Page Range | 22347-22585 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
83 FR 22354 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes Republication | |
83 FR 22585 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Yemen | |
83 FR 22347 - Military Spouse Day, 2018 | |
83 FR 22490 - Agency Recordkeeping/Reporting Requirements Under Emergency Review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Comment Request | |
83 FR 22482 - Deletion of Item From Sunshine Act Meeting | |
83 FR 22536 - Sunshine Notice; June 6, 2018 Public Hearing | |
83 FR 22477 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
83 FR 22557 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
83 FR 22484 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
83 FR 22532 - Sunshine Act Notice | |
83 FR 22576 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts | |
83 FR 22575 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of Oklahoma | |
83 FR 22575 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of Illinois | |
83 FR 22574 - Declaration of Economic Injury; Administrative Declaration of an Economic Injury Disaster for the State of Colorado | |
83 FR 22441 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 22499 - National Toxicology Program Board of Scientific Counselors; Announcement of Meeting; Request for Comments | |
83 FR 22413 - Cyber Security for Byproduct Materials Licensees | |
83 FR 22578 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
83 FR 22501 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 22500 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 22499 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences: Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 22502 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 22500 - National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 22507 - National Cancer Institute Amended: Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 22535 - Revision of the NRC Enforcement Policy | |
83 FR 22576 - Commission Meeting | |
83 FR 22439 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities; Correction | |
83 FR 22480 - Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Malathion; National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion Issued Under the Endangered Species Act; Extension of Comment Period | |
83 FR 22440 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities; Correction | |
83 FR 22479 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Clean Air Act Tribal Authority (Renewal) | |
83 FR 22436 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Delaware; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standard | |
83 FR 22469 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
83 FR 22481 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
83 FR 22496 - Pediatric Oncology Subcommittee of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments | |
83 FR 22483 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
83 FR 22391 - Updates Concerning Non-Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and Related Matters | |
83 FR 22482 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
83 FR 22443 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Site Characterization Surveys Off the Coast of Massachusetts | |
83 FR 22520 - Information Collection Activities, Comment Request | |
83 FR 22523 - FM Approvals LLC: Application for Expansion of Recognition and Proposed Modification to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards | |
83 FR 22521 - MET Laboratories, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition and Modification to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards | |
83 FR 22493 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Electronic User Fee Payment Request Forms | |
83 FR 22470 - Agency Information Collection Extension | |
83 FR 22485 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review | |
83 FR 22411 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Deep-Water Species Fishery by Vessels Using Trawl Gear in the Gulf of Alaska | |
83 FR 22441 - Foreign-Trade Zone 50-Long Beach, California; Application for Subzone; VF Outdoor, LLC; Ontario, Santa Fe Springs and Corona, California | |
83 FR 22442 - Approval of Expansion of Subzone 154C; Westlake Chemical Corporation; Geismar, Louisiana | |
83 FR 22442 - Approval of Expansion of Subzone 49C; E.R. Squibb and Sons, LLC; New Brunswick, New Jersey | |
83 FR 22441 - Approval of Expansion of Subzone 116A; Motiva Enterprises LLC; Jefferson and Hardin Counties, Texas | |
83 FR 22428 - Product Jurisdiction | |
83 FR 22507 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 22502 - National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 22505 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 22505 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 22498 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 22505 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 22503 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 22579 - Notice of Funding Availability | |
83 FR 22497 - Findings of Research Misconduct | |
83 FR 22468 - Evaluation of State Coastal Management Programs | |
83 FR 22389 - 2018 Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation Areas | |
83 FR 22512 - Filing of Plats of Survey, Nebraska and Wyoming | |
83 FR 22510 - Habitat Conservation Plan for South Sacramento County, California; Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report | |
83 FR 22518 - Donald Kenneth Shreves, D.V.M.; Dismissal of Proceeding | |
83 FR 22518 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration | |
83 FR 22516 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Patheon API Manufacturing, Inc. | |
83 FR 22517 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Rhodes Technologies | |
83 FR 22517 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | |
83 FR 22519 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Xcelience | |
83 FR 22422 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
83 FR 22426 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
83 FR 22474 - FirstLight Hydro Generating Company; Notice of Authorization for Continued Project Operation | |
83 FR 22476 - Targa Crude Pipeline LLC; Notice of Request for Temporary Waiver | |
83 FR 22478 - Manifold Energy Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
83 FR 22475 - Seguro Energy Partners, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
83 FR 22474 - El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Application | |
83 FR 22473 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
83 FR 22478 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
83 FR 22476 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
83 FR 22519 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection; FBI Expungement Form (FD-1114) | |
83 FR 22575 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the State of North Carolina | |
83 FR 22536 - New Postal Products | |
83 FR 22491 - Patient-Focused Drug Development on Chronic Pain; Public Meeting; Request for Comments | |
83 FR 22391 - Security Zone; Portland Rose Festival on Willamette River | |
83 FR 22576 - Notice of Charter Renewal | |
83 FR 22495 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approvals | |
83 FR 22514 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Reclamation Awards | |
83 FR 22514 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Grants to States and Tribes | |
83 FR 22577 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
83 FR 22532 - Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC; Medical Radioisotope Production Facility | |
83 FR 22550 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Flexibly Structured Options | |
83 FR 22532 - 60-Day Notice for the “Agency Initiatives Poetry Out Loud or the Musical Theater Songwriting Challenge for High School Students” | |
83 FR 22513 - Request for Nominations for the 400 Years of African-American History Commission | |
83 FR 22488 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
83 FR 22487 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB | |
83 FR 22486 - Agency information collection activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB | |
83 FR 22490 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB | |
83 FR 22489 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB | |
83 FR 22558 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Modify the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule | |
83 FR 22537 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule | |
83 FR 22546 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend its Fees Schedule, Including Connectivity Fees, in Connection with its Technology Migration | |
83 FR 22565 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify Certain Routing Fees Related to its Equity Options Platform | |
83 FR 22552 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Memorialize Its Order and Execution Information Into Chapter VI, Section 19, Entitled Data Feeds | |
83 FR 22570 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Memorialize Order and Execution Available to Participants Into Chapter VI, Section 19, Entitled Data Feeds | |
83 FR 22567 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) Options Facility To Amend Connectivity Fees and Establish Port Fees | |
83 FR 22572 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Memorialize Its Order and Execution Information Into Phlx Rule 1070 | |
83 FR 22543 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Zero-Bid Option Series | |
83 FR 22555 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Reorganize and Amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section VII, B, Entitled “Port Fees” | |
83 FR 22539 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Reorganize and Amend The Nasdaq Options Market LLC Chapter XV, Section 3, Entitled “Nasdaq Options Market-Ports and Other Services | |
83 FR 22563 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Reorganize and Amend Chapter XV, Section 3, entitled BX Options Market-Ports and Other Services | |
83 FR 22525 - Rescissions Proposals Pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 | |
83 FR 22513 - Notice on Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sales | |
83 FR 22578 - Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Advisory Board-Notice of Public Meetings | |
83 FR 22534 - Diversified Scientific Services, Inc. | |
83 FR 22560 - TCW Direct Lending LLC, et al.; | |
83 FR 22541 - U.S. Global Investors, Inc. et al. | |
83 FR 22509 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0068 | |
83 FR 22390 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Georgiana Slough, Walnut Grove, CA | |
83 FR 22479 - Release of Final Documents Related to the Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Oxides | |
83 FR 22554 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
83 FR 22515 - Certain Radio Frequency Micro-Needle Dermatological Treatment Devices and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation | |
83 FR 22438 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Leather Finishing Operations Residual Risk and Technology Review | |
83 FR 22501 - Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Patent License: Use of the CD47 Phosphorodiamidate Morpholino Oligomers for the Treatment, Prevention, and Diagnosis of Hematological Cancers | |
83 FR 22504 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 22504 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 22498 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 22502 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 22508 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 22569 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
83 FR 22557 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
83 FR 22401 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Annual Specifications and Management Measures for the 2018 Tribal and Non-Tribal Fisheries for Pacific Whiting | |
83 FR 22442 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews: Notice of Completion of Panel Review | |
83 FR 22443 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Binational Panel Reviews: Notice of Completion of Panel Review | |
83 FR 22362 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
83 FR 22420 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
83 FR 22414 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus | |
83 FR 22417 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
83 FR 22392 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying Tobusch Fishhook Cactus From Endangered to Threatened and Adopting a New Scientific Name | |
83 FR 22387 - Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits | |
83 FR 22349 - Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes | |
83 FR 22358 - Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes | |
83 FR 22360 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
83 FR 22351 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
83 FR 22367 - Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program |
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Labor Statistics Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Foreign Assets Control Office
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 Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-03-15 for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as reports of finding abrasion damage behind the instrument panel caused by ventilation hose chafing. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective June 4, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of June 4, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by June 29, 2018.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email:
Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We issued AD 2018-03-15, Amendment 39-19188 (83 FR 6110; February 13, 2018) (“AD 2018-03-15”). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country.
