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation, and there is no information on the record to contradict this claim. As a result, we are not making a critical circumstances determination with respect to SKC.
Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of PET resin shipped by certain producers/exporters. Our findings are summarized as follows:
We will issue our final determinations concerning critical circumstances when we issue our final less than fair value determinations. All interested parties will have the opportunity to address these preliminary determinations in case briefs to be submitted after completion of the preliminary less than fair value determinations.
In accordance with sections 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its preliminary determinations.
In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, because we have preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to imports exported by certain producers and exporters, if we make an affirmative preliminary determination that sales at less than fair value have been made by these same producers/exporters at above
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on welded line pipe from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) for the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Applicable April 24, 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 countervailing duty order on welded line pipe from Turkey covering the period January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016.
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. Countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing 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 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).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable April 16, 2018.
Eli Lovely at (202) 482-1593 or Maisha Cryor at (202) 482-5831, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On March 27, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a countervailing duty (CVD) Petition concerning imports of certain steel wheels (steel wheels) from the People's Republic of China (China), filed in proper form on behalf of Accuride Corporation (Accuride) and Maxion Wheels Akron LLC (collectively, the petitioners).
On March 30, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions. The petitioners filed additional information on April 3, 2018.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Government of China (GOC) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of steel wheels in China and imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic steel wheels industry in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry
Because the Petition was filed on March 27, 2018, the period of investigation is January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
The product covered by these investigations is steel wheels from China. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
During our review of the Petition, Commerce issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).
Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified representatives of the GOC of the receipt of the Petition and provided them the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petition.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the Petition. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that steel wheels, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition and the General Issues Supplement with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. The petitioners provided their 2017 production of the domestic like product.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petition.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that they are requesting that Commerce initiate.
Because China is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from China materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports, reduced market share and increasing market share of subject imports, underselling and price depression or suppression, lost sales and revenues, and adverse effects on petitioners' operating indicators and financial results.
Based on the examination of the Petition, we find that the Petition meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of steel wheels from China benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOC. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all of the subsidy programs alleged in the petition, with certain limitations. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
The petitioners named 32 companies in China
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Commerce's website at
Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. We intend to finalize our decisions regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public versions of the Petition have been provided to the GOC
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of steel wheels from China are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise subject to the investigation is certain on-the-road steel wheels, discs, and rims for tubeless tires, with a nominal rim diameter of 22.5 inches and 24.5 inches, regardless of width. Certain on-the-road steel wheels with a nominal wheel diameter of 22.5 inches and 24.5 inches are generally for Class 6, 7, and 8 commercial vehicles (as classified by the Federal Highway Administration Gross Vehicle Weight Rating system), including tractors, semi-trailers, dump trucks, garbage trucks, concrete mixers, and buses, and are the current standard wheel diameters for such applications. The standard widths of certain on-the-road steel wheels are 7.5 inches, 8.25 inches, and 9.0 inches, but all certain on-the-road steel wheels, regardless of width, are covered by the scope. While 22.5 inches and 24.5 inches are standard wheel sizes used by Class 6, 7, and 8 commercial vehicles, the scope covers sizes that may be adopted in the future for Class 6, 7, and 8 commercial vehicles.
The scope includes certain on-the-road steel wheels with either a “hub-piloted” or “stud-piloted” mounting configuration, and includes rims and discs for such wheels, whether imported as an assembly or separately. The scope includes certain on-the-road steel wheels, discs, and rims, of carbon and/or alloy steel composition, whether cladded or not cladded, whether finished or not finished, and whether coated or uncoated. All on-the-road wheels sold in the United States are subject to the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and bear markings, such as the “DOT” symbol, indicating compliance with applicable motor vehicle standards.
Excluded from the scope are:
(1) Steel wheels for tube-type tires that require a removable side ring;
(2) aluminum wheels;
(3) wheels where steel represents less than fifty percent of the product by weight; and
(4) steel wheels that do not meet National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requirements, other than the rim marking requirements found in 49 CFR § 571.120S5.2.
Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 8708.70.4530, 8708.70.4560, 8708.70.6030, 8708.70.6060, 8716.90.5045, and 8716.90.5059. Merchandise meeting the scope description may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.20.1015, 4011.20.5020, and 8708.99.4850. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable April 16, 2018.
Stephen Bailey or Aleksandras Nakutis at (202) 482-0193 or (202) 482-3147, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On March 27, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received an antidumping duty (AD) Petition concerning imports of certain steel wheels (steel wheels) from the People's Republic of China (China), filed in proper form on behalf of Accuride Corporation (Accuride) and Maxion Wheels Akron LLC (Maxion) (collectively, the petitioners).
On March 30, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions. The petitioners filed additional information on April 3, 2018.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of steel wheels from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing steel wheels in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegation.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that the petitioners are requesting.
Because China is a non-market economy (NME) country, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) for the China investigation is July 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
The product covered by this investigation is certain steel wheels from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
During our review of the Petition, Commerce issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).
Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
Commerce is provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of steel wheels to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaire. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant factors of production accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 7, 2018, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the Petition. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that steel wheels, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition and the General Issues Supplement with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. The petitioners provided their 2017 production of the domestic like product.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petition.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that they are requesting that Commerce initiate.
The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports, reduced market share and increasing market share of subject imports, underselling and price depression or suppression, lost sales and revenues, and adverse effects on the petitioners' operating indicators and financial results.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate an AD investigation of imports of steel wheels from China. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the Initiation Checklist.
The petitioners based EP on an importer price list, price quotes, and internet prices.
Commerce considers China to be an NME country.
The petitioners claim that Thailand is an appropriate surrogate country for China because it is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of China and it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.
Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.
Because information regarding the FOPs and volume of inputs consumed by Chinese producers/exporters was not reasonably available, the petitioners used the product-specific consumption rates of a U.S. steel wheels producer to estimate the Chinese manufacturers' FOPs.
Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of steel wheels from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for steel wheels from China are 12.1-231.7 percent.
Based upon the examination of the AD Petition, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of steel wheels from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
The petitioners named 32 producers/exporters as accounting for the majority of exports of steel wheels to the United States from China.
Producers/exporters of steel wheels from China that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.
Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
{w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been provided to the government of China
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of steel wheels from China are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise subject to the investigation is certain on-the-road steel wheels, discs, and rims for tubeless tires, with a nominal rim diameter of 22.5 inches and 24.5 inches, regardless of width. Certain on-the-road steel wheels with a nominal wheel diameter of 22.5 inches and 24.5 inches are generally for Class 6, 7, and 8 commercial vehicles (as classified by the Federal Highway Administration Gross Vehicle Weight Rating system), including tractors, semi-trailers, dump trucks, garbage trucks, concrete mixers, and buses, and are the current standard wheel diameters for such applications. The standard widths of certain on-the-road steel wheels are 7.5 inches, 8.25 inches, and 9.0 inches, but all certain on-the-road steel wheels, regardless of width, are covered by the scope. While 22.5 inches and 24.5 inches are standard wheel sizes used by Class 6, 7, and 8 commercial vehicles, the scope covers sizes that may be adopted in the future for Class 6, 7, and 8 commercial vehicles.
The scope includes certain on-the-road steel wheels with either a “hub-piloted” or “stud- piloted” mounting configuration, and includes rims and discs for such wheels, whether imported as an assembly or separately. The scope includes certain on-the-road steel wheels, discs, and rims, of carbon and/or alloy steel composition, whether cladded or not cladded, whether finished or not finished, and whether coated or uncoated. All on-the-road wheels sold in the United States are subject to the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and bear markings, such as the “DOT” symbol, indicating compliance with applicable motor vehicle standards.
Excluded from the scope are:
(1) steel wheels for tube-type tires that require a removable side ring;
(2) aluminum wheels;
(3) wheels where steel represents less than fifty percent of the product by weight; and
(4) steel wheels that do not meet National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requirements, other than the rim marking requirements found in 49 CFR 571.120S5.2.
Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 8708.70.4530, 8708.70.4560, 8708.70.6030, 8708.70.6060, 8716.90.5045, and 8716.90.5059. Merchandise meeting the scope description may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.20.1015, 4011.20.5020, and 8708.99.4850. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
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 stainless steel wire rod from India for the period December 1, 2016, through November 30, 2017.
Applicable April 24, 2018.
Hermes Pinilla, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3477.
On December 4, 2017, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rod (SSWR) from India for the period of review (POR) December 1, 2016, through November 30, 2017.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review “in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” Isinox withdrew its request for review within the 90-day time limit. Because Commerce received no other requests for review of Isinox, and no other requests for the review of the order on SSWR from India, we are rescinding the administrative review of the order in full, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of SSWR products from India during the POR at rates equal to the cash deposit rate 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 final reminder to importers of their responsibility
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Advisory Panel and Committee will hold a public meeting.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 15, 2018, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. See
The meeting will be held at the Double Tree by Hilton Baltimore—BWI Airport, 890 Elkridge Landing Road, Linthicum, MD 21090; telephone: (410) 859-8400.
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Advisory Panel and Committee will meet on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 in Linthicum, MD. The purpose of this meeting is to review development of the chub mackerel amendment and to develop recommendations to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council on management alternatives and other aspects of the amendment. The amendment will consider adding Atlantic chub mackerel (
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene a meeting of its Plan Team for the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagics Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (PPT) in Honolulu, HI to discuss fishery issues and develop recommendations for future management.
The meeting of the PPT will be held on May 14-16 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Council Office Conference Room, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813; telephone: (808) 522-8220.
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: (808) 522-8220.
The PPT will meet at the Council Conference Room to discuss the following agenda items:
The order in which the agenda items are addressed may change. The PPT will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled business. The meeting will end when the agenda has been completed.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Social Science Planning Team will meet May 8, 2018 through May 9, 2018.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 8, 2018 through Wednesday, May 9, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Hotel in the Birch/Willow Room, 500 W 3rd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501.
Sarah Marrinan, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The meeting agenda includes review and presentation on existing socio-economic data and information sources that can inform fisheries management in Federal fisheries off of Alaska. This will include a discussion of the availability of subsistence information, use of existing data collections (such as Economic Data Reports), and the Alaska Fishery Science Center skipper survey, and current Alaska Fishery Science Center funding proposals.
The team will also discuss data gaps and consider long term strategies for prioritizing and filling these data gaps. This part of the agenda will include a presentation of a socio-economic gap analysis, discussion of past critiques from the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee on information deficiencies in Council documents, discussion of current Council informational needs, and a facilitated discussion of the role of Local and Traditional Knowledge/Traditional Ecological Knowledge and citizen science information into science and management.
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted either electronically to Sarah Marrinan, Council staff:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Electronic Monitoring Workgroup (EMWG) will hold a public meeting on May 15, 2018.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 15, 2018, from 8:15 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held in the Traynor Room, Building 4 at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7700 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115. Teleconference available upon request.
Elizabeth Figus, Council staff; telephone: (907)-271-2801.
The first half of the day is expected to focus on discussing the fixed gear EM program, including: (a) Budget and funding; (b) coordination of funding sources; (c) an update on 2018 EM implementation; (d) updates about progress on pot gear issues; and, (e) discussion about the future of fixed gear implementation. The second half of the day will focus on the trawl EM program, including: (f) An overview of EM Workgroup cooperative approach; (g) summary of ongoing work relevant to trawl; (h) funding issues; (i) trawl EM objectives; (j) developing a workplan and timing for future EMWG meetings; and, (k) a discussion of scheduling and other issues. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted either electronically to Elizabeth Figus, Council staff:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of meeting of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management (Habitat) Advisory Panel (AP).
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold a meeting of its Habitat AP in North Charleston, SC. The meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 15, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Wednesday, May 16, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC, 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
Items to be addressed or sessions to be conducted during this meeting include: Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) II Dashboard, FEP II Implementation Plan and Roadmap, and links and tools; policy/threat matrix development; renewable energy development; NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem activities (developing South Atlantic Ecosystem Status Report and Regional Action Plan for Climate); ocean observing needs; habitat conservation in fishery management plans; marine aquaculture; and regulation adjustments.
Members of the AP will discuss items and provide recommendations as appropriate.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The SEDAR Steering Committee will meet to discuss the SEDAR process and assessment schedule. See
The SEDAR Steering Committee will meet Monday, May 14, 2018, from 1 p.m. until 6 p.m. and Tuesday, May 15, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. until 3 p.m.
The Steering Committee meeting will be held at the Crowne Plaza Charleston Airport, 4831 Tanger Outlet Boulevard, North Charleston, SC 29418; (843) 744-4422.
John Carmichael, Deputy Executive Director, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The items of discussion are as follows:
The Committee will discuss the agenda items and take action as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Crab Plan Team (CPT) will meet May 8, 2018 through May 10, 2018.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 8, 2018 through Thursday, May 10, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Hotel in the Aspen/Spruce
Diana Stram, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The CPT will review and make recommendations on: Aleutian Island golden king crab (AIGKC) final stock assessment, including OFL and ABC recommendations, Research Priorities, Crab bycatch data implications in assessments, Terminal year retrospective analysis, Dynamic B0 calculation, Status of PIBKC assessment timing, Additional issues with Stock Prioritization, Norton Sound red king crab commercial and subsistence fisheries overview and review of observer program data and Tier 3 considerations for the stock; and model scenarios for 2018 assessments for Bristol Bay red king crab, Tanner crab, snow crab and Saint Matthew blue king crab.
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
Office of Ocean Exploration and Research (OER), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Ocean Exploration Advisory Board (OEAB). OEAB members will discuss and provide advice on Federal ocean exploration programs, with a particular emphasis National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) leadership priorities and how they align with a national ocean exploration program. Other topics will include implementation of the President's Executive Order on a Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals; other federal agency activity in support of this executive order; NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research (OER) activities; and other matters as described in the agenda found on the OEAB website at
The announced meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 16, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT and Thursday, May 17, 2018 from 9:00 to 5:00 p.m. EDT.
The meeting will be held at the Morrison-Clark Historic Inn at 1011 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20001.
Mr. David McKinnie, Designated Federal Officer, Ocean Exploration Advisory Board, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, (206) 526-6950.
NOAA established the OEAB under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and legislation that gives the agency statutory authority to operate an ocean exploration program and to coordinate a national program of ocean exploration. The OEAB advises NOAA leadership on strategic planning, exploration priorities, competitive ocean exploration grant programs and other matters as the NOAA Administrator requests.
OEAB members represent government agencies, the private sector, academic institutions, and not-for-profit institutions involved in all facets of ocean exploration—from advanced technology to citizen exploration.
In addition to advising NOAA leadership, NOAA expects the OEAB to help to define and develop a national program of ocean exploration—a network of stakeholders and partnerships advancing national priorities for ocean exploration.
The OEAB expects that public statements at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to three minutes. The Designated Federal Officer must receive written comments by May 1, 2018 to provide sufficient time for OEAB review. Written comments received after May 1, 2018 will be distributed to the OEAB but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 24, 2018.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comment.
DoD has drafted guidance for procurements requiring implementation of National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171, Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations, and is making the draft guidance available to the public.
Comments are due by May 31, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket DARS-2018-0023, by any of the following methods:
○
○
Ms. Mary Thomas, DPAP/PDI, at
The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement clause 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, requires contractors to provide “adequate security” for “covered defense information” that is processed, stored, or transmitted on the contractor's internal information system or network. To provide adequate security, the contractor must, at a minimum, implement NIST SP 800-171, “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations.” NIST SP 800-171 states that in order to demonstrate implementation or planned implementation of the security requirements in NIST SP 800-171, nonfederal organizations should describe in a System Security Plan how the specified security requirements are met, or how organizations plan to meet the requirements, and should develop plans of action that describe how any unimplemented security requirements will be met and how any planned mitigations will be implemented. NIST SP 800-171 further states that, when requested, the System Security Plan and any associated Plans of Action for any planned implementations or mitigations should be submitted to the responsible Federal agency/contracting officer to demonstrate the nonfederal organization's implementation or planned implementation of the security requirements.
DoD developed the document “DoD Guidance for Reviewing System Security Plans and the NIST SP 800-171 Security Requirements Not Yet Implemented” to facilitate the consistent review and understanding of System Security Plans and Plans of Action, the impact that NIST SP 800-171 Security Requirements that are “not yet implemented” have on an information system, and to assist in prioritizing the implementation of security requirements not yet implemented. The document “Assessing the State of a Contractor's Internal Information System in a Procurement Action” illustrates how “DoD Guidance for Reviewing System Security Plans and the NIST SP 800-171 Security Requirements Not Yet Implemented” may be used during a procurement for which DoD must assess the state of a contractor's internal information system.
“DoD Guidance for Reviewing System Security Plans and the NIST SP 800-171 Security Requirements Not Yet Implemented” provides a “DoD Value” to assess the risk that a security requirement left unimplemented has on an information system, to assess the risk of a security requirement with an identified deficiency, and to address the priority for which an unimplemented requirement should be implemented. The guidance also addresses the method(s) to implement the security requirements, and, when applicable, provides clarifying information for security requirements that are frequently misunderstood.
The matrix “Assessing the State of a Contractor's Internal Information System in a Procurement Action” is provided to illustrate how DoD may choose to assess submitted System Security Plans and Plans of Action in procurement actions that require the implementation of NIST SP 800-171.
To access the documents entitled “DoD Guidance for Reviewing System Security Plans and the NIST SP 800-171 Security Requirements Not Yet Implemented” and “Assessing the State of a Contractor's Internal Information System in a Procurement Action,” go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense.
Notice of a modified system of records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) proposes to modify a system of records notice entitled GlobalNET Outreach and Collaboration Platform, DSCA 02. This system is a web based technology solution that provides the Regional Center for Security Studies and Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) with a procedure to improve international outreach efforts as well as foster collaboration among their faculty, current and former students, OSD, and other designated Department of Defense (DoD) educational institutions and communities. The GlobalNET platform provides a collaborative social networking environment/capability for students, alumni, faculty, partners, and other community members.