Since we issued AD 2018-03-15, it has been found that an optional SCAT hose configuration may be found fitted to certain airplanes, and instructions have been clarified on the installation of the self-adhesive mounts and the tape used on the SCAT hose.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued CAA AD DCA/750XL/22A, dated February 28, 2018 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. The MCAI states:
This AD is prompted by two reports of finding abrasion damage behind
the instrument panel caused by ventilation hose chafing. This [CAA] AD supersedes DCA/750XL/22 to introduce Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) PACSB/XL/083 issue 2, dated 16 January 2018. There are no changes to the AD applicability. The PAL MSB revised to include an optional scat hose configuration which may be found fitted to certain aircraft, to clarify that the self-adhesive mounts should be attached directly to the metallic surface, and recommend that 25mm wide 3M Scotch 27 glass cloth tape is used to wrap the scat hose.
Pacific Aerospace Limited has issued Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/083, Issue 2, dated January 16, 2018. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the ventilation SCAT hose behind the instrument panel, wrapping the ventilation hose with anti-abrasion tape, and rerouting the hose. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because chafing of the ventilation hose on instrument components and wiring could cause abrasion damage and lead to a short circuit, smoke, and/or inflight fire. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $1,870, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 2 work-hours with parts costing $90, for a cost of $260 per product. The extent of abrasion damage could vary from airplane to airplane. We have no way of knowing how many airplanes may have abrasion damage or the extent of that damage to determine the cost of any necessary repair/replacement.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective June 4, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2018-03-15, Amendment 39-19188 (83 FR 6110; February 13, 2018) (“AD 2018-03-15”).
This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes, all serial numbers up to and including serial number 220, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 31: Instruments.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as reports of finding abrasion damage behind the instrument panel caused by ventilation hose chafing. We are issuing this AD to prevent such abrasion damage, which could cause short circuit of electrical equipment, smoke and/or inflight fire.
Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this AD.
(1) Within 15 days after June 4, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), inspect behind the left, center, and right instrument panels for chafing or damage following Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/083, Issue 2, dated January 16, 2018.
(2) If any chafing or damage is found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited for FAA-approved repair instructions and incorporate those instructions. Use the contact information found in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD to contact the manufacturer.
(3) If no damage is found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, within 45 days after June 4, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), do the actions in Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/083, Issue 2, dated January 16, 2018.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to the MCAI by the CAA, AD DCA/750XL/22A, dated February 28, 2018; and for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/083, Issue 2, dated January 16, 2018.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports indicating additional cracking in the inspar upper skin at wing buttock line (WBL) 157 and in the skin at two holes common to the rear spar in the same area, and rear spar web cracks were also noted on both wings. Subsequent inspections revealed that the right rear spar upper chord was almost completely severed and the left rear spar upper chord was completely severed. Additional reports identified cracking in the main landing gear (MLG) beam forward support fitting. This AD requires the installation of standard-size fasteners for a certain configuration and inspections for any crack in certain locations of the rear spar. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective June 19, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 19, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5313; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We subsequently issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) which was published in the
We issued a second SNPRM which was published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comment received. Boeing supported the 2018 SNPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the 2018 SNPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the 2018 SNPRM.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016. This service information describes procedures for repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) open hole inspections for any cracking in the forward support fitting, the aft support fitting, the rear spar upper chord, and the rear spar web at the 12 fastener holes (locations 1-12). This service information also describes procedures for optional HFEC open hole inspections for any cracking in the forward support fitting, the aft support fitting, the rear spar upper chord, and the rear spar web, and HFEC surface inspections for any cracking in the rear spar upper chord and rear spar upper web, as applicable. This service information also describes procedures for related investigative and corrective actions.
We also reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1328, dated July 22, 2016. This service information describes procedures for repetitive eddy current inspections of the left and right wing for any cracking in the inspar upper skin and at the repair parts if applicable, and related investigative and corrective actions.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 471 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities
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 June 19, 2018.
This AD affects AD 2014-12-13, Amendment 39-17874 (79 FR 39300, July 10, 2014) (“AD 2014-12-13”); and AD 2015-21-08, Amendment 39-18301 (80 FR 65921, October 28, 2015) (“AD 2015-21-08”).
(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of additional cracking in the inspar upper skin at wing buttock line 157 and in the skin at two holes common to the rear spar in the same area; rear spar web cracks were also noted on both wings. Subsequent inspections revealed that the right rear spar upper chord was almost completely severed and the left rear spar upper chord was completely severed. Additional reports identified cracking in the main landing gear (MLG) beam forward support fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the forward and aft support fittings for the MLG beam, and the rear spar upper chord and rear spar web in the area of rear spar station 224.14, which could grow and result in a fuel leak and possible fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016: At the applicable time specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016, do applicable inspections and corrective actions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
For airplanes identified as Groups 2-7 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016: At the applicable time specified in table 2 through table 9 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016, except as required by paragraph (j)(3) of this AD, do high frequency eddy current (HFEC) open hole inspections for any cracking in the forward support fitting, the aft support fitting, the rear spar upper chord, and the rear spar web at the 12 fastener holes (locations 1-12); or HFEC open hole inspections for any cracking in the forward support fitting, the aft support fitting, the rear spar upper chord, and the rear spar web, and an HFEC surface inspection for any cracking in the rear spar upper chord and rear spar upper web; as applicable; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016, except as provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, and except as required by paragraphs (h)(2) and (j)(1) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Thereafter, repeat the HFEC inspection at the applicable time specified in table 2 through table 9 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016.
(1) Options provided in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016, for accomplishing the inspection are acceptable for the corresponding requirements in the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD, provided that the inspections are done at the applicable times in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016.
(2) For Group 7, Configuration 1, airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016: Install standard-size fasteners in accordance with figures 29 and 30 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016. If the existing fastener holes exceed the permitted hole diameter, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1328, dated July 22, 2016: At the applicable time specified in table 1 and table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1328, dated July 22, 2016, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, do an eddy current inspection of the left and right wings for any cracking in the inspar upper skin, and at the repair parts if installed, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1328, dated July 22, 2016, except as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Do all related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Thereafter, repeat the eddy current inspection at the applicable time specified in table 1 and table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1328, dated July 22, 2016.
(1) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1328, dated July 22, 2016; specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1328, dated July 22, 2016, specifies a compliance time “after the Original Issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin, whichever occurs later,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(1) Accomplishing the initial inspections and applicable related investigative and corrective actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, as applicable, terminates all requirements of AD 2015-21-08.
(2) Accomplishing the initial inspections and applicable related investigative and corrective actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, as applicable, terminates all requirements of AD 2014-12-13.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-12-13 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
(5) Except as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (l)(5)(i) and (l)(5)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or sub-step is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or sub-step. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5313; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1318, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016.
(ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1328, dated July 22, 2016.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Rule document 2018-09280 was originally published on pages 19925 through 19928 in the issue of Monday, May 7, 2018. In that publication, on page 19927, in Table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, the last line was omitted from the table. The corrected document is published here in its entirety.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes and Model A319 series airplanes; all Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and all Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the holes of the upper cleat to upper stringer attachments at certain areas of the left- and right-hand wings are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires modifying the holes of the upper cleat to upper stringer attachments at certain areas of the left- and right-hand wings. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective June 11, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 11, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes and Model A319 series airplanes; all Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and all Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0117, dated July 7, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes and Model A319 series airplanes; all Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and all Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Within the scope of work of service life extension for A320 aeroplanes and of widespread fatigue damage evaluations, it has been determined that a structural modification is required to allow the aeroplanes to continue operation up to the limit of validity (LoV).
This condition, if not corrected, may affect the structural integrity of the wing.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued [service bulletin] SB A320-57-1208, providing instructions to oversize the holes of the upper cleat to upper stringer attachments at Rib 2 to Rib 7 (inclusive).
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of the affected holes.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. United Airlines agreed with the intent of the NPRM.
Allegiant Air asked that we clarify the manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs) identified in the applicability section of the proposed AD. Allegiant Air stated that the effectivity specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1208, dated November 21, 2016, identifies airplanes up to and including MSN 7493, and asked about airplanes having MSNs higher than 7493. Allegiant Air noted that it has 11 Model A320 airplanes with MSNs outside those listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1208, dated November 21, 2016. Allegiant Air added that it understands the AD takes precedence over the service information, but there are several configurations listed therein. Allegiant Air also added that since the MSNs in question are not listed in the effectivity of the service information, an operator with an MSN outside the effectivity will not know which modification kit to order.
We agree to clarify. The effectivity in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1208, dated November 21, 2016, does not include all MSNs for Model A320 airplanes, and the applicability specified in paragraph (c) of this AD includes all MSNs for Model A320 airplanes, except for airplanes having certain modifications. We acknowledge that the referenced service information may not be adequate for certain airplane configurations. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to provide an option for doing the modification, including identification of the appropriate modification kit, using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
In addition, Airbus has informed us that Revision 1 of the referenced service information will expand the effectivity to include MSNs up to 8555. Airbus has also informed us that, upon request, it will issue a technical adaptation as an interim method of compliance until a revised service bulletin is issued.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1208, dated November 21, 2016. This service information describes procedures for modifying the stringer attachments at rib 2 through rib 7 of the left- and right-hand wings. The modification includes oversizing the holes, doing an eddy current inspection of the affected holes for damage, and repair. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 1,136 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701:
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective June 11, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers, except airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Model A318 series airplanes on which Airbus Modification (Mod) 39195 has been embodied in production or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-00-1219 has been embodied in service.
(2) Model A319 series airplanes on which Airbus Mod 28238, Mod 28162, and Mod 28342 have been embodied in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the holes of the upper cleat to upper stringer attachments at rib 2 through rib 7 of the left- and right-hand wings are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in the stringer attachment holes of the wings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wings.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before reaching the upper limit, but not before reaching the lower limit, as defined in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable: Modify the holes of the upper cleat to upper stringer attachments at rib 2 through rib 7 inclusive, on the left- and right-hand wings by oversizing the holes, doing eddy current inspections of the holes for damage, and repairing any damage found before further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1208, dated November 21, 2016, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD; or using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
Where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1208, dated November 21, 2016, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0117, dated July 7, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1208, dated November 21, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as abrasion damage to the wing leading edge that could result in a fuel leak. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective June 4, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of June 4, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by June 29, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/750XL/25A, dated March 22, 2018 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. The MCAI states:
Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL091 issue 3, dated 15 March 2018 revised to include additional repair information, and [CAA] DCA/750XL/25A updated to introduce the revised SB. The MSB is issued to prevent abrasion damage to the wing leading edge. Chafing by the ventilation duct could result in a fuel leak.
Pacific Aerospace Limited has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/091, Issue 3, dated March 15, 2018. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the wing leading edge skin on both sides for chafing damage, correcting any damage found, and applying an anti-abrasion patch. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because abrasion damage of the wing leading edge skin could lead to a fuel leak. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD will affect 12 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $80 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $4,020, or $335 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $210, for a cost of $890 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 4, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Models 750XL airplanes, all serial numbers up to and including 135, except serial number 113; certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 57: Wings.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as abrasion damage to the wing leading edge that could result in a fuel leak. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this AD.
(1) Within 30 days after June 4, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), inspect the leading edge skin of both wings at the wing root following the Inspection Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/091, Issue 3, dated March 15, 2018.
(2) If any signs of chafing are found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair following Part A—Accomplishment Instructions and Part B—Accomplishment Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/091, Issue 3, dated March 15, 2018.
(3) If no signs of chafing are found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, apply the anti-abrasion patch following Part B—Accomplishment Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/091, Issue 3, dated March 15, 2018.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI by the CAA AD DCA/750XL/25A, dated March 22, 2018, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/091, Issue 3, dated March 15, 2018.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Pacific Aerospace service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-300, and 747-400 series airplanes. This AD requires replacing certain low-pressure oxygen flex-hoses with new non-conductive low-pressure oxygen flex-hoses in the gaseous passenger oxygen system in airplanes equipped with therapeutic oxygen. This AD also requires a general visual inspection of the low-pressure passenger oxygen system to ensure there is minimum clearance of the oxygen system components from adjacent structure and systems. This AD was prompted by reports of low-pressure flex-hoses of the flightcrew oxygen system that burned through due to inadvertent electrical current from a short circuit. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 30, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 30, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by June 29, 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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3570; email:
This AD was prompted by reports of low-pressure oxygen flex-hoses in the continuously pressurized flightcrew oxygen system that burned through due to inadvertent electrical current from a short circuit. Conductive oxygen hoses in the flight deck were addressed previously in AD 2010-16-05, Amendment 39-16382 (75 FR 47208, August 5, 2010) (“AD 2010-16-05”).
The gaseous passenger oxygen system equipped with therapeutic oxygen is not continuously pressurized and must be activated by the flightcrew. Exposure to electrical faults, such as unintended short circuits, can result in localized electrical heating of the low-pressure oxygen flex-hoses. This condition, if not corrected, could result in electrical current passing through the low-pressure oxygen flex-hoses, which can cause flex-hoses to melt or burn, and a consequent oxygen-fed fire in the passenger cabin.