Comments will be accepted on or before May 24, 2018. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
*
Ms. Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records, Privacy and Declassification Division (RPDD), 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0478.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to modify a system of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a. The GlobalNET Outreach and Collaboration Platform (DSCA 02) is a web based information technology platform to improve international partner outreach and collaboration efforts in a federated environment. The system collects information on students in order to allow them to share information with peers, faculty, and regional center personnel. GlobalNET is the official DSCA system for performing alumni outreach, facilitating alumnus/professor communication and peer-to-peer communications (or social networking).
As a result of reviewing this system of records notice, the DSCA proposes to modify this system by updating the following sections: Categories of individuals, categories of records, authorities, routine uses, retention and disposal, notification procedure, record access procedures, and record source categories. This notice also reflects changes to ensure compliance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-108.
The OSD notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on February 27, 2018 to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
GlobalNET Outreach and Collaboration Platform, DSCA 02.
Unclassified.
Amazon Web Services, LLC, 13461 Sunrise Valley Drive, Herndon, VA 20171-3283.
GlobalNET Program Manager, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, ATTN: PGM/CMO, 201 12th Street S, Suite 203, Arlington, VA 22202-5408.
GlobalNET Program Manager, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, ATTN: PGM/CMO, 201 12th Street S, Suite 203, Arlington, VA 22202-5408.
10 U.S.C. 134, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive (DoDD) 5101.1, DoD Executive Agent; DoDD 5105.65, Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA); DoDD 5132.03, DoD Policy and Responsibilities Relating to Security Cooperation; and DoDD 5200.41, DoD Regional Centers for Security Studies.
This system is a technology solution that provides the Regional Center for Security Studies and Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) with a methodology to improve international outreach efforts as well as foster collaboration among their faculty, current and former students, OSD, and other designated Department of Defense (DoD) educational institutions and communities as required. The primary purpose of GlobalNET platform is to provide a collaborative social networking environment/capability for students, alumni, faculty, partners, and other community members.
DoD Military and civilian employees, military students, alumni, contractors, systems integrators, and subject matter experts who interact with DoD educational institutions.
Name, country of residence, nationality, rank, email addresses,
From the individual.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3):
a. To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the DoD when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
b. To the appropriate Federal, State, local, territorial, tribal, foreign, or international law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature.
c. To any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the DoD, or its components, officers, employees, or members in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.
d. In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body or official, when the DoD or other Agency representing the DoD determines that the records are relevant and necessary to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
e. To the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
f. To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
g. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the DoD suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the DoD has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the DoD (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the DoD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
h. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the DoD determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
These electronic records are stored on secure servers with access controlled, access restricted by the use of logon, password, and/or card swipe protocols.
These records may be retrieved by participant name, email address, subject matter expertise, month/year of attendance, and course subject.
These records are retained and disposed of consistent with the National Archives and Records Administration approved Records Disposition Schedules. These records are destroyed or deleted 3 years after a user requests account termination or inactivity; or when information posted is superseded.
Access is limited to those individuals with a need to know in order to perform official and assigned duties. Physical access is limited through the use of locks, guards, card swipe, and other administrative procedures. The electronic records are housed on systems with access restricted by the use of login, password, and/or card swipe protocols. Users are warned through screen log-on, protocols and/or in briefings of the consequences of improper access or use of the data. The web-based files are encrypted in accordance with approved information assurance protocols. The user can also restrict access to personal data by selecting which type of information is available to members, friends, or others.
Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff, Freedom of Information Act Requester Service Center, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
Signed, written requests should include the full name, current address and telephone number, and the name and number of this system of records notice.
In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized signature or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
The OSD rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 310; or may be obtained from the system manager.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to GlobalNET Program Manager, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, ATTN: STR/TNG, 201 12th Street S, Suite 203, Arlington, VA 22202-5408.
Signed, written requests should include the full name, current address and telephone number, and the name and number of this system of records notice.
In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized signature or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
None.
April 12, 2012 77 FR 21973; March 7, 2007, 72 FR 10180
Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), 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 June 25, 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 Justis Tuia, 202-453-6654.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, May 16, 2018 4:00 p.m.
Frank H. Rogers Science and Technology Building, 755 East Flamingo, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119.
Barbara Ulmer, Board Administrator, 232 Energy Way, M/S 167, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030. Phone: (702) 630-0522; Fax (702) 295-2025 or Email:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice.
In this notice, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is forecasting the representative average unit costs of five residential energy sources for the year 2018 pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Act). The five sources are electricity, natural gas, No. 2 heating oil, propane, and kerosene.
The representative average unit costs of energy contained in this notice will become effective May 24, 2018 and will remain in effect until further notice.
John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 287-1692,
Francine Pinto, Esq. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-7432,
Section 323 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires that DOE prescribe test procedures for the measurement of the estimated annual operating costs or other measures of energy consumption for certain consumer products specified in the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) These test procedures are found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B.
Section 323(b)(3) of the Act requires that the estimated annual operating costs of a covered product be calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative average use cycle or period of use and from representative average unit costs of the energy needed to operate such product during such cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The section further requires that DOE provide information to manufacturers regarding the representative average unit costs of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(4)) This cost information should be used by manufacturers to meet their obligations under section 323(c) of the Act. Most notably, these costs are used to comply with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requirements for labeling. Manufacturers are required to use the revised DOE representative average unit costs when the FTC publishes new ranges of comparability for specific covered products, 16 CFR part 305. Interested parties can also find information covering the FTC labeling requirements at
DOE last published representative average unit costs of residential energy in a
On May 24, 2018, the cost figures published in this notice will become effective and supersede those cost figures published on May 5, 2017. The cost figures set forth in this notice will be effective until further notice.
DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA) has developed the 2018 representative average unit after-tax residential costs found in this notice. These costs for electricity, natural gas, No. 2 heating oil, and propane are based on simulations used to produce the April 2018, EIA
The 2018 representative average unit costs under section 323(b)(4) of the Act are set forth in Table 1, and will become effective May 24, 2018. They will remain in effect until further notice.
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:00 p.m.
Ohio State University, Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661.
Greg Simonton, Alternate Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, Post Office Box 700, Piketon, Ohio 45661, (740) 897-3737,
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of orders.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy gives notice that during March 2018, it issued orders granting authority to import and export natural gas, and to import and export liquefied natural gas (LNG), and an opinion and order granting motion for leave to answer request for rehearing and denying request for rehearing. These orders are summarized in the attached appendix and may be found on the FE website at
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Monday, May 14, 2018 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.
Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Hyatt Regency, 2 West Bay Street, Savannah, GA 31401.
Amy Boyette, Office of External Affairs, Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802; Phone: (803) 952-6120.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Advisory Board (EMAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, May 16, 2018 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
U.S. Department of Energy, Room 5E-069, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585.
Jennifer McCloskey, Federal Coordinator, EMAB (EM-4.3), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. Phone (301) 903-7427; fax (202) 586-0293 or email:
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice and request for comments.
EIA is requesting a three-year extension, without changes, of Form NWPA-830G
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before June 25, 2018. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in
Send your comments to: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis, EI-34, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585, Attn: Marta Gospodarczyk.
If you prefer, you can email them to:
Requests for additional information or copies of any forms and instructions should be directed to Ms. Gospodarczyk at 202-586-0527 or at:
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4
As part of its effort to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101
Please refer to the proposed forms and instructions for more information about the purpose, who must report, when to report, where to submit, the elements to be reported, detailed instructions, provisions for confidentiality, and uses (including possible non-statistical uses) of the information. For instructions on obtaining materials, see the
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-275, codified as (15 U.S.C. 772(b)
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On February 23, 2018, the Commission issued an order (February Order) directing Commission staff to convene a technical conference in these proceedings.
In the February Order, the Commission found that the issues presented in the above captioned proceedings raise a number of issues related to the PJM capacity market that warrant further examination. Accordingly, the Commission established a technical conference to explore these issues. The purpose of the conference is to obtain further information concerning the above referenced proceedings.
A revised agenda with an updated list of selected speakers is attached and will be available on the web calendar on the Commission's website,
The conference will be open for the public to attend. Advanced registration is not required but is highly encouraged. Attendees may register at the following web page:
The technical conference will be transcribed and will be part of the record in these proceedings. Transcripts will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reports, Inc. (202-347-3700). There will be a free webcast of the conference. The webcast will allow persons to listen to the technical conference, but not participate. Anyone with internet access who wants to listen to the conference can do so by navigating to the Calendar of Events at
The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the webcast and offers the option of listening to the meeting via phone-bridge for a fee. The phone bridge must be requested at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. If you have any questions, visit
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about this technical conference, please contact:
Take notice that on April 16, 2018, pursuant to section 292.207(d)(1)(iii) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Regulations
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
On April 12, 2018, GenH, Inc. filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed McClellan Wash Hydro Station Project would have an installed capacity of 75 kilowatts (kW), and would be located at the existing McClellan Wash Drop along the Central Main Canal near Eloy, Pinal County, Arizona.
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.
Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on April 10, 2018, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in Docket No. CP18-173-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.213(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), requesting authorization to construct and operate one new horizontal storage well, designated Well 12622, and related pipeline and appurtenances at Columbia's Weaver Storage Field, located in Ashland, Holmes, Knox, and Richland Counties, Ohio. Columbia estimates the cost of the proposed project to be approximately $2,800,000, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Linda Farquhar, Manager, Project Determinations & Regulatory Administration, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, by telephone at (832) 320-5685, by fax at (832) 320-6685, or by email at
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, it must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m.
n.
On April 12, 2018, GenH, Inc. filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Mohawk Hydro Station Project would have an installed capacity of up to 150 kilowatts (kW), and would be located at an existing unnamed drop along the Wellton-Mohawk Canal in Roll, Yuma County, Arizona.
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.
Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12th Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 11, 2018.
1.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for comment.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces the availability of a draft NORA Agenda entitled
Electronic or written comments must be received by June 25, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by CDC-2018-0028 and docket number NIOSH-310, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Emily Novicki (
The National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) is a partnership program created to stimulate innovative research and improved workplace practices. The national agenda is developed and implemented through the NORA sector and cross-sector councils. Each council develops and maintains an agenda for its sector or cross-sector.
The first National Occupational Research Agenda for WRT was published in 2009 for the second decade of NORA (2006-2016). This draft is an updated agenda for the third decade of NORA (2016-2026). The revised agenda was developed considering new information about injuries and illnesses, the state of the science, and the probability that new information and approaches will make a difference. As the steward of the NORA process, NIOSH invites comments on the draft
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for comment.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces the availability of a draft research plan entitled
Electronic or written comments must be received by June 25, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by CDC-2018-0038 and docket number NIOSH-312, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Charles L. Geraci (
NIOSH is seeking stakeholder input on the draft document
NIOSH is considering focusing the overarching strategic research goals for these critical areas on 5 key goals: (1) Increase understanding of new hazards and related health risks to nanomaterial workers, (2) expand understanding of the initial hazard findings of engineered nanomaterials, (3) support the creation of guidance materials to inform nanomaterial workers, employers, health professionals, regulatory agencies, and decision makers about hazards, risks and risk management approaches, (4)support epidemiologic studies for nanomaterial workers including medical and exposure studies, and (5) assess and promote national
Public comments are requested, including those expressing support or with specific suggestions to improve the Research plan. A copy of the draft Research plan is available at
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 “Severely Debilitating or Life-Threatening Hematologic Disorders: Nonclinical Development of Pharmaceuticals.” The purpose of this guidance is to provide information to assist sponsors in the design of an appropriate program of nonclinical studies for the development of pharmaceuticals used to treat patients with severely debilitating or life-threatening hematologic disorders (SDLTHDs). While FDA has guidance for oncology indications (most of which are considered severely debilitating or life-threatening diseases) and for rare diseases (which include some SDLTHD conditions), FDA has no guidance to facilitate nonclinical development specifically for pharmaceuticals used to treat nononcology patients with SDLTHDs. A streamlined approach to drug development is necessary to allow patients with SDLTHDs earlier and continued access to new and potentially effective therapies.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by June 25, 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.”
• Confidential Submissions-To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
John Leighton, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 2204, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0750; or Haleh Saber, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 2117, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0750.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Severely Debilitating or Life-Threatening Hematologic Disorders: Nonclinical Development of Pharmaceuticals.” The purpose of this guidance is to provide information to assist sponsors in the design of an appropriate program of nonclinical studies for the development of pharmaceuticals used to treat patients with SDLTHDs. While FDA has guidance for oncology indications (most of which are considered severely debilitating or life-threatening diseases) and for rare diseases (which include some SDLTHD conditions), FDA has no guidance to facilitate nonclinical development specifically for pharmaceuticals used to treat nononcology patients with SDLTHDs.
The SDLTHDs include conditions in which life expectancy is short or quality of life is greatly diminished despite available therapies. FDA has defined life-threatening and severely debilitating diseases in regulations (21 CFR 312.81). A streamlined approach to drug development is necessary to allow patients with SDLTHDs earlier and continued access to new and potentially effective therapies. This guidance, when finalized, is expected to reduce the use of animals in accordance with the 3R (refine/reduce/replace) principles and allow faster and continuous access to pharmaceuticals for SDLTHDs.
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 nonclinical development of pharmaceuticals for severely debilitating or life-threatening hematologic disorders. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit a Supplemental Information Request (SIR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the SIR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the SIR.
Comments on this SIR should be received no later than June 25, 2018.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
The MIECHV Program, authorized by section 511 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 711, and administered by HRSA in partnership with the Administration for Children and Families, supports voluntary, evidence-based home visiting services during pregnancy and to parents with young children up to kindergarten entry. States, territories, and tribal entities, and nonprofit organizations, in certain circumstances, are eligible to receive funding through MIECHV and have the flexibility, within the parameters of the authorizing statute, to tailor the program to serve the specific needs of their communities.
The statewide needs assessment is a critical and foundational resource that assists awardees in identifying and understanding how to meet the needs of eligible families living in at-risk communities in their states.
In response to the forthcoming SIR, state and territory awardees will be required to submit an updated statewide needs assessment that identifies all of the following information, as required by the MIECHV authorizing statute:
(1) Communities with concentrations of (a) premature birth, low-birth weight infants, and infant mortality, including infant death due to neglect, or other indicators of at-risk prenatal, maternal, newborn, or child health; (b) poverty; (c) crime; (d) domestic violence; (e) high rates of high-school drop-outs; (f) substance abuse; (g) unemployment; or (h) child maltreatment.
(2) The quality and capacity of existing programs or initiatives for early
(3) The state's capacity for providing substance abuse treatment and counseling services to individuals and families in need of such treatment or services.
The forthcoming SIR will provide further guidance to states in updating their statewide needs assessments and submitting the required information to HRSA. States that have elected not to apply for or be awarded MIECHV funds are encouraged to work with nonprofit organizations that have received awards to provide MIECHV services within the state and indicate whether they will submit their needs assessments directly or through the nonprofit organization awardee. HRSA, states, and nonprofits providing MIECHV services within states will use the information collected through the needs assessment update to reaffirm the provision of MIECHV home visiting services in at-risk communities. The information will also be used to support program planning, improvement, and decision-making. The needs assessment update is not intended to disrupt current services or negatively impact communities that have benefited from home visiting programs, nor is the intent of the update to require awardees to shift resources away from at-risk communities they currently serve.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings of the NHLBI Special Emphasis Panel.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and 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 contract proposals and grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, May 21, 2018, 5:00 p.m. to May 22, 2018, 5:00 p.m., Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Linden Oak, Rockville, MD, 20852 which was published in the
This meeting has been cancelled due to an administrative oversight. A new meeting announcement will be posted soon. The meeting is closed to the public.
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 grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Child Health and Human Development Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. A portion of this meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review and discussion of grant applications. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the contact person listed below in advance of the meeting.
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 taxis, 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.
In order to facilitate public attendance at the open session of Council in the main meeting room, Conference Room 6, please contact Ms. Lisa Kaeser, Program and Public Liaison Office, NICHD, at 301-496-0536 to make your reservation, additional seating will be available in the meeting overflow rooms, Conference Rooms 7 and 8. Individuals will also be able to view the meeting via NIH Videocast. Select the following link for Videocast access instructions:
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Biomedical Informatics, Library and Data Sciences Review Committee, June 7, 2018, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., June 8, 2018, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Bethesda Hyatt, 1 Bethesda Metro Center, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the
The meeting of the Biomedical Informatics, Library and Data Sciences Review Committee (01) will be held on June 7, 2018, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and June 8, 2018, 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. The Biomedical Informatics, Library and Data Sciences Review Committee (02) will be held on June 8, 2018, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings of the NHLBI Special Emphasis Panel.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of a new system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-041 External Biometric Records (EBR) System of Records.” This system of records allows the DHS to receive, maintain, and disseminate biometric and associated biographic information from non-DHS entities, both foreign and domestic, for the following purposes pursuant to formal or informal information sharing agreements or arrangements (“external information”), or with the express approval of the entity from which the Department received biometric and associated biographic information: Law enforcement; national security; immigration screening; border enforcement; intelligence; national defense; and background investigations relating to national security positions, credentialing, and certain positions of public trust, consistent with applicable DHS authorities.
Department of Homeland Security/ALL-041 External Biometric Records (EBR) System of Records (SOR) is one of two replacement system of records notices (SORN) for DHS/US-VISIT-001 DHS Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT). This SORN applies to records provided to DHS by non-DHS entities that do not fall under existing Component/DHS SORNs. The other replacement for the IDENT SORN will be a forthcoming technical SORN focused on the technical aspects of the IDENT system. After the technical SORN is published, DHS will rescind the IDENT SORN by publishing a
Additionally, DHS is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act, elsewhere in the
Submit comments on or before May 24, 2018. This new system will be effective upon publication, with the exception of the routine uses, which will become effective May 24, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0039 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions and for privacy issues, please contact: Philip S. Kaplan,
In 2007, DHS published the IDENT SORN. Since then, the Department's Privacy Act framework and the IDENT information technology system have evolved as the Department has matured. DHS Component SORNs now govern the function and use of the biometrics records collected by each Component. The Department, however, still requires a SORN to cover biometrics received from non-DHS entities. Therefore, DHS is establishing DHS/ALL-041 External Biometric Records (EBR) System of Records, which governs the maintenance and use of biometrics and associated biographic information received from non-DHS entities that are not covered by an existing DHS Component SORNs. A forthcoming technical SORN will cover the limited information created by the IDENT system. Eventually, both this EBR SORN and the planned technical SORN will replace the IDENT SORN. In the meantime, to avoid any gap in SORN coverage for biometrics and associated biographic information, the EBR and IDENT SORNs will co-exist. After the technical SORN is published, DHS will rescind the IDENT SORN by publishing a
External information is collected by non-DHS entities, including the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Justice (DOJ), State and local law enforcement authorities, or foreign governments. External information shared with DHS includes biometric (
DHS also maintains this information to support its information sharing agreements and arrangements with foreign partners to: Prevent travelers from assuming different identities to fraudulently gain admission or immigration benefits; identify individuals who seek to enter the United States for unauthorized purposes; identify those who have committed serious crimes or violated immigration law; enable informed decisions on visas, admissibility, or other immigration benefits. Such sharing augments the law enforcement and border control efforts of both the United States and its partners. Additionally, DHS is using this information in concert with external partners to facilitate the screening of refugees in an effort to combat terrorist travel consistent with DHS's and Components' authorities.
Consistent with DHS's mission, information covered by DHS/ALL-041 EBR may be shared with DHS Components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS may share information with appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies from the providing external entity, consistent with any applicable laws, rules, regulations, and information sharing and access agreements or arrangements. DHS may share biometric and associated biographic information as permitted pursuant to an applicable Privacy Act authorized disclosure, including routine uses set forth in this SORN. Additionally, DHS is issuing a NPRM to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act elsewhere in the
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides a statutory right to covered persons to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the JRA, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the JRA prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.
Below is the description of the DHS/ALL-041 External Biometric Records (EBR) System of Records.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/ALL-041 External Biometric Records (EBR) System of Records.
Unclassified, Sensitive. The data may be retained on classified networks but this does not change the nature and character of the data until it is combined with classified information.
Records are maintained at Data Center 1 at Stennis, Mississippi, Data Center 2 at Clarksville, Virginia, at the Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM) Headquarters in Washington, DC, and field offices. The records are maintained in the Information Technology (IT)
DHS replicates records from this operational IT system and maintains them in other IT systems connected on the DHS unclassified and classified networks.
System Manager, IDENT Program Management Office, OBIM, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528; email:
6 U.S.C. 202 and 482; 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1105, 1158, 1159, 1187, 1201, 1225, 1254a, 1254b, 1301-1305, 1324, 1357, 1360, 1365a, 1365b, 1372, 1379, 1440f, 1537, 1721, 1722, 1731, and 1732; 14 U.S.C. 89, 95; 19 U.S.C. 1589a; 42 U.S.C. 5197a; 44 U.S.C. 3544; 46 U.S.C. 70123; 49 U.S.C. 114, 5103, 40103(b), 40113(a), 44903(b), 44936, 44939, and 46105; 5 CFR part 731; 5 CFR part 732; 32 CFR 147.24; 8 CFR 214.1; 8 CFR 235.1; E.O. 12968 (60 FR 40245), 3 CFR, 1995 Comp. p. 1365; 13764 (82 FR 8115), Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12): Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors (Aug. 27, 2004); HSPD-11: Comprehensive Terrorist-Related Screening Procedures (Aug. 27, 2004); and National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD-59/HSPD-24: Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance National Security (June 5, 2008).
The purpose of this system is to process and maintain biometric and associated biographic information from non-DHS entities, both foreign and domestic, for law enforcement, national security, immigration screening, border enforcement, intelligence, national defense, and background investigations relating to national security positions, credentialing, and certain positions of public trust, consistent with applicable DHS authorities. DHS may use and share these external biometric and associated biographic records for these same purposes, as permitted and approved by our partners, if applicable, pursuant to the agreement or arrangement.
Individuals covered by EBR include the individuals whose biometric and associated biographic information are collected by
• Background checks and suitability screening;
• National security;
• Law enforcement operations (including individuals who are removed from a foreign country by a foreign partner government based on a criminal conviction);
• Intelligence;
• Border enforcement and immigration screening; and
• National defense.
Information collected by a
• Biometric data, including:
○ Facial images;
○ Fingerprints;
○ Latent fingerprints;
○ Iris images;
○ Palm prints;
○ Voice;
○ Scars, marks, and tattoos;
○ DNA or DNA Profile; and
○ Other modalities.
• Biometric-associated biographic data including:
○ Full name (
○ Date of birth (DOB);
○ Gender;
○ Personal physical details, such as height, weight, eye color, and hair color;
○ Signature;
○ Assigned number identifiers, such as, but not limited to, Alien Registration Number (A-Number), Social Security number (SSN), state identification number, civil record number, other agency system specific fingerprint record locator information, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Number (FNU)/Universal Control Number (UCN), Encounter Identification Number (EID), Finger Identification Number (FIN), DoD Biometric Identifier (DoD BID), Transaction Control Number (TCN), Global Unique Identifier (GUID), National Unique Identification Number (NUIN), document information and identifiers (
○ Identifiers for citizenship and nationality, including person-centric details, such as country of birth, country of citizenship, and nationality, when available.
• Derogatory information (DI), if applicable, including, wants and warrants, Known or Suspected Terrorist (KST) designation, sexual offender registration, foreign criminal convictions, and immigration violations, when available;
• Miscellaneous officer comment information, when available; and
• Encounter data, including location and circumstance of each instance resulting in biometric collection.
EBR SOR receives biometric and associated biographic information from non-DHS entities that may be used by DHS for a wide array of purposes, including those listed in the purpose(s) of the system stated above. EBR maintains records in accordance with the terms of the agreements or arrangements under which partners provide the external information to DHS. Records from external Federal partners include information from the following non-DHS systems of records, last published at:
• JUSTICE/INTERPOL-001 INTERPOL-United States National Central Bureau (USNCB) Records System, 75 FR 27821 (May 18, 2010) [Note: records shared with DHS include: law enforcement, intelligence, and national security records];
• JUSTICE/DOJ-005 Nationwide Joint Automated Booking System, 72 FR 3410 (Jan. 25, 2007), 71 FR 52821 (Sept. 7, 2006);
• JUSTICE/FBI-009 Next Generation Identification (NGI) System of Records (pending DOJ release);
• JUSTICE/FBI-019 Terrorist Screening Records System of Records, 76 FR 77847 (Dec. 14, 2011);
• A0025-2 SAIS DoD Defense Biometric Services, 74 FR 48237 (Sept. 22, 2009);
• A0025-2 PMG (DFBA) DoD Defense Biometric Identification Records System, 80 FR 8292 (Feb. 17, 2015);
• STATE-39 Visa Records 60 FR 39469 (Oct. 25, 2012);
• STATE-36, Security Records 80 FR 77691 (Dec. 15, 2015).
EBR SOR receives biometric and associated biographic information from foreign partners consistent with various international information sharing and access agreements or arrangements on file with DHS Office of Policy, International Affairs.
EBR SOR receives biometric and associated biographic information from State and local partners consistent with various law enforcement information sharing and access agreements or arrangements.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys, or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any Component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. secs. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) DHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, DHS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when DHS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary and otherwise compatible with the purpose of collection to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
G. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.
H. To an appropriate Federal, State, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
I. To an appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign, or international agency, if the information is relevant and necessary to a requesting agency's decision concerning the hiring or retention of an individual, or issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant, or other benefit, or if the information is relevant and necessary to a DHS decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit and when disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the person making the request.
J. To a Federal, State, or local agency, or other appropriate entities or individuals, or through established liaison channels to selected foreign governments, in order to provide intelligence, counterintelligence, or other information for the purposes of intelligence, counterintelligence, or antiterrorism activities authorized by U.S. law, Executive Order (E.O.), or other applicable national security directive.
K. To Federal and foreign government intelligence or counterterrorism agencies or Components when DHS reasonably believes there to be a threat or potential threat to national or international security for which the information may be useful in countering the threat or potential threat, or when disclosure supports the conduct of national intelligence and security investigations or assists in anti-terrorism efforts.
L. To a foreign government to notify it concerning its citizens or residents who are incapacitated, unaccompanied minors, or deceased.
M. To appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer, when DHS identifies a need to use relevant data for purposes of testing new technology.
N. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS, or when disclosure is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
DHS stores records in this system electronically in secure facilities protected through multi-layer security mechanisms and strategies that are physical, technical, administrative, and environmental in nature. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media.
Records may be retrieved by biometrics or select personal identifiers, including but not limited to names, identification numbers, dates of birth, nationality, document number, and address.
Record Schedule DAA-0563-2013-0001 for DHS's biometric and biographic records used for national security, law enforcement, immigration, and other functions consistent with DHS authorities has been approved by National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). EBR records include:
1. Law Enforcement Records: Identification, investigation, apprehension, and/or removal of aliens unlawfully entering or present in the United States and facilitate legal entry of individuals into the United States, which must be destroyed or deleted 75
2. Records related to the analysis of relationship patterns among individuals and organizations that are indicative of violations of the customs and immigration laws including possible terrorist threats from non-obvious relationships and specific leads and law enforcement intelligence for active and new investigations. These records must be destroyed or deleted 15 years after the end of calendar year of last use of individual's data.
The latent biometric retention schedule is currently in development with OBIM Headquarters and will be submitted thereafter to NARA for approval.
DHS safeguards records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. DHS has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the notification, access, and amendment procedures of the Privacy Act, and consequently the Judicial Redress Act if applicable, because it is a law enforcement system. However, DHS will consider individual requests to determine whether or not information may be released. Thus, individuals seeking access to and notification of any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Chief Privacy Officer and FOIA Officer, whose contact information can be found at
When seeking records about one from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, the request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. The individual must first verify his or her identity, meaning that he or she must provide his or her full name, current address, and date and place of birth. The individual must sign the request, and the signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, an individual may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer,
• Explain why he or she believe the Department would have information being requested;
• Identify which Component(s) of the Department he or she believes may have the information;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS Component agency may have responsive records;
If the request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, the person seeking the records must include a statement from the subject individual certifying his/her agreement for the requestor to access his or her records.
Without the above information, the Component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and the request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
For records covered by the Privacy Act or covered JRA records, see “Record Access Procedures” above, and 6 CFR part 5.
See “Record Access Procedures.”
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(5), and (e)(8); (f); and (g)(1) through (5). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (k)(5), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H); and (f).
Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified on a case-by-case basis determined at the time a request is made. When this system receives a record from another system exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated and claim any additional exemptions set forth here.
Records in this System of Records were previously covered under DHS/US-VISIT-001 DHS Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT), 72 FR 31080 (June 5, 2007).
Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of a currently approved collection, 1601-0004.
The DHS Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Ombudsman, will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collected on this form will allow the CIS Ombudsman to identify the problem as either a case problem, which is a request for information about a case that was filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) (“case problem”); or a systemic issue that may or may not pertain to an individual case which the individual, attorney or employer is seeking to bring to the attention of the CIS Ombudsman (“trend”).
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until June 25, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
You may submit comments, identified by DHS-2018-0021, at:
•
Raymond Mills, (202) 357-8100,
The CIS Ombudsman was created under section 452 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296) to: (1) Assist individuals and employers in resolving problems with the USCIS; (2) to identify areas in which individuals and employers have problems in dealing with USCIS; and (3) to the extent possible, propose changes in the administrative practices of USCIS to mitigate problems. This form is used by an applicant who is experiencing problems with USCIS during the processing of an immigration benefit.
The information collected on this form will allow the CIS Ombudsman to identify the problem as either: (1) A case problem which is a request for information about a case that was filed with USCIS (“case problem”); or (2) the identification of a systemic issue that may or may not pertain to an individual case which the individual, attorney or employer is seeking to bring to the attention of the CIS Ombudsman (“trend”).
For case problems, the CIS Ombudsman will refer case specific issues to the Customer Assistance Office for USCIS for further research, and review.
For trends received, the CIS Ombudsman notes the systemic issue identified in the correspondence which may or may not be incorporated into future recommendations submitted to the Director of USCIS pursuant to section 452(d)(4) of Public Law 107-296.
The use of this form provides the most efficient means for collecting and processing the required data. The CIS Ombudsman also employs the use of information technology in collecting and processing information by offering the option for electronic submission of the DHS Form 7001 through the Ombudsman Online Case Assistance System. Per PRA requirements, a fillable PDF version of the form is provided on the CIS Ombudsman's website. The PDF form can be completed online, printed out and sent to the CIS Ombudsman's office at the address indicated on the form. It is noted on the form that using the paper method can result in significant processing delays for the CIS Ombudsman's office to provide the requested case assistance. After approval of the changes to the form detailed in this supporting statement, both the online form and PDF will be updated and posted on the Ombudsman's website at
The assurance of confidentiality provided to the respondents for this information collection is provided by: (a) The CIS Ombudsman authorizing legislation and mandate as established by Homeland Security Act of 2002 at Section 452; (b) the Privacy Impact Assessment and the (c) Systems of Records Notice titled “Department of Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman-001 Online Ombudsman Form DHS-7001 and Ombudsman Case Assistance Online System of Records”. The DHS Privacy Office will receive the entire package of documents for this information collection to assure authorization for renewal of the collection.
The Ombudsman Form DHS-7001 (PDF) and the Ombudsman Case Assistance Online System are constructed in compliance with all applicable DHS Privacy Office, DHS CIO, DHS Records Management, and OMB regulations regarding data collection, use, storage, and retrieval. The proposed public use data collection system is therefore intended to be distributed for public use primarily by electronic means with limited paper distribution and processing of paper forms.
The Ombudsman Form DHS-7001 (PDF) and the Online Ombudsman Form DHS-7001 (Ombudsman Case Assistance Online System) have been constructed in compliance with regulations and authorities under the purview of the DHS Privacy Office, DHS CIO, DHS Records Management, and OMB regulations regarding data collection, use, sharing, storage, information security and retrieval of information.
There has been an increase of 3,200 in the estimated annual burden hours previously reported for this information collection. The increase in burden hours is a reflection of agency estimates.
There is no change in the information being collected, however there have been cosmetic changes to the form including punctuation, formatting, and text changes to make the form more understandable and streamlined for use by respondents. In 2015, the following changes were made:
a. Number of response fields was reduced from 13 to 12 and arranged in a way that streamlines completion, submission and processing of the form.
b. The title of the form was changed from “Case Problem Submission Worksheet (CIS Ombudsman Form DHS-7001)” to “Case Assistance Form (Ombudsman Form DHS-7001)”.
c. The name of the system was changed from “Virtual Ombudsman System” to “Ombudsman Case Assistance Online System”.
The following narrative explains the changes made on the form in 2015 and the corresponding instructions. The ORIGINAL 7001 form had the sections arranged in the following order:
1.
2.
3. Date of Birth.
4. Country of Birth and Citizenship.
5. Alien Registration Number (A-Number); The A-number appears in the following format: A123-456-789.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
The AMENDED 7001 form has the sections arranged in the following order:
1.
2.
3. Alien Registration Number (A-Number); The A-number appears in the following format: A123-456-789.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
a. Visited USCIS My Case Status at
b. Contacted the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) for information and/or assistance regarding this case at their toll-free number 1-800-375-5283. Provide SRMT Number.
c. Attended an InfoPass Appointment with USCIS. Provide InfoPass Number.
d. Sent an Email to USCIS. Provide date E-Mail sent: Provide USCIS Email address.
e. Contacted a U.S. Government Department or Agency for assistance. Provide name and contact information.
f. Contacted a U.S. Congressional Representative for assistance. Provide name and contact information.
g. Other. Please describe.
10.
11.
12.
The instructions have been updated to reflect the electronic submission options as detailed in the previous paragraphs.
Instructions for electronic submission will be posted on the CIS Ombudsman website at
There is no change in the terms of clearance from the previously approved collection as addressed by the: (a) Privacy Impact Assessment and (b) Systems of Records Notice titled “Department of Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman-001 Online Ombudsman Form DHS-7001 and Ombudsman Case Assistance Online System of Records”.
This is an extension of a currently approved collection, 1601-0004. OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
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,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
This notice advises the public that the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indian Tribe has requested an expansion of their Formula Area that will overlap with the Poarch Creek Tribe's Formula Area. HUD made a preliminary determination that the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indian Tribe met the requirements for expanding its Formula Area to include the balance of Mobile County, Alabama. Poarch Creek, an affected tribe was notified and had opportunity to comment. HUD received no comments from the affected tribe. Consistent with HUD regulations, HUD is announcing its final determination to grant the request of MOWA Band of Choctaw Indian Tribe.
Applicability Date: April 24, 2018.
Frederick Griefer, Director, Office of Grants Management, Office of Native
The Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program is authorized by section 302 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA). Under the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program, codified in 24 CFR part 1000.302, Indian tribes can request an expansion of their Formula Area that overlaps with another tribe's Formula Area. In accordance with 24 CFR 1000.326(a)(3), which became effective on December 22, 2016, State tribes are eligible to request and receive Formula Area that were already assigned to Federally recognized tribes. According to § 1000.326(a)(3), when a State recognized tribe's Formula Area overlaps with the Formula Area of a Federally recognized Indian tribe, the Federally recognized Indian tribe receives the allocation for the Formula Area up to its population cap, and the State recognized tribe receives the balance of the overlapping area (if any) up to its population cap.
Pursuant to 24 CFR 1000.302, if a tribe asks HUD for an expansion of their Formula Area, after HUD makes its preliminary determination, HUD must notify all potentially affected Indian tribes of the basis for its preliminary determination by certified mail and provide the Indian tribes with opportunity to comment for a period of not less than 90 days. After consideration of the comments, § 1000.302 requires HUD to publish the notice of final determination in the
On March 14, 2017, the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indian Tribe, a State recognized tribe, requested that their Formula Area be expanded to include the balance of Mobile County in the State of Alabama starting in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017. The portion of the county which is not reservation and trust lands is referred to as the balance of county. The Formula Area expansion requested by the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indian Tribe results in an overlapping Formula Area with the Poarch Creek Tribe, a Federally recognized tribe. In accordance with § 1000.326(a)(3), HUD made a preliminary determination on December 4, 2017, that the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indian Tribe meets the requirements for expanding its Formula Area to include the balance of Mobile County, Alabama. In accordance with § 1000.302, HUD notified the Poarch Creek Tribe about the basis for its preliminary determination by certified mail and provided opportunity to comment for a period of not less than 90 days. The required notification was sent to the Poarch Creek Tribe on December 4, 2017. As of March 5, 2018, no comments were received. Therefore, HUD made a final determination to add the balance of Mobile County, Alabama to the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indian Tribe's Formula Area starting in FY 2017. The Tribe submitted their request for FY 2017 determination, therefore this final determination will apply to the Tribe's request retroactively.