We issued AD 2010-16-05 for certain The Boeing Company Model 747 airplanes. AD 2010-16-05 was prompted by reports of low-pressure flex-hoses of the flightcrew oxygen system that burned through due to inadvertent electrical current from a short circuit in the audio select panel. AD 2010-16-05 requires inspecting to verify the part number of the low-pressure flex-hoses of the flightcrew oxygen system installed under the oxygen mask stowage boxes in the flight deck, and replacing the flex-hose with a new non-conductive low-pressure flex-hose if necessary. We issued AD 2010-16-05 to prevent inadvertent electrical current, which can cause the low-pressure flex-hoses of the flightcrew oxygen system to melt or burn, causing oxygen system leakage and smoke or fire.
We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2134, dated November 22, 2017. The service information describes procedures for replacing certain low-pressure oxygen flex-hose assemblies with non-conductive flex-hose assemblies at multiple locations and a general visual inspection to ensure the oxygen system components have minimum clearance from adjacent structure and systems. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2134, dated November 22, 2017, described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this AD and the Service Information,” and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
Where the Condition column of Table 3 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2134, dated November 22, 2017, specifies “all airplanes,” for this AD, the Condition column of Table 3 is “airplanes on which one or more hose assemblies were replaced or disconnected.” As specified in step 3.B.12 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2134, dated November 22, 2017, the oxygen system low-pressure leak test and applicable corrective actions are only accomplished if one or more hose assemblies were replaced or disconnected.
There are currently no domestic operators of this product. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and 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
Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, we provide the following cost estimates to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective May 30, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-300, and 747-400 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2134, dated November 22, 2017.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.
This AD was prompted by reports of low-pressure flex-hoses of the flightcrew oxygen system that burned through due to inadvertent electrical current from a short circuit. We are issuing this AD to prevent electrical current from passing through the low-pressure oxygen flex-hoses in the gaseous passenger oxygen system, which can cause the flex-hoses to melt or burn, and a consequent oxygen-fed fire in the passenger cabin.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2134, dated November 22, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2134, dated November 22, 2017.
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2134, dated November 22, 2017, uses the phrase “the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”
(2) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2134, dated November 22, 2017, specifies contacting Boeing, and specifies that action as RC: This AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(3) Where the Condition column of Table 3 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2134, dated November 22, 2017, specifies “all airplanes,” for this AD, the Condition column of Table 3 is “airplanes on which one or more hose assemblies were replaced or disconnected.”
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, the hose assembly part numbers identified as “Removed hose assembly part numbers” in Table 3, “Hose Assembly Replacement,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2134, dated November 22, 2017, in the locations for hose assembly installation as identified in Figures 1 through 14 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2134, dated November 22, 2017.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3570; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2134, dated November 22, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-23-01, which applied to all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. AD 2016-23-01 required repetitive detailed inspections for cracking around the fastener holes in certain areas of the wing top skin panels, supplemental repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracking around the fastener holes in certain other areas of the wing top skin panels, and repair if necessary. This AD adds an inspection and modification of the fastener holes of the wing top skin panels at a certain area. This AD also includes terminating action for certain inspections. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) which indicates that the wing top skin panel fastener holes at a certain area are also subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective June 19, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 19, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of December 15, 2016 (81 FR 78899, November 10, 2016).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax: 206-231-3225.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2016-23-01, Amendment 39-18708 (81 FR 78899, November 10, 2016) (“AD 2016-23-01”). AD 2016-23-01 applied to all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0081, dated May 8, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Following scheduled maintenance, cracks were found around the wing top skin panels fastener holes at Rib 2, between Stringer (STG) 2 and STG14.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
To address this issue, Airbus developed an inspection programme, and published Service Bulletin (SB) A310-57-2096, providing instructions for repetitive detailed inspections (DET) to ensure that any visible cracks in the wing top skin panels 1 and 2 along Rib 2 are detected on time and repaired appropriately. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2008-0211 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2010-04-03, Amendment 39-16196 (75 FR 6852, February 12, 2010) (“AD 2010-04-03)] to require implementation of that inspection programme.
After that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus improved the inspection programme, revising SB A310-57-2096 accordingly, to include a special detailed inspection (SDI), using an ultrasonic method, to allow earlier crack detection, to subsequently reduce the scope of potential repair action, and to extend the intervals of the repetitive inspections.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0200 (later revised), retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2008-0211, which was superseded, and required supplementary repetitive SDI [for cracking] of the wing top skin panel 1 and 2 between STG2 and STG10 at Rib 2 [and repair if needed], as described in Airbus SB A310-57-2096 Revision 02.
Since EASA AD 2014-0200R1 was issued, a Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD) analysis concluded that the inspection programme had to be extended to include the wing top skin panels at Rib 3 attachments, and Airbus issued SB A310-57-2096 Revision 03 accordingly, to provide the necessary instructions. Consequently, EASA issued [EASA] AD 2016-0005 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2016-23-01], retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0200R1, which was superseded, and extending the inspection area to include Rib 3.
In addition to changes to the inspected area, WFD analysis identified structural modification points for certain fastener holes, located at each attachment from STG2 to STG10, at Ribs 2 and 3 on both wings.
Airbus developed modification (mod) 13785 and mod 13786, consisting of an SDI, followed by an oversize of the defined holes on Ribs 2 and 3 on both wings. Airbus issued SB A310-57-2106 and SB A310-57-2107 to provide in-service modification instructions for top skin attachments to Rib 2 and Rib 3 respectively. Accomplishment of these modifications at the specified time will reset the fatigue life of the attachment holes at the top skin attachment to Rib 2 and Rib 3 to the Limit of Validity (LOV). Airbus issued inspection SB A310-57-2096 Revision 04 to account for the inspection requirements post-modification.
For the reasons describe above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0005, which is superseded, requires modifications to the top skin attachment holes at Rib 2 and Rib 3, and defines the inspection requirements for Rib 2 and Rib 3 after modification.
Modification of the fastener holes at top skin ribs 2 and 3 constitutes terminating action for certain repetitive special detailed inspections. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. FedEx supported the NPRM.
We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus has issued the following service information.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 04, dated December 5, 2016. This service information describes procedures for detailed and ultrasonic inspections for cracking around the fastener holes of wing top skin panels 1 and 2, at ribs 2 and 3, on the left- and right-hand sides of the fuselage.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2106, dated November 14, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a special detailed inspection and modification of the fastener holes of wing top skin panels 1 and 2, at rib 2.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2107, dated November 14, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a special detailed inspection and modification of the fastener holes of wing top skin panels 1 and 2, at rib 3.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2016-23-01, and retained in this AD, take about 8 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2016-23-01 on U.S. operators to be $5,440, or $680 per product.
We also estimate that it takes about 95 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. Required parts will cost about $10,200 per product. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $146,200, or $18,275 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary modification will take about 40 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost of $13,400 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective June 19, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2016-23-01, Amendment 39-18708 (81 FR 78899, November 10, 2016) (“AD 2016-23-01”).
This AD applies to all Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the wing top skin panel fastener holes at ribs 2 and 3 are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around the fastener holes, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2016-23-01, with revised service information. Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Within
(1) Accomplish a detailed inspection for cracking around the fastener holes in the wing top skin panels 1 and 2, along ribs 2 and 3, between the front and rear spars on the left- and right-hand sides of the fuselage.