[FR-6098-N-01]
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Harry Messner, Office of Asset Management and Policy Oversight Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email:
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
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 renewal application; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received requests from the County of Santa Cruz and City of Scotts Valley (applicants), for renewal of two incidental take permits under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The applicants have requested a renewal that will extend permit authorization by 5 years from the date the permit is reissued. If renewed, no additional take above the original authorized limit of 139 acres of habitat will be authorized. The permits would authorize take of the federally endangered Mount Hermon June beetle, incidental to otherwise lawful activities associated with the Interim Programmatic Habitat Conservation Plan for the Endangered Mount Hermon June beetle and Ben Lomond spineflower.
Written comments should be received on or before May 24, 2018.
You may obtain copies of the permit renewal applications and the habitat conservation plan (HCP) on the internet at
Chad Mitcham, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, by mail to the address in
We have received requests from the County of Santa Cruz and City of Scotts Valley (applicants) for renewal of incidental take permits TE43708A-0 and TE44928A-0 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The applicants have requested renewals that would extend permit authorization by 5 years from the date the permit is reissued. The applicants have agreed to follow all of the existing habitat conservation plan conditions. If renewed, no additional take above the original authorized limit of 139 acres of habitat will be authorized. The permits would authorize take of the federally endangered Mount Hermon June beetle (
The Mount Hermon June beetle was listed by the Service as endangered on January 24, 1997. The Ben Lomond spineflower (
The applicants have applied for renewal of their respective permits for incidental take of the endangered Mount Hermon June beetle. The potential taking would occur by activities associated with the construction of certain eligible small development projects in densely developed residential neighborhoods (as defined in the HCP) that support suitable habitat for the covered species. The 10 Project Units within the HCP boundary were identified within the communities of Ben Lomond, Felton, Mount Hermon, and Scotts Valley in Santa Cruz County, California. Incidental take permits were first issued for the HCP on October 27, 2011.
If you wish to comment on the permit applications, plans, and associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Orange County Public Schools (applicant) is requesting a 3-year ITP for take of the federally listed sand skink. We request public comment on the permit application, which includes a proposed habitat conservation plan, and on our preliminary determination that the plan qualifies as low effect under the National Environmental Policy Act. To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, which are also available for review.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by May 24, 2018.
You may submit written comments and request copies of the application, including the HCP, as well as our environmental action statement or low-effect screening form, by any one of the following methods:
Erin M. Gawera, telephone: (904) 731-3121; email:
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C.
Regulations governing incidental take permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. The ESA's take prohibitions do not apply to federally listed plants on private lands unless such take would violate State law. In addition to meeting other criteria, the take authorized by an incidental take permit must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plants.
Orange County Public Schools is requesting an incidental take permit (ITP) to take sand skink (
A low-effect HCP is one involving (1) minor or negligible effects on federally listed or candidate species and their habitats, and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources. We have determined that the applicant's proposed HCP, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, would have minor or negligible effects on the covered species and the environment so as to be “low effect” and qualify for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
We will evaluate the HCP and comments we receive to determine whether the ITP application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation to evaluate take of the sand skink in accordance with section 7 of the ESA. We will use the results of the consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our analysis of whether or not to issue the ITP. If the requirements are met, we will issue ITP number TE74732C-0 to the applicant.
If you wish to comment on the permit application, HCP, or associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods listed in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA and NEPA regulation 40 CFR 1506.6.
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is publishing this notice to announce that a Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the NCGMP and NGGDPP will take place.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday, May 1st and 2nd, 2018, from approximately 9:00 a.m. EST to 4:00 p.m. EST.
The meeting will be held at the USGS National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192.
Michael J. Marketti, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 908, Reston, VA 20192, by email at
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552B, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 24, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Jennifer Spencer by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. A
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 25, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW, Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20240, Attention: Jean Sonneman; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Jennifer Spencer by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BLM; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BLM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BLM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The following table details the individual components and respective hour burdens of this information collection request:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Park Service is proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 25, 2018.
Send your comments on the Information Collection Request (ICR) by mail to Tim Goddard, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS-242, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Lisa Deline, Architectural Historian, National Register of Historic Places, by email at
We, the National Park Service (NPS), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the NPS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the NPS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the NPS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
• NPS Form 10-900 (National Register of Historic Places Registration Form).
• NPS Form 10-900-a (National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet).
• NPS Form 10-900-b (National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form).
This Notice provides additional information regarding the packages submitted to the NPS and to expand the details for our burden from the original Notice published on January 28, 2015 (80 FR 4589). The following are the five types of package submissions the NPS receives from the SHPOs, FPOs, and/or THPOs with the respective burden estimates broken down by state in Section II below:
• 36 CFR 60 and 63, National Register of Historic Places Registration Nomination Form; Continuation Sheet; NR Multiple Property Submission Multiple Property Documentation Form Submitted to State & Local Gov't by Individuals or Households (Forms 10-900, 10-900-a and 10-900-b)—packages submitted by nonconsultants;
• Individual Nominations Submitted to State & Local Gov't by Consultants (Forms 10-900 and 10-900-a)—Packages submitted by paid consultants;
• District Nominations Submitted to State and Local Gov't by Consultants (Form 10-900 and 10-900-a)—Packages submitted by paid consultants;
• Nominations Submitted under Existing MPS Covers to State & Local Gov't by Consultants (Forms 10-900 and 10-900-a)—Packages submitted by paid consultants; and
• Newly Proposed MPS Cover Document Submitted to State & Local Gov't by Consultants (Forms 10-900-b and 10-900-a)—Packages submitted by paid consultants.
These forms and supporting documentation go to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) of the State [or FPO, or THPO, respectively] where the property is located. The SHPO, FPO, or THPO can take one of several options: reject the property, ask for more information, (or in the case of the SHPO, list the property just with the State), or send the forms to us for listing on the National Register. An appeals process is also available to any person or local government for the failure or refusal of a nominating authority to nominate a property. Once the NPS receive the forms, the NPS conducts a similar review process.
Listing on the National Register provides formal recognition of a property's historical, architectural, or archeological significance based on national standards used by every State. The listing places no obligations on private property owners, and there are no restrictions on the use, treatment, transfer, or disposition of private property.
The authorities for this action are the 36 CFR 60 and 63 and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
National Park Service, Interior.
Notification of boundary revision.
The boundary of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site is
The applicable date of this boundary revision is April 24, 2018.
The map depicting this boundary revision is National Park Service, Southeast Region Land Resources Program Center, 1924 Building, 100 Alabama Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 and National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.
National Park Service, Anthony B. Marshall, Acting Chief, Southeast Region Land Resources Program Center, 1924 Building, 100 Alabama Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, telephone 404-507-5659.
Specifically, 54 U.S.C. 100506(c)(1) provides that, after notifying the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make this boundary revision upon publication of notice in the
The Committees have been notified of this boundary revision. This boundary revision and subsequent acquisition of Tract 01-110 will enable the National Park Service to manage and protect significant resources located in the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Summary of Commission practice relating to administrative protective orders.
Since February 1991, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has published in the
Ronald A. Traud, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-3427. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at (202) 205-1810. General information concerning the Commission can also be obtained by accessing its website (
Representatives of parties to investigations or other proceedings conducted under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Article 1904.13, and safeguard-related provisions such as section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974, may enter into APOs that permit them, under strict conditions, to obtain access to BPI (title VII) and confidential business information (“CBI”) (safeguard-related provisions and section 337) of other parties or non-parties.
Since 1991, the Commission has published annually a summary of its actions in response to violations of Commission APOs and rule violations.
As part of the effort to educate practitioners about the Commission's current APO practice, the Commission Secretary issued in March 2005 a fourth edition of
The current APO form for antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, which was revised in March 2005, requires the applicant to swear that he or she will:
(1) Not divulge any of the BPI disclosed under this APO or otherwise obtained in this investigation and not otherwise available to him or her, to any person other than—
(i) Personnel of the Commission concerned with the investigation,
(ii) The person or agency from whom the BPI was obtained,
(iii) A person whose application for disclosure of BPI under this APO has been granted by the Secretary, and
(iv) Other persons, such as paralegals and clerical staff, who (a) are employed or supervised by and under the direction and control of the authorized applicant or another authorized applicant in the same firm whose application has been granted; (b) have a need thereof in connection with the investigation; (c) are not involved in competitive decision making for an interested party which is a party to the investigation; and (d) have signed the acknowledgment for clerical personnel in the form attached hereto (the authorized applicant shall also sign such acknowledgment and will be deemed responsible for such persons' compliance with this APO);
(2) Use such BPI solely for the purposes of the above-captioned Commission investigation or for judicial or binational panel review of such Commission investigation;
(3) Not consult with any person not described in paragraph (1) concerning BPI disclosed under this APO or otherwise obtained in this investigation without first having received the written consent of the Secretary and the party or the representative of the party from whom such BPI was obtained;
(4) Whenever materials
(5) Serve all materials containing BPI disclosed under this APO as directed by the Secretary and pursuant to section 207.7(f) of the Commission's rules;
(6) Transmit each document containing BPI disclosed under this APO:
(i) With a cover sheet identifying the document as containing BPI,
(ii) with all BPI enclosed in brackets and each page warning that the document contains BPI,
(iii) if the document is to be filed by a deadline, with each page marked “Bracketing of BPI not final for one business day after date of filing,” and
(iv) if by mail, within two envelopes, the inner one sealed and marked “Business Proprietary Information—To be opened only by [name of recipient]”, and the outer one sealed and not marked as containing BPI;
(7) Comply with the provision of this APO and section 207.7 of the Commission's rules;
(8) Make true and accurate representations in the authorized applicant's application and promptly notify the Secretary of any changes that occur after the submission of the application and that affect the representations made in the application (
(9) Report promptly and confirm in writing to the Secretary any possible breach of this APO; and
(10) Acknowledge that breach of this APO may subject the authorized applicant and other persons to such sanctions or other actions as the Commission deems appropriate, including the administrative sanctions and actions set out in this APO.
The APO form for antidumping and countervailing duty investigations also provides for the return or destruction of the BPI obtained under the APO on the order of the Secretary, at the conclusion of the investigation, or at the completion of Judicial Review. The BPI disclosed to an authorized applicant under an APO during the preliminary phase of the investigation generally may remain in the applicant's possession during the final phase of the investigation.
The APO further provides that breach of an APO may subject an applicant to:
(1) Disbarment from practice in any capacity before the Commission along with such person's partners, associates, employer, and employees, for up to seven years following publication of a determination that the order has been breached;
(2) Referral to the United States Attorney;
(3) In the case of an attorney, accountant, or other professional, referral to the ethics panel of the appropriate professional association;
(4) Such other administrative sanctions as the Commission determines to be appropriate, including public release of, or striking from the record any information or briefs submitted by, or on behalf of, such person or the party he represents; denial of further access to business proprietary information in the current or any future investigations before the Commission, and issuance of a public or private letter of reprimand; and
(5) Such other actions, including but not limited to, a warning letter, as the Commission determines to be appropriate.
APOs in safeguard investigations contain similar though not identical provisions.
The APOs in section 337 investigations differ from those in title VII investigations as there is no set form and provisions may differ depending on the investigation and the presiding administrative law judge. However, in practice, the provisions are often quite similar. All persons seeking access to CBI during a section 337 investigation (including outside counsel for parties to the investigation, secretarial and support personnel assisting such counsel, and technical experts and their staff who are employed for the purposes of the investigation) are required to read the APO, agree to its terms by letter filed with the Secretary of the Commission indicating that they agree to be bound by the terms of the Order, agree not to reveal CBI to anyone other than another person permitted access by the Order, and agree to utilize the CBI solely for the purposes of that investigation.
In general, an APO in a section 337 investigation will define what kind of information is CBI and direct how CBI is to be designated and protected. The APO will state which persons will have access to the CBI and which of those persons must sign onto the APO. The APO will provide instructions on how CBI is to be maintained and protected by labeling documents and filing transcripts under seal. It will provide protections for the suppliers of CBI by notifying them of a Freedom of Information Act request for the CBI and providing a procedure for the supplier to take action to prevent the release of the information. There are provisions for disputing the designation of CBI and a procedure for resolving such disputes. Under the APO, suppliers of CBI are given the opportunity to object to the release of the CBI to a proposed expert. The APO requires a person who discloses CBI, other than in a manner authorized by the APO, to provide all pertinent facts to the supplier of the CBI and to the administrative law judge and to make every effort to prevent further disclosure. The APO requires all parties to the APO to either return to the suppliers or destroy the originals and all copies of the CBI obtained during the investigation.
The Commission's regulations provide for certain sanctions to be imposed if the APO is violated by a person subject to its restrictions. The names of the persons being investigated for violating an APO are kept confidential unless the sanction imposed is a public letter of reprimand. 19 CFR 210.34(c)(1). The possible sanctions are:
(1) An official reprimand by the Commission.
(2) Disqualification from or limitation of further participation in a pending investigation.
(3) Temporary or permanent disqualification from practicing in any capacity before the Commission pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15(a).
(4) Referral of the facts underlying the violation to the appropriate licensing authority in the jurisdiction in which the individual is licensed to practice.
(5) Making adverse inferences and rulings against a party involved in the violation of the APO or such other action that may be appropriate. 19 CFR 210.34(c)(3).
Commission employees are not signatories to the Commission's APOs and do not obtain access to BPI or CBI through APO procedures. Consequently, they are not subject to the requirements of the APO with respect to the handling of CBI and BPI. However, Commission employees are subject to strict statutory and regulatory constraints concerning BPI and CBI, and face potentially severe penalties for noncompliance.
Upon finding evidence of an APO breach or receiving information that there is a reason to believe one has occurred, the Commission Secretary notifies relevant offices in the agency that an APO breach investigation has commenced and that an APO breach investigation file has been opened. Upon receiving notification from the Secretary, the Office of the General Counsel (“OGC”) prepares a letter of inquiry to be sent to the possible breacher over the Secretary's signature to ascertain the facts and obtain the possible breacher's views on whether a breach has occurred.
Sanctions for APO violations serve three basic interests: (a) Preserving the confidence of submitters of BPI/CBI that the Commission is a reliable protector of BPI/CBI; (b) disciplining breachers; and (c) deterring future violations. As the Conference Report to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 observed, “[T]he effective enforcement of limited disclosure under administrative protective order depends in part on the extent to which private parties have confidence that there are effective sanctions against violation.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 623 (1988).
The Commission has worked to develop consistent jurisprudence, not only in determining whether a breach has occurred, but also in selecting an appropriate response. In determining the appropriate response, the Commission generally considers mitigating factors such as the unintentional nature of the breach, the lack of prior breaches committed by the breaching party, the corrective measures taken by the breaching party, and the promptness with which the breaching party reported the violation to the Commission. The Commission also considers aggravating circumstances, especially whether persons not under the APO actually read the BPI/CBI. The Commission considers whether there have been prior breaches by the same person or persons in other investigations and multiple breaches by the same person or persons in the same investigation.
The Commission's rules permit an economist or consultant to obtain access to BPI/CBI under the APO in a title VII or safeguard investigation if the economist or consultant is under the direction and control of an attorney under the APO, or if the economist or consultant appears regularly before the Commission and represents an interested party who is a party to the investigation. 19 CFR 207.7(a)(3)(B) and (C); 19 CFR 206.17(a)(3)(B) and (C). Economists and consultants who obtain access to BPI/CBI under the APO under the direction and control of an attorney nonetheless remain individually responsible for complying with the APO. In appropriate circumstances, for example, an economist under the direction and control of an attorney may be held responsible for a breach of the APO by failing to redact APO information from a document that is subsequently filed with the Commission and served as a public document. This is so even though the attorney exercising direction or control over the economist or consultant may also be held responsible for the breach of the APO. In section 337 investigations, technical experts and their staff who are employed for the purposes of the investigation are required to sign onto the APO and agree to comply with its provisions.
The records of Commission investigations of alleged APO breaches in antidumping and countervailing duty cases, section 337 investigations, and safeguard investigations are not publicly available and are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
The two types of breaches most frequently investigated by the Commission involve the APO's prohibition on the dissemination of BPI or CBI to unauthorized persons and the APO's requirement that the materials received under the APO be returned or destroyed and that a certificate be filed indicating which action was taken after the termination of the investigation or any subsequent appeals of the Commission's determination. The dissemination of BPI/CBI usually occurs as the result of failure to delete BPI/CBI from public versions of documents filed with the Commission or transmission of proprietary versions of documents to unauthorized recipients. Other breaches have included the failure to bracket properly BPI/CBI in proprietary documents filed with the Commission, the failure to report immediately known violations of an APO, and the failure to adequately supervise non-lawyers in the handling of BPI/CBI.
Occasionally, the Commission conducts APOB investigations that involve members of a law firm or consultants working with a firm who were granted access to APO materials by the firm although they were not APO signatories. In many of these cases, the firm and the person using the BPI/CBI mistakenly believed an APO application had been filed for that person. The Commission determined in all of these cases that the person who was a non-
Counsel participating in Commission investigations have reported to the Commission potential breaches involving the electronic transmission of public versions of documents. In these cases, the document transmitted appears to be a public document with BPI or CBI omitted from brackets. However, the confidential information is actually retrievable by manipulating codes in software. The Commission has found that the electronic transmission of a public document containing BPI or CBI in a recoverable form was a breach of the APO.
Counsel have been cautioned to be certain that each authorized applicant files within 60 days of the completion of an import injury investigation or at the conclusion of judicial or binational review of the Commission's determination a certificate that to his or her knowledge and belief all copies of BPI/CBI have been returned or destroyed and no copies of such material have been made available to any person to whom disclosure was not specifically authorized. This requirement applies to each attorney, consultant, or expert in a firm who has been granted access to BPI/CBI. One firm-wide certificate is insufficient.
Attorneys who are signatories to the APO representing clients in a section 337 investigation should inform the administrative law judge and the Commission's secretary if there are any changes to the information that was provided in the application for access to the CBI. This is similar to the requirement to update an applicant's information in title VII investigations.
In addition, attorneys who are signatories to the APO representing clients in a section 337 investigation should send a notice to the Commission if they stop participating in the investigation or the subsequent appeal of the Commission's determination. The notice should inform the Commission about the disposition of CBI obtained under the APO that was in their possession or they could be held responsible for any failure of their former firm to return or destroy the CBI in an appropriate manner.
The attorney represented the respondent in a sunset review. After the completion of the review, the attorney submitted a letter to the Commission certifying that all copies of materials released to him under the APO had been destroyed. Months later, the attorney logged on to the CM/ECF system in an attempt to download a motion in an unrelated case. However, rather than downloading the intended motion, the attorney inadvertently uploaded a copy of a staff report containing BPI. The attorney immediately notified the docket clerk of the error. The clerk removed the document from public availability within approximately fifteen minutes of the upload. The clerk also contacted counsel for all parties in the unrelated case to determine whether they had viewed the BPI. One attorney had downloaded the file, but immediately closed it upon realizing that it was misfiled.
In determining the appropriate action in response to the breach, the Commission considered mitigating factors, including that (1) the breach was unintentional and inadvertent, resulting from the attorney's inadvertent failure to follow standard APO procedures and inadvertent upload of the staff report; (2) the attorney had not been found to have breached an APO over the past two years; and (3) the attorney took immediate corrective measures upon learning of the disclosure by requesting that the CIT remove the BPI version of the staff report from the CIT's CM/ECF system. The Commission also considered aggravating factors, including that (1) the attorney violated the same APO in two ways by retaining the BPI materials more than sixty days after the completion of the review and uploading those materials onto the CM/ECF system; and (2) the attorney failed to handle the APO material with due diligence and care by filing the staff report in a wholly unrelated case.
The Commission issued a private letter of reprimand to the attorney.
Seven attorneys and two expert consultants hired by the law firm failed to sign and file protective order acknowledgments before accessing CBI for use in this investigation. A paralegal initially informed a first supervisory attorney that a single working attorney had premature access to CBI, and that working attorney's acknowledgment was filed that same day. A further internal investigation at the law firm discovered that four additional attorneys and an expert consultant similarly failed to file acknowledgments, and those individuals filed acknowledgments thereafter. Approximately a month later, the firm discovered that a testifying expert had also failed to file an acknowledgment prior to accessing CBI. A second supervisory attorney at the law firm informed the Commission that that expert filed an acknowledgment the same day as the discovery of the omission.
Thereafter, the second supervisory attorney informed the Commission of facts related to a second APO breach by the law firm. Two appellate attorneys at the law firm had attached as an addendum to a brief filed with a court a confidential version of the Commission's opinion, which included CBI. That brief was also emailed to four in-house attorneys. Prior to filing the brief, the appellate attorneys confirmed that the text of the brief did not contain any CBI, but failed to recognize that the confidential version, rather than the public version, of the Commission Opinion was attached to the brief. The next day, one of the appellate attorneys recognized the mistake, and the clerk at
In determining the appropriate action in response to the breaches, the Commission considered mitigating factors, including that (1) no person who did not later file an APO acknowledgment viewed CBI in either breach; (2) both breaches were unintentional; (3) the law firm took prompt actions to correct the mistakes, inform the Commission and all parties of the mistakes, and prevent future breaches; and (4) none of the attorneys were involved in previous APO issues in the last two years. As an aggravating factor, the Commission considered that the law firm committed two breaches in the same investigation within a year.
The Commission issued warning letters to the two supervisory attorneys and the appellate attorneys. The Commission also issued a private letter of reprimand to the law firm. The Commission found that the firm's policies and procedures were inadequate in ensuring compliance with the APO, as demonstrated by the seven firm attorneys and two outside consultants who reviewed and used CBI in connection with their involvement in the investigation before signing and filing APO acknowledgments, the submission of an unredacted appeal brief containing CBI, and the transmission of the appeal brief to four non-signatory in-house counsel who were not APO signatories.
The Commission also found that good cause exists to issue sanctions under § 201.15(a) to the attorneys and consultants who used CBI in this investigation prior to filing a protective order acknowledgment. The Commission issued these attorneys a warning letter. Though these individuals were not signatories to the APO at the time they inappropriately accessed CBI, they were, or should have been, aware of the requirements and limitations related to APO access. Their failure to verify that they had applied for and been granted access to APO materials before using the materials demonstrates a disregard for the Commission's rules protecting the confidentiality of the information that is provided under the APO.
One attorney at the second law firm failed to sign and file protective order acknowledgments before accessing CBI; and three attorneys signed but failed to file protective order acknowledgments before accessing CBI. The issue was first discovered by another party's counsel. After being notified, the second law firm conducted an internal audit and discovered the breach. The three unfiled acknowledgments had been forwarded to a paralegal, but not filed. The remaining attorney was not aware that he was required to sign an APO acknowledgment prior to accessing a hearing transcript containing CBI. That attorney signed an acknowledgment the next day, and the acknowledgment was filed approximately two weeks later. Two supervisory attorneys were APO signatories had supervised the four attorneys who had not timely filed the protective order acknowledgments.
In determining the appropriate action in response to the breach, the Commission considered mitigating factors, including that (1) the breach was unintentional; (2) the breach was promptly reported to the Commission; (3) the breaching parties took corrective measures to prevent a breach in the future; (4) none of the attorneys was involved in any previous APO breaches; and (5) the attorneys otherwise accorded the CBI the full protection of the APO at all times and the CBI was not released to any third party.
The Commission issued warning letters to the supervisory attorneys. The Commission also found that good cause existed to issue sanctions under § 201.15(a) to the attorneys who used CBI in this investigation prior to filing a protective order acknowledgment. The Commission issued these attorneys a warning letter. Though these attorneys were not signatories to the APO at the time they inappropriately accessed CBI, they were or should have been aware of the requirements and limitations related to APO access. Their failure to verify that they had applied for and been granted access to APO materials before using the materials demonstrated a disregard for the Commission's rules protecting the confidentiality of the information that is provided under the APO.
Several attorneys of a law firm representing the complainant inadvertently disclosed to unauthorized persons information designated by the respondent as CBI in this investigation and in related litigation in federal district court. A junior associate at the law firm failed to fully redact CBI from an expert report prepared for the district court action, and a partner failed to supervise that junior associate. On several occasions, the attorneys then sent the incompletely redacted expert report to unauthorized persons at the complainant (including a non-APO signatory in-house attorney) and other law and consulting firms. Several non-signatory recipients (including the in-house counsel and at least one other attorney) further disseminated the CBI to other non-signatories. In one incident, a partner at the law firm emailed more than ninety of the complainant's employees with instructions on how to access the incompletely redacted expert report on an FTP site. No one at the law firm notified the respondent or the Commission of the disclosure at the time. No other efforts were made to investigate whether other disclosures had been made so as to prevent further disclosures. As a result, the unauthorized disclosures continued.
In connection with the investigation before the Commission, a mid-level associate at the same law firm failed to redact the same CBI from an outline for a brief on remedy and the public interest. On several occasions, the firm's attorneys then sent versions of that outline and the public interest brief containing CBI to unauthorized persons at the complainant and at other law firms. A partner at the law firm discovered one such disclosure, but did not notify the respondent or the Commission at the time, asserting that he had acted promptly after the discovery to prevent unauthorized persons from viewing CBI. In another incident, an attorney sent an unredacted version of the completed brief via email to the complainant's employees and an attorney at a second law firm. Another attorney informed the sending attorney of the mistake, and the sending attorney emailed the complainant requesting that the email be deleted. Prior to its deletion, however, the email had been
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Commission considered mitigating factors, including that (1) the breaches were inadvertent; (2) the law firm recently implemented firm-wide policy to help prevent unauthorized disclosures; (3) the law firm worked to investigate, cure, and prevent further breaches after discovery of the breaches; and (4) a federal district court had already sanctioned the disclosures and conduct underlying the breaches relating to the expert report. The Commission also considered aggravating factors, including that (1) the CBI was viewed by unauthorized persons; (2) the breach was discovered by a third party; (3) the law firm failed and/or delayed reporting the breaches to the Commission; (4) the CBI was unprotected for a lengthy period of time; (5) there were multiple breaches by the law firm's attorneys in the same investigation; and (6) there were multiple breaches by the law firm's attorneys in a two-year period.
The Commission publicly reprimanded the law firm and issued private letters of reprimand to the six law firm attorneys responsible for the unauthorized disclosures. Although the firm had procedures to prevent unauthorized disclosures, the firm did not ensure that attorneys complied with those procedures and made unilateral decisions regarding the APO's scope and requirements. The large number and vast extent of the unauthorized disclosures show that the failure to safeguard CBI was a pervasive problem at the firm.
The Commission also found that good cause existed to issue sanctions under § 201.15(a) to the in-house counsel and an attorney at another law firm who were not signatories of the APO. Both attorneys had disclosed CBI, but were not found to be fully responsible for those disclosures. The Commission issued these attorneys a warning letter because, although the attorneys were not signatories to the APO, they had previously appeared before the Commission in section 337 investigations.
The attorney filed the public brief containing the CBI with a court. However, the court rejected the brief for failing to comply with certain technical requirements, and that rejection prevented the brief from being disclosed to the public. The complainants' counsel informed the attorney that the brief contained the CBI. The attorney agreed to, and did, promptly contact the court to remove the brief from public view. The clerk stated that the brief was not publicly available and the attorney did not disseminate the brief to anyone else.
In determining the appropriate action in response to the breach, the Commission considered mitigating factors, including that (1) the breach was unintentional; (2) the attorney had not been found in violation of an APO or other protective order in the previous two years; and (3) no party was prejudiced by the breach because no unauthorized person actually viewed the CBI. The Commission also considered that the attorney took immediate steps to mitigate any harm by contacting the court in an attempt to prevent the disclosure of the CBI to unauthorized persons.
Rather than issuing a sanction, the Commission issued a warning letter to the attorney.
The attorney filed a brief under seal at a state court containing an attached exhibit including CBI. The exhibit was filed under seal and was not available to the public. The respondents' counsel informed the complainants' counsel of the APO breach and requested that complainants' counsel ask the state court to remove the exhibit from the filing. The next day, the attorney's law firm requested the removal of the exhibit. After the attorney's law firm complied with the court's rules and guidance, the court removed the exhibit from the filing. A second attorney from the attorney's law firm notified the Commission of the breach. The law firm explained that it had intended to attach a public version of the exhibit to the filing and that the breach was unintentional and inadvertent.
In determining the appropriate action in response to the breach, the Commission considered mitigating factors, including that (1) the breach was unintentional; (2) the attorney had not been found in violation of an APO or other protective order in the previous two years; (3) the breach was promptly reported to the Commission; and (4) the law firm took active steps to remedy the breach by withdrawing the offending exhibit from the filing. The Commission further considered that the brief was filed under seal. The Commission also considered aggravating factors, including that (1) local counsel for both the complainants and the respondents who were not APO signatories had access to the document and respondents' counsel viewed the documents; and (2) the attorney's law firm did not discover the breach, but rather was informed of the breach by respondents' counsel.
Rather than issuing a sanction, the Commission issued a warning letter to the attorney.
The economist mistakenly informed the attorney that the public version of a staff report included with a brief did not contain BPI. When the attorney told the economist that certain information in the staff report was of a type generally considered to be BPI in Commission investigations, the economist again affirmed his prior incorrect statement that the information was not BPI. On that basis, brackets identifying the information as BPI were removed from certain portions of the brief and the information was not deleted from the public version of the brief when it was filed and served. Thereafter, counsel for petitioners informed the attorney that the public version of the brief included BPI. The attorney then called the only person upon whom a paper copy of the public version had been served (a non-signatory to the APO), who reported that he had not read or distributed the brief and agreed to destroy it. The attorney and his staff then immediately contacted the Commission to remove the public version of the document from the Commission's website and then filed revised pages to the brief which redacted the BPI. An audit of the document available on the Commission's website indicated that the document was viewed by five individuals, one of whom was not authorized to view BPI.
In determining the appropriate sanction in response to the breach, the Commission considered mitigating factors, including that (1) the breach was unintentional and inadvertent; (2) neither the attorney nor the economist had been found in violation of an APO or other protective order in the previous
The Commission issued private letters of reprimand to the attorney and the economist.
In this case, an attorney representing the complainant sent to the complainant's employees an email that appended portions of the complainant's draft pre-hearing brief which included CBI, asking them to read it and provide comments. A second attorney of the same law firm, who was responsible for the day-to-day management of this investigation for the complainant, was copied on the email. One of the complainant's employees then transmitted the document in question to the complainant's directors and other of the complainant's employees. The attorneys' law firm learned of the disclosure on a phone call with the complainant's employees. The law firm's counsel then spoke to the respondent's counsel and alerted the administrative law judge of the breach. Thereafter, the administrative law judge conducted a telephone conference with the parties and ordered,
In determining the appropriate action in response to the breach, the Commission considered mitigating factors, including that (1) the breach was inadvertent; (2) complainant's counsel self-reported the breach and took prompt action to destroy all copies of the disclosed document and prevent further dissemination; (3) respondent was not seeking further sanctions; and (4) neither attorney had previously been found in violation of an APO. The Commission also considered aggravating factors, including that (1) the confidential material was reviewed by several individuals at the complainant who were not authorized to view the CBI; and (2) that weeks had passed before the breach was discovered.
The Commission issued a private letter of reprimand to the attorney who first sent the offending email to the complainant's employees. The Commission also issued a warning letter to the second attorney, who exercised inadequate oversight over the CBI in question (including a failure to observe that the attachment sent to the complainant was replete with respondent's CBI).
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted this review on May 1, 2017 (82 FR 20381) and determined on August 4, 2017 that it would conduct a full review (82 FR 41053, August 29, 2017). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on April 18, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4774 (April 2018), entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge has issued a final Initial Determination and a Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, namelya limited exclusion order (“LEO”) against certain graphics systems, components thereof, and consumer products containing the same, which are imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation by respondents VIZIO, Inc. (“VIZIO”), MediaTek Inc. and Media Tek USA Inc. (collectively, “MediaTek”), and Sigma Designs, Inc. (“SDI”); and a cease and desist order (“CDO”) against respondents VIZIO and SDI. This notice is soliciting public interest comments from the public only.
Houda Morad, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4716. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry.
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). In addition, members of the public are hereby invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond issued in this investigation on April 13, 2018. Comments should address whether issuance of the LEO and CDO in this investigation, should the Commission find a violation, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders are used in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainants, their licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) Indicate whether complainants, complainants' licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) Explain how the LEO and CDO would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions from the public must be filed no later than close of business on Friday, May 18, 2018.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1044”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page.
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on March 30, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Carl and Ruth Shapiro Family National Center for Accessible Media at WGBH, Boston, MA; Cobb County School District, Smyrna, GA; Civitas Learning, Austin, TX; University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, Belton, TX; AMAC—Accessibility Solutions and Research Center, Atlanta, GA; and University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned
On April 7, 2000, IMS Global filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on January 12, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 6, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmBH, Ingelheim am Rhein, GERMANY; Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Carlsbad, CA; Chris L. Waller (individual), Brookline, MA; and IPQ Analytics LLC, Kennett Square, PA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 14, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 26, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PXI Systems intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 18, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 22, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identity of the parties to the venture are: Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Allentown, PA; Armacell Engineered Systems Ltd, Hammersmith, London, UK; Aspen Aerogels, Inc., Northborough, MA; BP American Production Company, Inc., Houston, TX; Carboline Company, St. Louis, MO; Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Richmond, CA; ExxonMobil Production Company, Spring, TX; Industrial Insulation Group LLC, Denver, CO; International Paint, Ltd., Gateshead, Slough, UK; Jotun A/S, Sandefjor, NORWAY; PPG Industries, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA; Promat, Inc., Maryville, TN; Roxul, Inc., The Woodlands, TX; Statoil Petroleum AS, Stavanger, NORWAY; Tenaris Connections B.V., Amsterdam, THE NETHERLANDS; and The Sherwin-Williams Company, Cleveland, OH.
The general area of CUI-JIP's planned activity is to determine the durability of various CUI coating types using a refined cost-effective CUI test method with the purpose of obtaining an accurate coating performance evaluation under various insulation materials at two distinct proposed temperature regimes. This program will also provide high quality data to support the development of new coatings and insulations pertaining to mitigation of CUI and help make/revise recommendations for coating/insulation selection, define acceptance criteria and safe integrity operating window or risk-based assessment for components that are exposed to aggressive environments.
Notice is hereby given that, on March 26, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Adobe Systems Inc., San Jose, CA; and Nick Ryan (individual member), London, UNITED KINGDOM, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 26, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 6, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 20, 2004, NFPA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 22, 2017. A notice was published in the
On April 17, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed amendment to the 2016 Consent Judgment (“the Consent Judgment”) with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in the lawsuit entitled
In that action, a Consent Judgment settled the United States' claims for civil penalties and injunctive relief that arose out of Defendants' operation of Large Capacity Cesspools (“LCCs”) in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”), 42 U.S.C. 300h, underground injection control (“UIC”) program, specifically the program's Class V UIC regulations found at 40 CFR 144.80 to 144.89. The Consent Judgment required Defendants to (1) close the prohibited LCCs, (2) pay of a civil penalty of $150,000, and (3) perform eight Supplement Environmental Projects (“SEPs”) in seven state parks. The SEPs include various nitrogen reducing projects and have an estimated value of $1,020,000.
The Amendment to Consent Judgment (“the Amendment”) proposes to modify a constructed wetland SEP that Defendants agreed to perform at Captree State Park, in Suffolk County, New York. The wetland would have primarily provided for treatment of wastewater discharges from the main comfort station and restaurant. Defendants reported that installing the constructed wetland SEP at Captree State Park (“Captree”) would be unworkable. Defendants report that their data collection at Captree, including delineation of the existing sanitary system, flood hazard areas, environmentally sensitive areas, and available space, indicates that the site cannot accommodate a wetland large enough to treat the waste flow.