(2) Accomplish an ultrasonic inspection for cracking around the fastener holes in the wing top skin panels 1 and 2, along ribs 2 and 3, between stringer (STG) 2 and STG10 on the left- and right-hand sides of the fuselage.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2016-23-01, with no changes.
(1) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles or 4,100 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 18,700 flight cycles or 37,400 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after December 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-23-01).
(2) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an average flight time (AFT) of less than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles or 5,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 17,300 flight cycles or 48,400 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after December 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-23-01).
(3) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of equal to or more than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles or 7,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 12,800 flight cycles or 64,300 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after December 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-23-01).
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2016-23-01, with revised service information. For airplanes previously inspected before December 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-23-01), using Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, dated May 6, 2008; Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 01, dated August 5, 2010; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 02, dated March 5, 2014: At the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD concurrently and in sequence, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 03, dated June 30, 2015, or Revision 04, dated December 5, 2016. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 04, dated December 5, 2016, to accomplish the required actions. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at the repetitive intervals specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD within 3,500 flight hours or 1,700 flight cycles, whichever occurs first since the most recent inspection.
(2) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of less than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD within 4,600 flight hours or 1,600 flight cycles, whichever occurs first since the most recent inspection.
(3) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of equal to or more than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD within 6,100 flight hours or 1,200 flight cycles, whichever occurs first since the most recent inspection.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2016-23-01, with revised service information. If no ultrasonic equipment is available for the initial or second inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, accomplish the detailed inspection specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD. After accomplishing the detailed inspection, do the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the applicable compliance times specified by paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD. Subsequently, repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at the applicable repetitive intervals specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes not previously inspected before December 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-23-01), using the service information identified in paragraph (j)(2)(i), (j)(2)(ii), (j)(2)(iii), or (j)(2)(iv) of this AD: Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD within the initial compliance time specified by paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(2) For airplanes previously inspected before December 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-23-01), using the service information identified in paragraph (j)(2)(i), (j)(2)(ii), (j)(2)(iii), or (j)(2)(iv) of this AD: Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, dated May 6, 2008.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 01, dated August 5, 2010.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 02, dated March 5, 2014.
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 03, dated June 30, 2015.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2016-23-01, with no changes. If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g), (h), (i), or (j) of this AD, before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. Accomplishing the repair specified in this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g), (h), (i), or (j) of this AD, as applicable, for the repaired area only.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD 2016-23-01, with no changes. For the purposes of this AD, the AFT should be established as specified in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this AD for the determination of the compliance times.
(1) The inspection threshold is defined as the total flight hours accumulated (counted from take-off to touch-down), divided by the total number of flight cycles accumulated at the effective date of this AD.
(2) The initial inspection interval is defined as the total flight hours accumulated divided by the total number of flight cycles accumulated at the time of the initial inspection threshold.
(3) The second inspection interval is defined as the total flight hours accumulated divided by the total number of flight cycles accumulated between the initial and second inspection threshold. For all inspection intervals onwards, the average flight time is the flight hours divided by the flight cycles accumulated between the last two inspections.
At the compliance time specified in paragraph (n) of this AD, as applicable, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD concurrently and in sequence, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2106, dated November 14, 2016.
(1) Accomplish a special detailed inspection to determine the diameter of the fastener holes in the wing top skin panels 1 and 2, at rib 2 of both wings.
(2) Modify the fastener holes.
(1) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes: Do the actions required by paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (n)(1)(i) and (n)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 flight cycles or 93,300 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of less than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (n)(2)(i) and (n)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 flight cycles or 116,000 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(3) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of 4 hours or more: Do the actions required by paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (n)(3)(i) and (n)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 30,000 flight cycles or 150,000 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
At the compliance time specified in paragraph (p) of this AD, as applicable, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) of this AD concurrently and in sequence, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2107, dated November 14, 2016.
(1) Accomplish a special detailed inspection to determine the diameter of the fastener holes in the wing top skin panels 1 and 2, at rib 3 of both wings.
(2) Modify the fastener holes.
(1) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes: Do the actions required by paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (p)(1)(i) and (p)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 46,400 flight cycles or 92,900 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of less than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (p)(2)(i) and (p)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 45,400 flight cycles or 127,300 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(3) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of 4 hours or more: Do the actions required by paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (p)(3)(i) and (p)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 33,800 flight cycles or 169,000 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (m), (n), (o), or (p) of this AD, before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. Accomplishing the repair specified in this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g), (h), (i), or (j) of this AD, as applicable, for the repaired area only.
(1) Accomplishment of the modification specified in paragraph (m) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive special detailed inspections required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD for the modified fastener holes at top skin rib 2 for that airplane. After modification, the un-modified fastener holes at top skin rib 2 between the front and rear spars remain subject to the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(2) Accomplishment of the modification specified in paragraph (o) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive special detailed inspections required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD for the modified fastener holes at top skin rib 3 for that airplane. After modification, the un-modified fastener holes at top skin rib 3 between the front and rear spars remain subject to the repetitive inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0081, dated May 8, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax: 206-231-3225.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on June 19, 2018.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 04, dated December 5, 2016.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2106, dated November 14, 2016.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2107, dated November 14, 2016.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on December 15, 2016 (81 FR 78899, November 10, 2016).
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 03, dated June 30, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
(6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(7) 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:
Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.
Final rule.
This final rule finalizes two proposed rules in order to update and improve the regulations of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) implementing the Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Program, in order to incorporate several statutory changes enacted in recent years, address some gaps in the regulations, and improve the efficiency of the PSOB Program claims process. After careful consideration and analysis of the public comments on both proposed rules, the final rule incorporates a number of changes as discussed below.
This rule is effective June 14, 2018, except for amendatory instructions 10 (amending 28 CFR 32.12), 17 (amending 28 CFR 32.22), and 32 (amending 28 CFR 32.53), which are effective June 14, 2020.
Hope Janke, Bureau of Justice Assistance; Telephone: (202) 514-6278, or toll-free at (888) 744-6513.
The Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Program provides a statutory death benefit to certain survivors of public safety officers who are fatally injured in the line of duty, disability benefits to public safety officers catastrophically injured in the line of duty, and education benefits to certain of the survivors and family members of the foregoing public safety officers. Under the Program, claims are filed with, and adjudicated by, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) of the U.S. Department of Justice. The regulations for the PSOB Program are codified at 28 CFR part 32.
OJP published two proposed rules for the PSOB Program, one on July 15, 2016, 81 FR 46019 (“PSOB I”), and the other on August 22, 2016, 81 FR 57348 (“PSOB II”). PSOB I primarily focused on certain changes needed to implement statutory changes made by the Dale Long Act (affecting members of rescue squad and ambulance crews, as well as provisions related to certain heart attack/stroke/vascular rupture cases), and also to align the workings of the PSOB Program with certain provisions under the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program, as well as with the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF). PSOB II was to implement recent statutory changes, address some gaps in the regulations, and to improve the efficiency of the PSOB Program claims process.
During the comment periods, OJP received comments on its proposed rules from various parties. After further review of the proposed rules and careful consideration and analysis of all comments on both proposed rules, OJP has made amendments that are incorporated into this final rule. In addition, the final rule includes a technical change necessitated by the newly-enacted provisions of the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act of 2017, Public Law 115-36, 131 Stat. 841 (June 2, 2017). The final rule also includes (non-substantive) changes to myriad cross-references to statutory provisions, referred to in the regulations, that—effective September 1, 2017—were reclassified by the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives from title 42 of the U.S. Code to title 34 of the U.S. Code.