Under the Amendment, Defendants would install and operate an alternative waste treatment technology—a Nitrex
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Judgment. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Judgment may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $18.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $10.25.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Annual Funding Notice for Defined Benefit Pension Plans,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before May 24, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov website at
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-EBSA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Annual Funding Notice for Defined Benefit Pension Plans information collection. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) section 101(f) sets forth the requirements applicable to furnishing defined benefit plan annual funding notices to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, each plan participant and beneficiary, each labor organization representing such participants or beneficiaries, and each employer obligated to make contributions to a multiemployer plan. An annual funding notice must include, among other things, the plan's funding percentage, a statement of the value of the plan's assets and liabilities and a description of how the plan's assets are invested as of specific dates, and a description of the benefits under the plan that are eligible to be guaranteed by the PBGC. ERISA sections 101(f) and 102 authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2018. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Local Area Unemployment Statistics Program,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before May 24, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-BLS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) Program information collection. The BLS has the statutory responsibility of collecting and publishing monthly information on employment, the average wage received, and the hours worked by area and industry. The LAUS program develops residency-based employment and unemployment statistics through a cooperative Federal-State program that uses employment and unemployment inputs available in State agencies. State agencies prepare monthly estimates and transmit them to the BLS for validation and publication. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because of changes to LAUS Technical Memoranda. The BLS Authorizing Statute authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Wage and Hour Division, Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 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. Currently, the Wage and Hour Division is soliciting comments concerning its proposal to extend Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the Information Collections: Application for a Farm Labor Contractor or Farm Labor Contractor Employee Certificate of Registration. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before June 25, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Control Number 1235-0016, by either one of the following methods:
Melissa Smith, Director, Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001; telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of this notice may be obtained in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape or Disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693-0023 (not a toll-free number). TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free (877) 889-5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.
I.
MSPA section 401 (29 U.S.C. 1841) requires, subject to certain exceptions, all Farm Labor Contractors (FLCs), Agricultural Employers (AGERs), and Agricultural Associations (AGASs) to ensure that any vehicle they use or cause to be used to transport or drive any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker conforms to safety and health standards prescribed by the Secretary of Labor under the MSPA and with other applicable Federal and State safety standards. These MSPA safety standards address the vehicle, driver, and insurance. The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) has created Forms WH-514, WH-514a, and WH-515, which allow FLC applicants to verify to the WHD that the vehicles used to transport migrant/seasonal agricultural workers meet the MSPA vehicle safety standards and that anyone who drives such workers meets the Act's minimum physical requirements. The WHD uses the information in deciding whether to authorize the FLC/FLC Employee applicant to transport/drive any migrant/seasonal agricultural worker(s) or to cause such transportation. Form WH-514 is used to verify that any vehicle used or caused to be used to transport any migrant/seasonal agricultural worker(s) meets the Department of Transportation (DOT) safety standards. When the adopted DOT rules do not apply, FLC applicants seeking authorization to transport any migrant/seasonal agricultural workers use Form WH-514a to verify that the vehicles meet the DOL safety standards and, upon the vehicle meeting the required safety standards, the form is completed. Form WH-515 is a doctor's certificate used to document that a motor vehicle driver or operator meets the minimum DOT physical requirements that the DOL has adopted. This information collection is currently approved for use through November 30, 2018.
II.
* 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,
III.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the NASA International Space Station (ISS) Advisory Committee. The purpose of the meeting is to review all aspects related to the safety and operational readiness of the ISS, and to assess the possibilities for using the ISS for future space exploration.
Monday, May 14, 2017, 2:00-3:00 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Glennan Conference Room (1Q39), 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20546. Note: 1Q39 is located on the first floor of NASA Headquarters.
Mr. Patrick Finley, Designated Federal Officer, Office of International and Interagency Relations, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546-0001, (202) 358-5684.
This meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. This meeting is also accessible via teleconference. To participate telephonically, please contact Mr. Finley (202) 358-5684 before 4:30 p.m., Local Time, on May 9, 2018. You will need to provide your name, affiliation, and phone number.
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA Security requirements, to include the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee; and home address to Mr. Finley via email at
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when agencies no longer need them for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice in the
NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by May 24, 2018. Once NARA finishes appraising the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send to you these requested documents in which to submit comments.
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA) using one of the following means:
You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.
Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA); National Archives
NARA publishes notice in the
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing records retention periods and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the agency to dispose of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless otherwise specified. An item in a schedule is media neutral when an agency may apply the disposition instructions to records regardless of the medium in which it creates or maintains the records. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is expressly limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)
Agencies may not destroy Federal records without Archivist of the United States' approval. The Archivist approves destruction only after thoroughly considering the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value.
In addition to identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records (or notes that the schedule has agency-wide applicability when schedules cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency); provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction); and includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it also includes information about the records. You may request additional information about the disposition process at the addresses above.
1. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (DAA-0145-2017-0025, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Case files documenting the disposal of excess or surplus property owned by the Federal government.
2. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (DAA-0145-2017-0027, 10 items, 10 temporary items). Routine administrative records documenting the agency's leasing activities. Included are requests for leasing space, solicitation records, negotiation documents, successful offers and unsuccessful offers, approval documentation, and award notification files.
3. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense (DAA-0330-2013-0012, 43 items, 41 temporary items). Department of Defense Education Activity records related to the operation of elementary, secondary, and graduate schools, including student, faculty, instructional, and administrative records. Proposed for permanent retention are records related to research and instruction about uniquely military medical conditions and treatments.
4. Department of Defense, Defense Security Service (DAA-0446-2016-0001, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records of an electronic information system used to track and mitigate potential threats to facilities and personnel, including contact information, military history information, and publicly available electronic information.
5. Department of Defense, Defense Security Service (DAA-0446-2017-0001, 9 items, 9 temporary items). Records relating to the security of defense contractor facilities including security clearance of the facilities, cancellation of clearances, security agreements, and related administrative actions.
6. Department of Defense, Defense Security Service (DAA-0446-2017-0003, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records relating to Congressional inquiries including correspondence, copy of requests, responses, reports, and other documents.
7. Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DAA-0374-2017-0017, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used for tracking and managing travel information for personnel outside the United States, including travel requests, incidental files, and related administrative actions.
8. Department of Energy, Agency-wide (DAA-0434-2018-0001, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to track and manage electronic service requests, software installation, and hardware repair.
9. Department of the Interior, Agency-wide (DAA-0048-2015-0003, 23 items, 18 temporary items). Natural resource planning and development case files containing operational mission records related to fish and wildlife species management; critical habitat designations; assessment reports; surveys; Federal onshore and offshore production audits and inspections; energy lease applications and issued leases; energy resource analysis and evaluations; land use planning and activities; permits; land title operational and realty; wild horse and burro adoptions; reciprocal use and license agreements; land status; water analysis and water use permitting; non-historic water and power projects and facility records; and water project, engineering, and water quality records. Proposed for permanent retention are final studies and reports related to mission programs and activities such as the Endangered Species Act and fish and wildlife management and planning files; energy and mineral final financial reports and summaries; mineral lease case history files; land use management plans and reports requiring agency authorization; historic water and power projects; and water resources and delivery records.
10. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (DAA-0058-2017-0011, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Alert notification system records.
11. National Indian Gaming Commission, Office of the Commission (DAA-0600-2017-0001, 17 items, 10 temporary items). Records include routine operational or administrative correspondence, internal audit records, tribal self-regulation annual submissions, agency agreements, consultation files, and related working files. Proposed for permanent retention are official correspondence and daily schedule of activities for the Chairperson, Commissioners, and Chief of Staff; Commission meeting and decisional files; organizational structure and strategic planning files; final official policies and procedures; tribal self-
12. National Indian Gaming Commission, Office of General Counsel (DAA-0600-2017-0002, 12 items, 9 temporary items). Records include internal or non-substantive legal opinions, withdrawn ordinances, operational or administrative correspondence, administrative litigation case files, master files of two case file tracking systems, and related working files. Proposed for permanent retention are significant legal opinions, ordinance decisional files, and enforcement action files.
13. Office of Personnel Management, Agency-wide (DAA-0478-2017-0012, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Assessment and evaluation project files documenting the development of assessments to evaluate organizations and develop applicant tests.
14. Office of Personnel Management, Agency-wide (DAA-0478-2018-0002, 6 items, 6 temporary items). Records related to internal and external oversight and audit of human capital laws and regulations.
15. Peace Corps, Office of Volunteer Recruitment and Selection (DAA-0490-2017-0009, 2 items, 1 temporary item). Records of the Associate Director including routine administrative files. Proposed for permanent retention are significant program records including reports, strategic plans, and program guidance.
Weeks of April 23, 30, May 7, 14, 21, 28, 2018.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 30, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 14, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 21, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 28, 2018.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or you may email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from March 27 to April 9, 2018. The last biweekly notice was published on April 10, 2018.
Comments must be filed by May 24, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by June 25, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Beverly Clayton, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3475, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0073, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0073, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions that the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water inventory in Mode 4 (
The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event. The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event.
The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of water injection and additional confirmations that secondary containment and/or filtration would be available if needed.
The proposed change reduces or eliminates some requirements that were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond to a draining event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change will not alter the design function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some systems that are currently
The event of concern under the current requirements and the proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design and licensing bases.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. New requirements are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water inventory could drain to the top of the fuel in the reactor vessel should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth to ensure that the Safety Limit is protected and to protect the public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety and to add safety margin.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not make any physical changes to the plants, are administrative in nature, and do not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators or affect the function of plant systems, or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, tested, or inspected. The proposed changes do not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. The unit/facility/plant staff qualification requirements remain the same and are being relocated from the Technical Specifications (TS) to the EGC Quality Assurance Topical Report (QATR).
Based on the above discussion, EGC concludes that the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Will the operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not involve changes to unit/facility/plant staff selection, qualification and training programs, are administrative in nature, and do not impact physical plant systems. The qualification standards are being relocated from the TS to the EGC QATR. As a result, the ability of the plant to respond to and mitigate accidents is unchanged by the proposed changes. The proposed changes do not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
Based on the above discussion, EGC concludes that the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes are administrative in nature. The proposed changes do not affect plant design, hardware, system operation, or procedures for accident mitigation systems. The proposed changes do not impact any plant safety margins that are established in existing limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety systems settings and specified
Based on the above discussion, EGC concludes that the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The APRM system and the RPS [reactor protection system] are not initiators of any accidents previously evaluated. As a result, the proposed change does not affect the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The APRM system and the RPS functions act to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The reliability of APRM system and the RPS is not significantly affected by removing the gain adjustment requirement on the APRM channels when the APRMs are calibrated conservatively with respect to the calculated heat balance. This is because the actual core thermal power at which the reactor will automatically trip is lower, thereby increasing the margin to the core thermal limits and the limiting safety system settings assumed in the safety analyses. The consequences of an accident during the adjustment of the APRM instrumentation are no different from those during the existing surveillance testing period or the existing time allowed to restore the instruments to operable status. As a result, the ability of the APRM system and the RPS to mitigate any accident previously evaluated is not significantly affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not alter the protection system design, create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The margin of safety provided by the APRM system and the RPS is to ensure that the reactor is shut down automatically when plant parameters exceed the setpoints for the system. Any reduction in the margin of safety resulting from the adjustment of the APRM channels while continuing operation is considered to be offset by delaying a plant shutdown (
The proposed change does not alter setpoints or limits established or assumed by the accident analyses. The Technical Specifications continue to require operability of the RPS functions, which provide core protection for postulated reactivity insertion events occurring during power operating conditions consistent with the plant safety analyses.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The changes do not involve an interface with any [structure, system, and component (SSC)] accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the plant-specific [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)] are not affected. The proposed changes do not involve a change to any mitigation sequence or the predicted radiological releases due to postulated accident conditions, thus, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not adversely affect any system or design function or equipment qualification as the change does not modify any SSCs that prevent safety functions from being performed. The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could adversely affect safety or safety-related equipment. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes would not affect any safety-related design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or existing design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceed the requested changes. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 26, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 3, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 5, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory guide; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment Draft Regulatory Guide (DG), DG-1333, “Guidelines for Evaluating Electromagnetic and Radio-Frequency Interference in Safety-Related Instrumentation and Control Systems.” DG-1333 is proposed Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.180, “Guidelines for Evaluating Electromagnetic and Radio-Frequency Interference in Safety-Related Instrumentation and Control Systems,” dated October 2003. This DG updates the guidance on electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) practices and test methods that the staff of the NRC consider acceptable for qualifying safety-related instrumentation and control (I&C) systems for the expected electromagnetic environment in nuclear power plants.
Submit comments by June 25, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
David Dawood, telephone: 301-415-2389, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0076 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this action. You may obtain publically-available information related to this action, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0076 in your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The DG entitled “Guidelines for Evaluating Electromagnetic and Radio-Frequency Interference in Safety-Related Instrumentation and Control Systems,” is proposed Revision 2 to RG 1.180. The proposed revised RG is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1333. The proposed revised RG updates the guidance on EMC practices and test methods that the staff of the NRC consider acceptable for qualifying safety-related I&C systems for the expected electromagnetic environment in nuclear power plants. The revised RG endorses the current versions of previously endorsed military, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) specifications and standards; incorporates additional guidance for evaluating the effects of electrostatic discharge; and accounts for the evolution of the operational environment at nuclear power plants arising from the increased use of digital technology, including wireless communication for both personnel (personal digital assistants and smartphones) and industrial (remote I&C) applications.
Department of Defense, Federal, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, Department of Energy, and Government specifications,
This DG-1333, if finalized as Revision 2 to RG 1.180, would update the guidance on EMC practices and test methods that the staff of the NRC consider acceptable for qualifying safety-related I&C systems for the expected electromagnetic environment in nuclear power plants. The DG, if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as defined in title 10 of the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold meetings on May 3-4, 2018, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the
Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided 30 minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the Cognizant ACRS Staff one day before meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the Cognizant ACRS Staff with a CD containing each presentation at least 30 minutes before the meeting.
In accordance with Subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463 and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), certain portions of this meeting may be closed, as specifically noted above. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting.
ACRS meeting agendas, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at
Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-6702), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 26, 2018.
Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
On February 15, 2018, NYSE American LLC (the “Exchange” or “NYSE American”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 503, Openings on the Exchange.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 503, Openings on the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend subsection (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) to make clarifying changes to add additional detail to the rule text which describes the two different scenarios that the Exchange uses to direct its Opening Process.
Currently, the Exchange has two separate sets of criteria, either of which must be satisfied in order to begin the Opening Process; one for when there is a possible trade on MIAX PEARL
The following example demonstrates interest on MIAX PEARL that locks or crosses the NBBO.
MIAX PEARL receives a Customer Do Not Route (“DNR”)
At 9:30 a.m. MIAX PEARL receives ABBO
The interest to sell @ $.05 on MIAX PEARL locks the NBBO.
The interest on MIAX PEARL is not routable and there is no other interest available on MIAX PEARL in this scenario. The Exchange's rules require a Valid Width NBBO
Similarly, the Exchange also proposes to amend subsection (b)(1)(ii) to remove the phrase, “no trade is possible” and replace it with a more comprehensive description of the conditions which would result in the Exchange using its second set of criteria, which is not changing under this proposal, whereby any one of the conditions may be satisfied in order to begin the Opening Process. The Exchange therefore proposes to amend subsection (b)(1)(ii) to state, “[i]f there is no locking or crossing interest on MIAX PEARL or interest that locks or crosses the NBBO, then the Exchange will open dependent upon one of the following: (A) A Valid Width NBBO is present; or (B) A certain number of other options exchanges (as determined by the Exchange and posted by MIAX PEARL on its website) have disseminated a firm quote on OPRA; or (C) A certain period of time (as determined by the Exchange and posted by MIAX PEARL on its website) has elapsed.”
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend the heading of subsection 503(b)(2) to align the rule text to the proposed changes discussed above. Currently, the heading reads, “Opening Process Where There is a Possible Trade on MIAX PEARL.” The Exchange proposes to amend this heading to state, “Opening Process Where There is Locking or Crossing Interest on MIAX PEARL or Interest that Locks or Crosses the NBBO.” Further, the Exchange proposes to amend the heading of subsection 503(b)(3) to align the rule text to the proposed changes discussed above. Currently, the heading reads, “Opening Process Where There is No Possible Trade on MIAX PEARL.” The Exchange now proposes to amend this heading to state, “Opening Process Where There is No Locking or Crossing Interest on MIAX PEARL and no Interest that Locks or Crosses the NBBO.” The Exchange believes that these proposed changes harmonize the rule text with the proposed amendments to subsection (b)(1)(i) and (ii).
The Exchange notes that the proposed changes are clarifying changes only that will not alter the current behavior of the Exchange's Opening Process. The Opening Process where there is locking or crossing interest on MIAX PEARL or interest that locks or crosses the NBBO will remain unchanged.
The proposed rule change provides additional clarification and better aligns the rule text to how the Opening Process operates in production, and provides consistency in the Exchange's rules
MIAX PEARL believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to its rulebook add additional detail and provide further clarification to Members, investors, and the Public, regarding the operation of the Exchange's Opening Process. The Exchange believes it is in the interest of investors and the public to accurately describe the behavior of the Exchange's System in its rules as this information may be used by investors to make decisions concerning the submission of their orders. Transparency and clarity are consistent with the Act because it removes impediments to and helps perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest by accurately describing the behavior of the Exchange's System.