During the comment period, OJP received comments on its proposed rules from a number of interested parties: Various national police-, fire-, and rescue associations and unions; a foundation supporting 9/11 responders; an organization that provides support and assistance to the survivors of fallen law enforcement officers; a prosecutor and former claims attorney, and two members of Congress. OJP received input from a total of 7 commenters on the first proposed rule, and 8 commenters on the second rule.
After careful consideration and analysis of all comments received, OJP has made amendments that are incorporated into this consolidated final rule. The final rule also contains a few clarifying changes to provisions in the proposed rule where there were some previously unnoticed ambiguities, or where the language was more complex than necessary. A summary overview of the changes made by the final rule follows below, with a more complete discussion (below that) of the provisions of the rule, the public comments received on the proposed rule, the Department's response, and the final changes incorporated into the final rule.
Pursuant to 34 U.S.C. 10287, this final rule is intended (insofar as consistent with law) to be effective and applicable to all claims from and after the effective date hereof, whether pending (in any stage) as of that date or subsequently filed.
The final rule makes the following conforming changes required by the Dale Long Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act of 2012 (Dale Long Act), Public Law 112-239, which, among other things, added (as codified at 34 U.S.C. 10282(9)(D)) as a new category of public safety officer—“a member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew who, as authorized or licensed by law and by the applicable agency or entity, is engaging in rescue activity or in the provision of emergency medical services”. The following changes implement the inclusion of the new category of public safety officer by the following revisions and additions to the PSOB regulations:
• Revise definition of
• Revise definition of
• Revise definition of
• Add a definition for
• Revise definition of
• Remove definition of
• Redesignate and revise definition for
The Dale Long Act also amended some provisions in the PSOB Act relating to cases involving heart attacks, strokes, or vascular rupture cases. The following changes in the final rule implement those changes:
• Define
The Dale Long Act also amended provisions of the PSOB Act affecting the payment offset scheme for the PSOB Program relative to the September 11th VCF Program. The final rule makes the following changes in the regulations to implement these amendments, and also makes changes in order to align the PSOB Program with WTC Health Program and the VCF Program:
• Revise the definition of
• Add definition for
• Add definition for
• Add definition for
• Amend the
The final rule makes the following changes in response to identified ambiguities and gaps in existing regulations, as well as opportunities to simplify and improve the program's administration:
• Amends the
• Amends
• Amends
• Amends
• Amends
• Makes express the coverage of certain trainees by defining new terms (
• Amends the definition of
• Makes express the circumstances under which officers engaging in public safety activity outside of their jurisdictions would be considered to be acting in the line of duty by adding a series of presumptions in the
• Amends the
• Amends the
• Amends the
• Removes definitions for
This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis. The rule is expect to lead to an increase in transfer payments. In addition, it will result in net cost savings of approximately $24,723 per year to claimants and public safety agencies in substantiating claims. As set out in more detail below, this figure is based on the estimated annual cost savings to the public from changes to the Dale Long Act implementing provisions that will reduce the number of independent medical reviews required; and a variety of marginal efficiencies and burden reduction for claimants created by certain streamlined provisions and definitions.
This section sets forth the timeframes, means, and deadlines for filing a claim. The proposed rule sets forth some changes relating to specification of what would be considered “good cause” for purposes of waiver of filing deadlines. OJP received some comments on the PSOB I proposed rule expressing concern that “good cause” did not cover circumstances in which a claimant does not file a claim within time due to a lack of regulation or process such as 9/11 exposure claims, and in these comments OJP was asked to add to the proposed definition of “good cause” two provisions to address such circumstances. One commenter suggested that OJP create a three-year filing window for 9/11-health related death or disability claims similar to that provided in VCF regulations that runs from three years of the date of the regulation's publication. Another commenter recommended that “good cause” also be extended to cases in which the claimant's death or disability claim was not covered by the PSOB Program at the time of the officer's death or disability or in cases where regulations permitting such a claim were not promulgated in time for a claim to be timely made.
OJP agrees that 9/11 exposure claimants should be provided with additional time to file claims for death and disability benefits. Rather than define “good cause,” OJP has decided that particular issues can be best addressed by establishing specific exceptions to the regulations that prescribe the time for filing death and disability claims. Accordingly, the final rule amends those sections.
The final rule also makes minor technical changes for clarity at §§ 32.2(c) and 32.2(g) to make express reference to the Director of BJA's authority to prescribe filing of claims by electronic means (§ 32.2(g)), in anticipation of the rollout of the new online PSOB claim system.
The proposed rules presented various technical and substantive changes/additions to the definitions sections of the rule in order to implement certain statutory changes (in particular, the Dale Long Act), and also to align the PSOB program with the WTC Health Program.
The Dale Long Act amended the PSOB Act to include a new category of public safety officer—“a member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew who, as authorized or licensed by law and by the applicable agency or entity, is engaging in rescue activity or in the provision of emergency medical services”. This amendment removed the requirement that an individual member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew be a “public employee”, and also established the requirement that employee- and volunteer members of public agency and nonprofit entity ambulance squads and rescue crews actually be engaging in rescue activity or providing emergency medical services in order to qualify as public safety officers under the Act.
The proposed rule provided revised definitions for
Accordingly, the final rule amends the program regulations in a more efficient way (with the same substantive result proposed to be reached in PSOB II)—
The Dale Long Act amended the statutory presumption in the PSOB Act covering certain fatal heart attacks, strokes, and vascular ruptures (at 34 U.S.C. 10281(k). Specifically, the new language provides that the presumption of coverage is overcome if “competent medical evidence establishes that the heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture was unrelated to the engagement or participation or was directly and proximately caused by something other than the mere presence of cardiovascular-disease risk factors.”
PSOB I proposed to add definitions for
Another commenter supported the proposed rule and stated that it would eliminate unnecessary medical evidence; another stated that the proposed rule would implement the Hometown Heroes Act as Congress intended. One commenter noted that the Dale Long Act did not define the phrase “something other than the mere presence of cardiovascular disease risk factors” and stated that the proposed definition did not support the intent of the Dale Long Act of ensuring that the families of officers who died or were permanently and totally disabled in the line of duty were provided benefits, and asked that the proposed definition be removed from the final rule. OJP appreciates these comments but does not agree, that the proposed definition is contrary to the intent of the Dale Long Act, or that it would limit the availability of benefits other than as the statute already has directed. The statutory term is key to determining when the presumption afforded by 34 U.S.C. 10281(k) is rebutted. In itself, the phrase “something other than” is inherently ambiguous; to leave it undefined invites uncertainty. Accordingly, by defining the term in the regulation, OJP provides clarity and direction as to the circumstances under which the presumption would be rebutted, and the nature of the additional evidentiary development and medical review of the record that may be required in certain cases. Accordingly, the final rule adopts, with minor, non-substantive change, the language of the proposed rule, which implements the statutory changes by providing definitions of the statutory terms, so that claimants are informed under what circumstances the presumption provided at 34 U.S.C. 10281(k) may be overcome.
PSOB I proposed to amend the PSOB regulations in an effort to align the PSOB Program with the WTC Health Program and the VCF Program: Defining new terms—
One commenter stated that although it was generally supportive of the regulatory changes proposed to address the unique circumstances of 9/11 claims, it noted that OJP relied on an outdated version of VCF's definition of “physical harm” in 28 CFR 104.2. The commenter noted that the current rule, codified at 104.2(d) as published in the
The proposed rule did not include a definition for “medically associated” (a term included in the proposed amendment of the definition of
Although the proposed rule did not include “medically associated” conditions within its definition, after careful consideration, OJP recognizes that a condition certified by the Administrator of the WTC Health Program as “medically associated” with a WTC-related health condition could be an injury that directly and proximately causes a public safety officer's death or permanent and total disability. Accordingly, the final rule replaces the definition of
OJP is not inclined, despite encouragement by one commenter, independently to determine when a condition is “medically associated,” because OJP has determined that it should rely on the expertise of the WTC Health Program in these matters. As revised in the final rule, the definition of a “WTC-related health condition” allows the agency to use certain provisions of the WTCHP in determining whether a responder suffered an “injury” in connection with his response to the September 11, 2001, attacks. To further this alignment of the PSOB Program with the WTC Health Program, the final rule also defines the terms
OJP had attempted, in its proposed rule, to expand coverage under the PSOB Program to include trainees (and certain others) as “public safety officers” under circumstances in which they have no authority to engage in public safety activity, and also to expand coverage to officers responding outside of their jurisdiction where no law authorized such response. A number of commenters understandably applauded these proposed provisions, strictly on policy grounds, rather than on the basis of anything authorized by the law. Regarding the proposed addition of trainees (and others) as public safety officers and coverage of officers acting outside of their jurisdictions where no law authorized such action, however, one commenter forcefully pointed out that the provision was contrary to the language of the PSOB Act and to the legislative history of the Dale Long Act, and that a provision covering injuries sustained by law enforcement trainees with no authority to enforce the law was at odds with
Upon further reflection, careful review of PSOB rulings by the federal courts,
OJP has concluded that the specific expansions that were proposed to cover trainees and officers acting outside their jurisdictions, however desirable, may be accomplished only through legislation. For this reason, the final rule does not include the specific expansions proposed. Nonetheless, the final rule does modify the current regulations to make express that trainee officers
Similarly, for an officer acting outside of his jurisdiction, the final rule clarifies the circumstances when such an officer would be covered, through the mechanism of certain evidentiary presumptions. (See discussion below of
The Dale Long Act amended the definition of “child” under the PSOB Act by tying the term, for the first time, specifically to “
In OJP's current practice, when it receives an application for benefits that lacks the basic required documents
In an effort to improve the efficiency of claims processing, PSOB II proposed to add a new provision, at § 32.9, setting forth a new notion, called “
OJP did not receive specific comments about the proposed § 32.9. As discussed below, however, at
PSOB II proposed changes to the existing definitions of
Since the proposed rule was published, however, the legal landscape with regard to the limitations provision in the PSOB Act has changed significantly. Enacted on June 2, 2017, the PSOB Improvements Act of 2017 amended 34 U.S.C. 10282 to provide that when determining a PSOB claim, OJP “shall presume that none of limitations” in 34 U.S.C. 10282(a) applies, and that it “shall not determine that a limitation . . . applies, absent clear and convincing evidence.” Public Law 115-36.
This statutory amendment alters how the agency must apply 34 U.S.C. 10282. OJP has determined that most of the proposed changes to the definition of
A few commenters commented on the proposed amendment of the definition of
OJP declines to expand the definition of “authorized commuting” to include all travel to and from work, as this would be inconsistent with the rationale and legal basis for the current rule. The current rule is based on well-established exceptions to the “coming and going” rule and covers three categories of work-related travel situations that indicate a connection between the officer's employment and the circumstances of the officer's injury such that the injury can be said to have been sustained in the line of duty.
The final rule amends the definition in a slightly different way from the proposed rule, but with substantially the same result of including as
Two commenters supported the proposed rule's revision of the term “line of duty injury” to include those injuries sustained as a result of retaliation for actions taken in the line of duty by an officer. Consistent with
With respect to non-profit volunteer fire departments, the proposed rule introduced a new definition of
The definition is modified to reflect current jurisprudence, including the holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a PSOB case decided only last year,
PSOB II proposed various other changes to the definitions (not otherwise discussed above), which are not adopted in the final rule:
•
•
When it approves claims for the benefits payable under the PSOBA and related statutes, the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs has a legal duty to do so judiciously. The Bureau has the concurrent duty to be both the impartial administrator of the PSOBA according to the law and the impartial guardian of the public treasury with respect to it. Failure to administer the PSOBA program in keeping with these two principles could jeopardize the program's continued existence. It is just as problematic for the program if the Department of Justice pays a PSOBA claim when payment is not unequivocally warranted by the PSOBA program statutes and implementing regulations, or is not supported by the evidence, as it is for the Department to deny payment when payment is clearly required.
Under 31 U.S.C. 3528, every Department official who determines PSOBA claims and/or certifies payments is personally “responsible for . . . repaying a payment [that is] illegal, improper, or incorrect because of an inaccurate or misleading certificate; [that is] prohibited by law; or . . . that does not represent a legal obligation under the appropriation . . . involved” unless the determination “was based on official records and the official did not know, and by reasonable diligence and inquiry could not have discovered, the correct information.” Under 31 U.S.C. 3528, every Department official who determines PSOBA claims and/or certifies payments is personally “responsible for . . . repaying a payment [that is] illegal, improper, or incorrect because of an inaccurate or misleading certificate; [that is] prohibited by law; or . . . that does not represent a legal obligation under the appropriation . . . involved” unless the determination “was based on official records and the official did not know, and by reasonable diligence and inquiry could not have discovered, the correct information.”
Moreover, under 31 U.S.C. 1301(a), a payment pursuant to a legally unwarranted PSOBA determination would appear to be a
Every PSOBA case is a legal claim against the Treasury, and the [PSOB] regulations and consistent administrative precedents have helped to ensure that the Federal Government, which is in the midst of its greatest debt crisis since the Founding, decides these claims strictly in accordance with the PSOBA and the underlying law governing legal gratuities, in a generally consistent and orderly manner over time, and based on real, objective, and legally sufficient evidence that objectively meets the standards of proof set forth in the law, rather than speculation, fancied legislative intent, uncorroborated assertions, biased evidence, a slanted record, incomplete information, or sympathy, however understandable or deeply felt.
•
The final rule makes a change to this section to make it parallel to a provision of the PSOB Act (at 34 U.S.C. 10285(d)), so that the same rule regarding the operation of the legal doctrine of incorporation applies both in the PSOB Act and in the PSOB regulations.
As discussed in Section B.4 above, the PSOB II rule proposed,
After reconsidering the regulatory and statutory schemes, OJP is adopting amendments to § 32.5 in this final rule, to establish certain evidentiary presumptions that will accomplish as much of the substance of the rule proposed as may be accomplished without statutory change. The new paragraphs (j), (k) and (
• Section 32.5(j) provides that public safety activity performed by a law enforcement officer or firefighter is presumed to be activity or action that he is obligated or authorized to perform under the auspices of the public agency he serves if—(1) the public safety activity is not forbidden (by law, rule, regulation, condition of employment, etc.); and (2) the officer performs the public safety activity either (a) within his jurisdiction (
• Section 32.5(k) establishes that the requirements of § 32.5(j) generally will be presumed to be satisfied if full line-of-duty death or disability benefits have been paid in the ordinary course.