Currently the rule requires the presence of a Valid Width NBBO to begin the Opening Process when there is locking or crossing interest on the Exchange (a possible trade), the additional rule text requires the presence of a Valid Width NBBO to begin the Opening Process when there is interest that locks or crosses the NBBO, which similarly serves to protect routable and non-routable interest on the Book. The Exchange believes that requiring a Valid Width NBBO to be present prior to beginning the Opening Process when there is locking or crossing interest on the Exchange, or interest that locks or crosses the NBBO, ensures that the option series is being sufficiently quoted to allow meaningful price discovery. The Exchange's current Valid Width NBBO calculation requires the disseminated quotes of at least two other exchanges and the quotes of at least one MIAX PEARL Market Maker.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change does not alter any functionality of the Exchange's System and is designed to add additional clarity and detail to the Exchange's rules.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on inter-market competition as the Rules apply equally to all Exchange Members. The proposed rule change is not a competitive filing and is intended to enhance the protection of investors by ensuring that there is a sufficient quoted market from which the Exchange can determine a valid Opening Price. Additionally, the proposed rule change provides additional detail and clarity to the Exchange's rulebook regarding the Exchange's Opening Process.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than June 25, 2018. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Toward a Concrete Utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia, 1948-1980,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, from on or about July 15, 2018, until on or about January 13, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Elliot Chiu, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Department of State.
Notice of a Modified System of Records.
Information in Employee Contact Records is used to develop the official locator directories for all personnel, to communicate with the listed categories of individuals in the event of an emergency in which designated contact information will be used, to communicate with designated emergency contacts or next of kin, for mail forwarding purposes of the employee, and to answer official inquiries regarding the location of an employee.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this modified system of records will be effective upon publication, with the exception of new routine uses (a), (b), and (c) that are subject to a 30-day period during which interested persons may submit comments to the Department. Please submit any comments by May 24, 2018.
Questions can be submitted by mail or email. If mail, please write to:
Mary R. Avery, Senior Agency Official for Privacy; U.S. Department of State; Office of Global Information Services, A/GIS; SA-2, Suite 8100; Washington, DC 20522-0208; at
The purpose of this modification is twofold: (1) To consolidate two existing records systems (Employee Contact Records, State-40 and Foreign Service Employee Locator/Notification Records, State-12) into a single modified State-40, because the records and system purposes are substantially similar, and (2) to make substantive and administrative changes to a variety of sections. These changes reflect movement to cloud storage, new OMB guidance, and new emergency notification procedures. The modified system of records will include modifications and/or additions to the following sections: Categories of Individuals Covered by the System; Categories of Records in the System; Purpose(s) of the System; Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, Including Categories of Users and Purposes of Such Uses; Policies and Practices for Storage of Records; Policies and Practices for Retrieval of Records; and Administrative, Technical, and Physical Safeguards, as well as other administrative updates.
Employee Contact Records, State-40.
Unclassified.
Department of State (“Department”); 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520 and within a government cloud provided, implemented and overseen by the Department's Enterprise Server Operations Center (ESOC), 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520.
There are four system managers: (1) Division Chief, Bureau of Administration, Office of Emergency Management, 2430 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20520 on (202) 776-8600; (2) The Chief Information Officer, Bureau of Information Resource Management, Enterprise Resource Management, 2201 C Street NW Washington, DC 20520. Contact information is either
5 U.S.C. 301 (Management of the Department of State); 22 U.S.C. 2581 (General Authority of Secretary of State); 22 U.S.C 2651a (Organization of the Department of State); National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) -51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)—20 (May 4, 2007); National Continuity Policy Implementation Plan (August 2007); and Federal Continuity Directive 1 (February 2008).
The public and non-public information contained in the system is collected and maintained by the Department and is used: (1) To develop the official locator directories for all personnel; (2) to communicate with the categories of individuals listed in the next section in the event of an emergency in which designated contact information will be used; (3) to communicate with designated emergency contacts or next of kin; (4) for mail forwarding purposes of the employee; and (5) to answer official inquiries regarding the location of an employee.
Foreign and Civil Service employees, U.S. Government employees who fall under a Chief of Mission's (COM) security responsibility; contractors; locally employed staff; employees on intermittent, temporary, and limited appointments; interns; and designated emergency contacts or next of kin to include eligible family members who fall under a Chief of Mission's security responsibility, members of households at overseas posts, and other individuals living/working on Mission property with COM permission who voluntarily agree to provide personal contact information to the Department of State for emergency notification and accountability purposes. Additionally, it includes retired employees. The Privacy Act defines an individual at 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(2) as a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident.
This system contains the following contact information, as applicable, for those individuals listed in the preceding section: Name, office contact information (current post assignment, employment affiliation, work title, domestic facility location, work address, and work phone numbers), personal contact information (personal phone numbers, personal email address, home address, local address), emergency contact information, employment type, the last four-digits of a Social Security number, Global Employment Management System (GEMS) number, mail forwarding instructions, name of spouse, names of dependents, and school address.
The information is compiled directly from the individual and from Department automated sources.
Information in Employee Contact Records is used to answer inquiries regarding the location of individuals listed in the Categories of Individuals section. The Department will use the information to notify an emergency contact or next-of-kin in the event of an emergency, crisis or death of the employee, or to contact individuals listed in the categories of individuals section in the event of an emergency at the location where they are assigned abroad to determine if they are safe, or to locate an individual listed in the categories of individuals section in the event of a family emergency or death. The information may also be released to:
(a) Non-governmental agencies or entities during a disaster for purposes of emergency response.
(b) Appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Department of State suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Department of State has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Department of State (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department of State efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(c) Another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department of State determines that information from this
The Department of State periodically publishes in the
Records are stored both in hard copy and on electronic media. A description of standard Department of State policies concerning storage of electronic records is found here
Records are retrievable by individual's name, dependent name, spouse name and GEMS number.
The records retention schedules vary according to function. Some records are transitory in nature and are kept for up to 72 hours while others are kept as long as five years after the employee resigns or retires. These records will be maintained until they become inactive, at which time they will be retired or destroyed in accordance with published record schedules of the Department of State and as approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and outlined here
All users are given cyber security awareness training that covers the procedures for handling Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) information, including personally identifiable information (PII). Annual refresher training is mandatory. In addition, all Foreign Service and Civil Service employees and those Locally Employed Staff who handle PII are required to take the Foreign Service Institute distance learning course instructing employees on privacy and security requirements, including the rules of behavior for handling PII and the potential consequences if it is handled improperly.
Access to the Department of State, its annexes and posts abroad is controlled by security guards and admission is limited to those individuals possessing a valid identification card or individuals under proper escort. While the majority of records covered in the Employee Contact Records are electronic, all paper records containing personal information are maintained in secured file cabinets in restricted areas, access to which is limited to authorized personnel. Access to computerized files is password-protected and under the direct supervision of the system manager. The system manager has the capability of printing audit trails of access from the computer media, thereby permitting regular and ad hoc monitoring of computer usage. When it is determined that a user no longer needs access, the user account is disabled.
Before being granted access to Employee Contact Records a user must first be granted access to the Department of State computer system. Remote access to the Department of State network from non-Department owned systems is authorized only to unclassified systems and only through a Department approved access program. Remote access to the network is configured with the authentication requirements contained in the Office of Management and Budget Circular Memorandum A-130. All Department of State employees and contractors with authorized access have undergone a thorough background security investigation.
The Department of State will store records maintained in this system of records in cloud systems. All cloud systems that provide IT services and process Department of State information must be authorized to operate by the Department of State Authorizing Official and Senior Agency Official for Privacy. Only information that conforms with Department-specific definitions for FISMA low or moderate categorization are permissible for cloud usage unless specifically authorized by the Department's Cloud Computing Governance Board. Prior to operation, all Cloud systems must comply with applicable security measures that are outlined in FISMA, FedRAMP, OMB guidance, NIST Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) and Special Publications, and Department of State policy and standards.
Individuals who wish to gain access to or to amend records pertaining to themselves should write to U.S. Department of State; Director, Office of Information Programs and Services; A/GIS/IPS; SA-2, Suite 8100; Washington, DC 20522-0208. The individual must specify that he or she wishes the Employee Contact Records to be checked. At a minimum, the individual must include: Full name (including maiden name, if appropriate) and any other names used; current mailing address and zip code; date and place of birth notarized signature or statement under penalty of perjury; a brief description of the circumstances that caused the creation of the record (including the city and/or country and the approximate dates) which gives the individual cause to believe that the Employee Contact Records include records pertaining to him or her. Detailed instructions on Department of State procedures for accessing and amending records can be found at
Individuals who wish to contest record procedures should write to U.S. Department of State; Director, Office of Information Programs and Services; A/GIS/IPS; SA-2, Suite 8100; Washington, DC 20522-0208.
Individuals who have reason to believe that this system of records may contain information pertaining to them may write to U.S. Department of State; Director, Office of Information Programs and Services; A/GIS/IPS; SA-2, Suite 8100; Washington, DC 20522-0208. The individual must specify that he or she wishes the Employee Contact Records to be checked. At a minimum, the individual must include: Full name (including maiden name, if appropriate) and any other names used; current mailing address and zip code; date and place of birth; notarized signature or statement under penalty of perjury; a brief description of the circumstances that caused the creation of the record (including the city and/or country and the approximate dates) which gives the individual cause to believe that the
None.
The Department of State proposes to consolidate two record systems: Employee Contact Records, State-40 (previously published at 75 FR 67431) and Foreign Service Employee Locator Notification Records, State-12 (previously published at 42 FR 49705).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before May 14, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0257 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Deana Stedman, AIR-673, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198, phone 206-231-3187, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The FAA is considering a proposal to change 10.667 acres of airport land from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and to authorize the sale of airport property located at Willoughby Lost Nation Municipal Airport, Willoughby, Ohio. The aforementioned land is not needed for aeronautical use.
The proposed non-aeronautical use of the property is for a compatible 120,000 square foot manufacturing facility and office space development. The property has been appraised and the airport will receive Fair Market Value for the land to be sold.
Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2018.
Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA Detroit Airports District Office, Evonne M. McBurrows, Program Manager, 11677 South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, Michigan 48174 Telephone: (734) 229-2945/Fax: (734) 229-2950 and Lake County Ohio Port and Economic Development Authority, One Victoria Place, Painesville, Ohio 44077 and (440) 357-2290.
Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Evonne M. McBurrows, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Detroit Airports District Office, 11677 South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, Michigan 48174, Telephone Number: (734) 229-2945/FAX Number: (734) 229-2950.
Evonne M. McBurrows, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Detroit Airports District Office, 11677 South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, Michigan 48174. Telephone Number: (734) 229-2945/FAX Number: (734) 229-2950.
In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title 49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
The 10.667 acre parcel is located east of Lost Nation Road and North of Jet Drive adjacent to the westerly airport
The disposition of proceeds from the sale of the airport property will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in the
This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of the subject airport property at the Willoughby Lost Nation Municipal Airport, City of Willoughby, Ohio from federal land covenants, subject to a reservation for continuing right of flight as well as restrictions on the released property as required in FAA Order 5190.6B section 22.16. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor a determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.
Situated in the City of Willoughby, County of Lake, and State of Ohio and known as being part of Original Lot No. 6, Douglas Tract, and is further bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at an iron pin found at the southeasterly corner of land conveyed to Halabar Enterprises, LLC by deed recorded in Document No. 970032610 of Lake County Records in the northerly sideline of Jet Center Place, where it is 70.00 feet wide, at a point located South 88°15′30″ East 14.98 feet from an angle point in said sideline, said point being further located 4 + 19.98, 35.00 feet left as appears by plat recorded in Vol.16, Page 34 of Lake County Plat Records,
Thence North 1°44′30″ East, along the easterly line of said land of Halabar Enterprises, 753.23 feet to an iron pin found at the northeasterly corner of said land;
Thence South 88°43′30″ West, along the northerly line of said land, 60.56 feet to an iron pin found at the southeasterly corner of land conveyed to Authur P. Armington by deed recorded in Vol. 704, Page 163 of Lake County Official Records;
Thence, North 1°44′30″ East along the easterly line of Armington, 240.00 feet to an iron pin found at the southerly line of land conveyed to Frank R. Farroni by deed recorded in Volume 759, Page 634 of Lake County Records.
Thence North 88°43′30″ East along the southerly said land of Farroni, 3.00 feet to an iron pin found at the southeasterly corner of said land,
Thence North 01°44′30″ East, along the easterly line of said land of Farroni 28.00 feet to an iron pin found at the southwesterly corner of land conveyed to Lost Nation Parkway, I Ltd by Document No. 980042081 of Lake County Records.
Thence South 88°15′30″ East along the southerly line of said land of Lost Nation Parkway 1, Ltd., 499.92 feet to an iron pin set;
Thence South 1°44′30″ West, 903.33 feet to an iron pin found at the northwesterly corner of land conveyed to the City of Willoughby by deed recorded in Vol. 680 Page 252 of Lake County Official Records;
Thence South 0°14′52″ West, along the westerly line of said land of the City, 82.96 feet to an iron pin found at the curved northerly, sideline of Jet Center Place;
Thence westerly along said sideline on an arc deflecting to the left, said arc having a radius of 68.50 feet and a chord of 59.34 feet which bears South 78°13′00″ West, a distance of 61.38 feet to a point of reverse curve;
Thence westerly continuing along said sideline on an arc deflecting to the right said arc having a radius of 81.50 feet and a chord of 54.47 feet which bears South 72°3′11″ West a distance of 55.54 feet to a point.
North 88°15′30″ West along said sideline of Jet Center Place 335.53 feet to the place of beginning and containing 10.667 acres of land according to a survey made in August 1999 by Richard J. Bislki, registered surveyor No. 5244 of CT Consultants, Inc., Registered Engineers and Surveyors, be the same more or less, but subject to all legal highways.
The bearings stated herein are based upon the recorded bearings as shown on the dedication plat of Jet Center Place, Vol. 16 Page 34 and are for the sole purpose of indicating relative angular values between lines.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that the American Pyrotechnics Association (APA) has requested an exemption from the hours-of-service (HOS) regulations that require a motor carrier to install and require each of its drivers use an electronic logging device (ELD) to record the driver's HOS. APA requests the exemption for APA member-companies currently holding an exemption from the HOS 14-hour rule during the Independence Day celebration season. If granted, these member-companies would continue to utilize paper records of duty status (RODS) in lieu of utilizing an ELD during the designated Independence Day periods. APA believes that the exemption, if granted, would not have any adverse impacts on operational safety, as drivers would continue to remain subject to the HOS regulations as well as the requirements to maintain paper RODS. FMCSA requests public comment on APA's application for exemption.
Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2018-0140 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
For information concerning this notice, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 614-942-6477. Email:
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2018-0140), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comments online, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
The APA reports that it is a national safety and trade association of the U.S. fireworks industry, representing manufacturers, importers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, suppliers and professional display companies. APA has over 250 member companies. Along with their subsidiaries, APA's member-companies are responsible for nearly ninety percent of the fireworks manufactured, imported, distributed and professionally displayed in the United States.
According to its application, APA seeks a limited exemption from the ELD requirements for member-companies currently holding an HOS exemption from the 14-hour rule to continue to maintain paper RODs in lieu of utilizing ELDs. Various APA members have held 2-year exemptions during Independence Day periods from 2005 through 2014. On May 16, 2016, the current exemption for APA members was extended to July 8, 2020, pursuant to section 5206(b)(2)(A) of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (81 FR 28115).
APA asserts that granting this exemption is appropriate because there is no basis to believe that continuing to allow paper record keeping for this limited subset of the regulated community, and for a limited period of time, would impact operational safety in any regard. In addition, due to the unique nature of the fireworks industry, requiring the use of ELDs for this limited seasonal delivery period would impose a substantial financial burden on members because it would require them to purchase/lease systems for use for only a short period every year.
APA explained that members rely upon intermittent casual drivers periodically throughout the year and particularly during the busy Independence Day season when industry depends upon short-term rental trucks. The fireworks industry is unique in that it rents or leases approximately 90% of its vehicles throughout the year for less than 30 days at a time. However, most rental companies require a minimum rental period of 14 to 21 days when APA member companies may only use the trucks in commerce for up to 11 days. The mix of vehicles rented includes pick-up trucks, cargo vans, city vans and straight trucks less than 26,000 GVW. The industry relies heavily upon short-term rental trucks to transport and deliver 98% of the 16,000 Independence Day fireworks displays nationwide. If granted, the exemption would run concurrent with APA's HOS exemption and would expire on July 8, 2020. This exemption would only apply when the carriers designated in the APA HOS exemption, including revisions, are operating within the specified Independence Day periods.
A copy of APA's application for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from eight individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0051 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The eight individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
The advisory criteria states the following:
If an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the Medical Examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested that a six-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver may be qualified.
In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical condition (
Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a five-year period or more.
As a result of Medical Examiners misinterpreting advisory criteria as regulation, numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a CMV in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication,
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final Disposition titled, Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that interstate CMV drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” Since the January 15, 2013 notice, the Agency has published additional notices granting requests from individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP) (78 FR 3069).
Mr. Ford is a 59-year-old Class D driver in Wisconsin. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 1995. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 1995. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Ford receiving an exemption.
Mr. Habeck is a 55-year-old Class A3 driver in South Dakota. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2006. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2006. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Habeck receiving an exemption.
Mr. Kanouff is a 37-year-old Class AM driver in Georgia. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2009. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2013. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Kanouff receiving an exemption.
Mr. Kienel is a 36-year-old Class C driver in Georgia. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 1999. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2013. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Kienel receiving an exemption.
Mr. King is a 49-year-old Class C driver in North Carolina. He has a history of a single provoked seizure and has been seizure free since 2017. He stopped taking anti-seizure medication in 2017. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. King receiving an exemption.
Mr. Martin is a 39-year-old Class B driver in Iowa. He has a history of a single unprovoked seizure and has been seizure free since 1994. He stopped taking anti-seizure medication in 1997. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Martin receiving an exemption.
Mr. Moore is a 57-year-old Class A driver in Connecticut. He has a history of a single unprovoked seizure and has been seizure free since 2013. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2013. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Moore receiving an exemption.
Mr. Thomas is a 29-year-old Class D driver in Minnesota. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 2010. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2012. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Thomas receiving an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of denials.
FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from 28 individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) prohibiting persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) from operating CMVs in interstate commerce.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
FMCSA received applications from 28 individuals who requested an exemption from the FMCSRs prohibiting persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a CMV from operating CMVs in interstate commerce.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and concluded that granting these exemptions would not provide a level of safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for five years if it finds such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such an exemption. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on the eligibility criteria, the terms and conditions for Federal exemptions, and an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical information provided by the applicant.
The Agency has determined that these applicants do not satisfy the criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal exemption and granting these exemptions would not provide a level of safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). Therefore, the 28 applicants in this notice have been denied exemptions from the physical qualification standards in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of final disposition regarding his/her exemption request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitutes final action by the Agency. This notice summarizes the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically publishing names and reasons for denial.
The following 19 applicants do not meet the minimum time requirement for being seizure-free, either on or off of anti-seizure medication:
The following eight applicants are intrastate drivers:
The following applicant is under 21 years old:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 30 individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on April 2, 2018. The exemptions expire on April 2, 2020.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On February 27, 2018 FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 30 individuals requesting an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (83 FR 8567). The public comment period ended on March 29, 2018, and one comment was received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5-1951.
49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment was out of scope of this notice.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on current medical information and literature, and the 2008 Evidence Report, “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety.” The evidence report reached two conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety: (1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2) evidence from studies of the private driver's license holder population does not support the contention that individuals with hearing impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS), for commercial driver's license (CDL) holders, and inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). Each applicant's record demonstrated a safe driving history. Based on an individual assessment of each applicant that focused on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce, the Agency believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they do not pose a risk to public safety.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5; (2) each driver must report all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and (3) each driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable CDL testing requirements.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 30 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the hearing standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) requests public comment on an application for exemption from Castignoli Enterprises (Castignoli) to allow a sleeper berth to be installed in the bed of a Ford F350 pickup truck that, when operated in combination with certain trailers, is a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). A sleeper berth installed in the bed of the pickup truck does not meet the access, location, exit, communication, or occupant restraint requirements for sleeper berths in the FMCSRs. Castignoli believes that the sleeper berth installed in the bed of the pickup truck will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2018-0142 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Luke W. Loy, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV, (202) 366-0676,
Under 49 CFR 381.315(a), FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305).
The decision of the Agency must be published in the
Castignoli applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.76(a)(3), (b)(2), (c), (d), and (h) to allow a sleeper berth to be installed in the bed of a Ford F350 pickup truck. A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
Section 393.76 of the FMCSRs provides various requirements for sleeper berths installed in CMVs. Specific to Castignoli's exemption application:
1. Section 393.76(a)(3), “
2. Section 393.76(b)(2), “
3. Section 393.76(c), “
4. Section 393.76(d), “
5. Section 393.76(h), “
The applicant states that he is the owner/operator of Castignoli, and is the “solo driver of a hot shot hauler, F350 1-ton pickup with trailer . . .”
I plan to incorporate the sleeper berth into the bed of the tow vehicle. The utilization of this type of sleeper berth, would allow myself (as the sole driver) to meet the hours of [10-hour] service rest period requirements by utilizing a sleeper berth incorporated into the bed of the vehicle (Rear covered, ventilated, insulated, bed with cap and full size twin mattress) in lieu of a motel each evening. The tow vehicle/trailer combination would not be operating on the roadway during my 10-hour rest period, so there is no benefit in having the access requirements to the driver compartment, nor any need for communication with the driver (myself), nor any occupant restraint requirement as the vehicle is not moving while I am sleeping. The sleeper berth is separate from the trailer behind the tow vehicle, and is therefore separate from the cargo.
The current FMCSR regulatory requirements for sleeper berth access seem to rely on the assumption that one driver is driving while another driver is in the sleeper berth, and that the truck is moving at all times. The situation that I have as a single driver is that when I am off duty, the vehicle is not moving and therefore direct access to the sleeper berth area should not be required, and since the vehicle is not moving there is no need for occupant restraint systems nor a means for communication with the driver. All other dimensional requirements, ventilation, and protection against exhaust and fuel leaks will be met.
The applicant states that as a result of mobility issues associated with a partially fused spine, it is easier for him to access a sleeper berth installed in the bed of the pickup truck as opposed to a sleeper berth that could be installed in the back seat of the pickup truck that meets the requirements of the FMCSRs.
The exemption would apply to Castignoli's sole driver and pickup truck. Castignoli believes that the sleeper berth installed in the bed of the pickup truck will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on Castignoli's application for an exemption from sections (a)(3), (b)(2), (c), (d), and (h) of 49 CFR 393.76. All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
FMCSA, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval and invites public comment. This ICR will enable FMCSA to document the burden associated with the for-hire truck leasing regulations codified in 49 CFR part 376, “Lease and Interchange of Vehicles” and passenger carrier regulations codified at 49 CFR part 390, subpart F, “Lease and Interchange of Passenger-Carrying Commercial Motor Vehicles.” These regulations require certain for-hire motor carriers to have a formal lease when leasing equipment. The FMCSA requests approval to renew an ICR titled, “Lease and Interchange of Vehicles.”
We must receive your comments on or before June 25, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0087 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Crystal Frederick, Compliance Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-2904; email:
The rules were adopted to ensure that small trucking companies were protected when they agreed to lease their equipment and drivers to larger for-hire carriers. They also ensure that the government and members of the public can determine who is responsible for a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle. Prior to the regulations, some equipment was leased without written agreements, leading to disputes over which party to the lease was responsible for charges and actions and, at times, who was legally responsible for the vehicle. Under 49 U.S.C. 14102(a), FMCSA “may require a motor carrier providing for-hire transportation that uses motor vehicles not owned by it to transport property under an arrangement with another party to—
(1) make the arrangement in writing signed by the parties specifying its duration and the compensation to be paid by the motor carrier;
(2) carry a copy of the arrangement in each motor vehicle to which it applies during the period the arrangement is in effect;
(3) inspect the motor vehicles and obtain liability and cargo insurance on them; and
(4) have control of and be responsible for operating those motor vehicles in compliance with requirements prescribed by the Secretary on safety of operations and equipment, and with other applicable law as if the motor vehicles were owned by the motor carrier.”
The rules specify what must be covered in the lease, but leave open how many responsibilities must be divided. The parties to the lease determine numerous details between themselves.
Part 376 applies only to certain motor carriers in interstate commerce and only to certain leasing situations based on exemptions set forth in 49 CFR 376.11, which cross references other provisions in part 376. Section 376.11 requires that authorized carriers (a person or persons authorized to engage in the transportation of property as a motor carrier under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 13901 and 13902) may perform authorized transportation using equipment it does not own only when the following conditions are met: (1) There shall be a written lease granting the use of the equipment and meeting the requirements contained in 376.12; and (2) Receipts, specifically identifying the equipment to be leased and stating the date and time of day possession is transferred, shall be given; and (3) The authorized carrier acquiring the use of equipment under this section shall identify the equipment as being in its service.
Comments to the part 390 rulemaking on passenger carrier leasing caused FMCSA to reduce the regulatory and paperwork burden on passenger carrier vehicles in certain ways. First, vehicles exchanged between or among commonly owned and controlled motor carriers will not be required to have leases and receipts. Second, leases and receipts will not be required when passenger carriers party to a revenue pooling agreement approved by the Surface Transportation Board exchange or interchange passenger vehicles between or among themselves on routes subject to the pooling agreement. A simple statement affirming responsibility for regulatory compliance and marking the vehicle appropriately will be required for these: (1) Exchanges of passenger vehicles among commonly owned and controlled motor carriers; and (2) parties to revenue pooling agreement approved by the Surface Transportation Board.
These property and passenger carrier provisions account for the burden in this information collection.
This program change increase of 527,214 estimated annual burden hours (1,136,114 proposed estimated annual burden hours—608,900 currently approved estimated annual burden) is due to updated estimates of the number of respondents and responses. Previous estimates were based on 2014 data. Current estimates are based on September 26, 2017, Motor Carrier Management Information System and Safety Measurement System snapshots. The data pulled for the current ICR shows an increase in the overall number of carriers since the data used in the previous ICR. The increased carriers resulted in an increase in the overall burden hours associated with this ICR.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of
We must receive your comments on or before June 25, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0091 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Crystal Frederick, Compliance Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-2904; email:
Vehicle marking requirements are intended to ensure that FMCSA, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and State safety officials are able to identify motor carriers and correctly assign responsibility for regulatory violations during inspections, investigations, compliance reviews, and crash studies. These marking requirements will also provide the public with beneficial information that could assist in identifying carriers for the purposes of commerce, complaints or emergency notification. The marking requirements apply to motor carriers, freight forwarders and intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) engaging in interstate transportation. The Agency does not require a specific method of marking as long as the marking complies with FMCSA's regulations. The program change decrease of 76,751 estimated annual burden hours (774,249 proposed estimated annual burden hours—851,000 approved estimated annual burden hours) is due to adjustments in respondent and response estimates, as well as the removal of initial marking burden from the adoption of the “Lease and Interchange of Vehicles; Motor Carriers of Passengers” final rule.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler) has requested an exemption for one commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver from the Federal
Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2018
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2012-0032 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 202-366-4225. Email:
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2012-0032), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
Daimler has applied for an exemption for Christopher Veber from 49 CFR 383.23, which prescribes licensing requirements for drivers operating CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce. Mr. Veber is unable to obtain a CDL in any of the U.S. States due to his lack of residency in the United States. A copy of the application is in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0032.
The exemption would allow Mr. Veber to operate CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce to support Daimler field tests designed to meet future vehicle safety and environmental requirements and to promote technological advancements in vehicle safety systems and emissions reductions. Mr. Veber needs to drive Daimler vehicles on public roads to better understand “real world” environments in the U.S. market. According to Daimler, Mr. Veber will typically drive for no more than 6 hours per day for 2 consecutive days, and that 10 percent of the test driving will be on two-lane State highways, while 90 percent will be on Interstate highways. The driving will consist of no more than 200 miles per day, for a total of 400 miles during a two-day period on a quarterly basis. He will in all cases be accompanied by a holder of a U.S. CDL who is familiar with the routes to be traveled.
Mr. Veber holds a valid German commercial license, and as explained by Daimler in its exemption request, the requirements for that license ensure that the same level of safety is met or exceeded as if this driver had a U.S. CDL. Furthermore, according to Daimler, Mr. Veber is familiar with the operation of CMVs worldwide. Daimler
FMCSA has previously determined that the process for obtaining a German commercial license is comparable to, or as effective as, the requirements of part 383, and adequately assesses the driver's ability to operate CMVs in the U.S. Since 2012, FMCSA has granted Daimler drivers similar exemptions [May 25, 2012 (77 FR 31422); July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42626); March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16511); October 5, 2015 (80 FR 60220); July 12, 2016 (81 FR 45217); July 25, 2016 (81 FR 48496); August 17, 2017 (82 FR 39151)].
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 43 individuals from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on March 17, 2018. The exemptions expire on March 17, 2020.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On February 14, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 43 individuals requesting an exemption from diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) and requested comments from the public (83 FR 6674). The public comment period ended on March 16, 2017, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on the program eligibility criteria and an individualized assessment of information submitted by each applicant. The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the February 14, 2018,
These 43 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 43 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past five years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keeping a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 43 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 197 individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0322; FMCSA-2010-0051; FMCSA-2012-0042; FMCSA-2012-0043; FMCSA-2014-0012; FMCSA-2014-0013; FMCSA-2014-0014; FMCSA-2014-0015; FMCSA-2016-0035; FMCSA-2016-0036 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for five years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
The 197 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 197 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the diabetes requirement (75 FR 13647; 75 FR 14652; 75 FR 27616; 75 FR 28684; 77 FR 17111; 77 FR 18302; 77 FR 27841; 77 FR 29446; 79 FR 10612; 79 FR 14579; 79 FR 18400; 79 FR 22573; 79 FR 27685; 79 FR 28590; 79 FR 29262; 79 FR 35855; 81 FR 21649; 81 FR 24161; 81 FR 59723; 82 FR 20966; 82 FR 24434). They have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of these drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of May and are discussed below:
As of May 11, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following seven individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 17111; 77 FR 27841; 82 FR 24434):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0042. Their exemptions are applicable as of May 11, 2018, and will expire on May 11, 2020.
As of May 13, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 30 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (81 FR 21649; 82 FR 20966):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2016-0035. Their exemptions are applicable as of May 13, 2018, and will expire on May 13, 2020.
As of May 14, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 19 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 10612; 79 FR 27685; 82 FR 24434):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0012. Their exemptions are applicable as of May 14, 2018, and will expire on May 14, 2020.
As of May 16, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 23 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 14579; 79 FR 28590; 82 FR 24434):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0013. Their exemptions are applicable as of May 16, 2018, and will expire on May 16, 2020.
As of May 17, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 27 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (75 FR 13647; 75 FR 27616; 77 FR 18302; 77 FR 29446; 82 FR 24434):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2009-0322; FMCSA-2012-0043. Their exemptions are applicable as of May 17, 2018, and will expire on May 17, 2020.
As of May 21, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 42 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (75 FR 14652; 75 FR 28684; 79 FR 18400; 79 FR 29262; 82 FR 24434):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2010-0051; FMCSA-2014-0014. Their exemptions are applicable as of May 21, 2018, and will expire on May 21, 2020.
As of May 23, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Derald E. Moenning, (NE) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 22573; 79 FR 35855; 82 FR 24434).
The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0015. The exemption is applicable as of May 23, 2018, and will expire on May 23, 2020.
As of May 26, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 48 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (81 FR 24161; 81 FR 59723):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2016-0036. Their exemptions are applicable as of May 26, 2018, and will expire on May 26, 2020.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must submit an annual ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 197 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 77 individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On February 14, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 77 individuals from the insulin-treated diabetes mellitus prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (83 FR 6692). The public comment period ended on March 16, 2018, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 77 renewal exemption applications and comments received, FMCSA confirms its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.64(3):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of March and are discussed below:
As of March 5, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 31 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 79062; 79 FR 12567; 81 FR 14210):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0193. Their exemptions are applicable as of March 5, 2018, and will expire on March 5, 2020.
As of March 7, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 34 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 3549; 77 FR 13685; 78 FR 78479; 79 FR 13086; 81 FR 14210):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2011-0368; FMCSA-2013-0192. Their exemptions are applicable as of March 7, 2018, and will expire on March 7, 2020.
As of March 23, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 12 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 5870; 77 FR 17116; 81 FR 14210):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0381. Their exemptions are applicable as of March 23, 2018, and will expire on March 23, 2020.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt six individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on March 22, 2018. The exemptions expire on March 22, 2020.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On February 14, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from six individuals requesting an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and requested comments from the public (83 FR 6717). The public comment period ended on March 16, 2018, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, FMCSA considered the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP). The January 15, 2013,
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s) and medical information about the applicant's seizure history, the length of time that has elapsed since the individual's last seizure, the stability of each individual's treatment regimen and the duration of time on or off of anti-seizure medication. In addition, the Agency reviewed the treating clinician's medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV with a history of seizure and each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) for commercial driver's license (CDL) holders, and interstate and intrastate inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). A summary of each applicant's seizure history was discussed in the February 14, 2018
These six applicants have been seizure-free over a range of 31 years while taking anti-seizure medication and maintained a stable medication treatment regimen for the last two years. In each case, the applicant's treating physician verified his or her seizure history and supports the ability to drive commercially.
The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver experiencing a seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical condition does not pose a risk to public safety.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the six exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval and invites public comment. The FMCSA requests approval to revise and extend the “Annual Report of Class I and Class II Motor Carriers of Property” ICR, OMB Control No. 2126-0032. This ICR is necessary to ensure that motor carriers comply with FMCSA's financial and operating statistics requirements at chapter III of title 49 CFR part 369 titled “Reports of Motor Carriers.” This ICR is being revised to incorporate the OMB approved “Annual Report of Class I Motor Carriers of Passengers” ICR, OMB Control No. 2126-0031, for use of the MP-1 form, the “Annual Report Form (Motor Carriers of Passengers),” which resulted in only two respondents and one burden hour per year. Through the proposed merger of the two ICRs, FMCSA would rename the 2126-0032 ICR as the “Annual Report of Class I and Class II For-Hire Motor Carriers” ICR. And such a merger with the new title will clarify that the combined ICR addresses both for-hire property and passenger carriers, but not private motor carriers. Additionally, after the merger of the ICRs, FMCSA intends to request withdrawal of the previously approved “Annual Report of Class I Motor Carriers of Passengers” ICR, OMB Control No. 2126-0031.
We must receive your comments on or before June 25, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0073 by using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Jeff Secrist, Office of Registration and Safety Information, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone: 202-385-2367; email
FMCSA has continued to collect carriers' annual reports and to furnish copies of the reports requested under the Freedom of Information Act. For-hire motor carriers (including interstate and intrastate) subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations are classified on the basis of their gross carrier operating revenues.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 24, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0057. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel THE BLUE PETER is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0057 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 24, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0055. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel DELPHINE is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0055 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 24, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0056. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SUITE BLUE MIDNIGHT is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0056 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On April 18, 2018, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. BARAKAT, Nasif (a.k.a. ABOUTARIF, Nassif; a.k.a. BARAKAT AL FAHILIH, Nasif Jarjis; a.k.a. BARAKAT ALVAHILH, Nasif Gergers; a.k.a. BARAKAT, Nassif; a.k.a. BARKAT, Nasif; a.k.a. BARKAT, Nassif; a.k.a. TARIF, Abu), Fahel, Syria; Germana, Damascus, Syria; Al-Qassaa, Damascus, Syria; Al Fuhaylah, Homs, Syria; DOB 20 Jun 1971; alt. DOB 30 Nov 1970; citizen Syria; Gender Male; National ID No. 04010136281 (Syria) (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: BARAKAT TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(B) of Executive Order 13581 of July 25, 2011, “Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations” (E.O. 13581) for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the BARAKAT TCO, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13581.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the BARAKAT TCO.
1. BARAKAT TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION (a.k.a. NASIF BARAKAT ALIEN SMUGGLING ORGANIZATION), Syria; Lebanon; United Arab Emirates; Turkey; Brazil; Colombia; Guatemala; Venezuela; Panama; Mexico [TCO].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 13581 for being a foreign person that constitutes a significant transnational criminal organization.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 2587, Application for Special Enrollment Examination.
Written comments should be received on or before June 25, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Sandra Lowery at Internal Revenue Service, room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 317-5754 or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
| 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 |