• Section 32.5(
In PSOB II, OJP proposed a new definition of
PSOB II proposed to make certain amendments to § 32.5, including amendments relating to the presumption at 34 U.S.C. 10281(k) (affecting heart attack/stroke/vascular rupture cases) (§ 32.5(i), to general evidentiary rules (§§ 32.5(b) and (c); 32.5(k)), and to WTC-related health conditions. Although these proposals garnered some comments favoring the policy, the proposals also were the object of very forceful negative commentary (which included citation to H.R. Rep. 112-548 (accompanying the Dale Long Act))—almost entirely of a legal nature—opining that the several proposals variously would “write[ ] the very meaning of [certain language] out of the PSOB statute,” would “swallow” exceptions established in the PSOB Act, appeared to involve “overreach by DOJ to get around statutory language in order to pay claims,” and would produce “case after case in litigation.”
After further reflection on the comments received, and after close consideration of the stern admonition in H.R. Rep. 112-548 to the effect that the PSOB Act's “requirements [are] firmly established in the law and therefore [are] to be given full effect, rather than minimized, ignored, or interpreted away, judicially or administratively,” H. Rep. No. 112-548 (2012), OJP agrees largely with the negative commentary it received. Accordingly—with one partial exception involving WTC-related health conditions—the final rule does not include the proposed changes to § 32.5. In the final rule, the substance of the change proposed to be made to § 32.5 involving WTC-related health conditions is being implemented, instead, through a direct amendment to the definition of
OJP proposed to amend this provision to specify how the PSOB Program will calculate the offset of PSOB death or disability benefits based on the actual net amount of compensation paid to or on behalf of a public safety officer under the September 11th VCF program after all VCF-mandated offsets have been subtracted. No comments were received on the proposal, which is included in the final rule without substantive change.
Various changes were proposed to the fee provisions in the current regulations to establish the maximum fees that may
The final rule provides for a percentage-fee arrangement as an option that may be used in appropriate circumstances to determine attorneys' fees. That is, claimants may choose the new percentage-fee approach in lieu of the traditional fee petition process (entailing submission of itemized specifics of fees) that is in place under the current rule. Petitions for authorization to receive fees in amounts greater than those specified in in the percentage-fee provision (or under circumstances not covered by that provision) otherwise will be continue to be considered as they are at present under this section of the regulations.
In response to the comments on the proposed rule's changes to § 32.2
Much of the proposed rule, and of the public comments, concerned circumstances under which OJP may consider a claim abandoned, and what to do when a claim cannot be properly processed because evidence is lacking (at times through no fault of the claimant), and the mechanics of a contemplated “complete applications” scheme. Consistent with the thrust of the proposed rule (but not its precise terminology and mechanics), the final rule provides an optional pre-claim evidence collection period mechanism that stops the filing-deadline clock so that individuals are given time to gather the basic foundational evidence without the looming prospect of a claim's being deemed abandoned. Individuals will have the option of filing a “notice of intent to file”, rather than filing a claim directly, in order to afford them time to gather the “foundational evidence” needed to establish a claim. This approach, together with the new, online PSOB application system currently in beta-testing, will improve clarity and transparency throughout the process regarding the status of filings and claims, and avoid delays occasioned by miscommunication and misunderstandings regarding claim requirements and status. Throughout this period and the claim process period, the PSOB Office will continue to assist individuals in obtaining information needed to move a claim forward, using its subpoena authority wherever and whenever appropriate and necessary.
The final rule makes conforming changes largely related to the modified claims processing procedures described in B.6, above, and to the phrasing in the rest of the rule.
The final rule makes conforming changes related to the Dale Long Act amendment adding a new category of public safety officer, described in B.1, above.
The final rule makes conforming changes related to the Dale Long Act amendment related to distribution of benefits under 34 U.S.C. 10281(a).
The final rule makes conforming changes related to the modified claims processing procedures described in B.6, above, and to the phrasing in the rest of the rule.
The final rule makes conforming changes related to the Dale Long Act amendment adding a new category of public safety officer, described in B.1, above.
The final rule removes and reserves this section to conform to the Dale Long Act amendment related to distribution of benefits under 34 U.S.C. 10281(a).
The final rule makes a grammatical correction.
The final rule makes non-substantive, stylistic changes, to conform the phrasing to the rest of the rule.
The final rule adds language that is substantively the same as language proposed in PSOB II, relating to who may examine claimants during hearings.
The final rule makes a grammatical correction.
In keeping with the proposed rule, the final rule amends this section to allow reconsideration of certain denied claims where the public safety officer was WTC responder.
The final rule makes stylistic, conforming changes related to the modified claims processing procedures described in B.6, above, and to the phrasing in the rest of the rule.
The final rule removes language that unnecessarily repeats the substance of language in 34 U.S.C. 10287.
This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation. The Office of Justice Programs has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” (though not an “economically significant” action) under section 3(f) of the Executive Order 12866, and accordingly this rule has been reviewed
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). As explained below, the agency has assessed the costs and benefits of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 and 13563 and has determined that the benefits of the rule justify the costs.
The final rule may result in a de-minimis—approximately one percent of BJA's annual outlays for the PSOB Program—increase in transfer payments going forward, which BJA estimates at approximately 3 claims, or $1,032,000 per year.
OMB's April 5, 2017, guidance on E.O. 13771 (M-17-21), explains, with regard to transfer payments, that—
BJA amends this provision to authorize BJA to require that claimants file claims electronically. In October 2017, BJA deployed its online filing system, PSOB 2.0, which standardizes submission of electronic forms. Since that time, PSOB has required and only received electronic submissions. This provisions codifies the requirement that claims be submitted electronically. The electronic filing system typically saves claimants one hour per form, because the system automatically prompts users for missing items, hides irrelevant fields, and eliminates form version control problems. PSOB 2.0 allows claimants to review the contents of their claim files online and retrieve documents as needed from their submissions without the need to call or request that BJA copy and send such documents by mail, thus reducing printing and mailing costs, and the administrative time BJA staff spend handling these issues. The changes do not change the substance of the required forms, or create any new procedural or evidentiary requirements, and thus impose no new burdens on claimants.
BJA makes conforming changes to address the Dale Long Act provisions that expanded the types of rescue squad and ambulance crew members covered under the PSOB Act to include non-public employee members of such squads or crews, under certain circumstances. Any potential costs for additional payable claims are created by the Dale Long Act, which has been in effect and implemented by BJA since 2013, and not by the conforming changes made by this rule. The changes will marginally reduce burdens on BJA and claimants by making the text of the PSOB rule conform to the statute.
BJA makes conforming and interpretive changes to address the Dale Long Act provisions that amend the PSOB Act standards at 34 U.S.C. 10281(k), for cases involving heart attacks, strokes, or vascular ruptures. The PSOB Act, as amended by the Hometown Heroes Survivors' Benefits Act of 2003, but prior to the Dale Long Act amendment in 2013, contained a presumption allowing payment of death benefits under certain circumstances to public safety officers who died of heart attacks or strokes, unless the presumption was overcome by “competent medical evidence to the contrary.” The Dale Long Act, among other things, added vascular ruptures to the presumption (in addition to heart attacks and strokes), and elaborated on what evidence would overcome the presumption—
BJA makes conforming changes to the rule to include vascular ruptures, consistent with 34 U.S.C. 10281(k)(3), to define more precisely the circumstances under which the statutory presumption relating to heart attacks, strokes, and vascular ruptures would be overcome. This will create no costs beyond those created by the Dale Long Act. In short, BJA defines
These interpretive amendments conform the rule to the statutory provision, and impose no costs beyond those additional transfer payments created by the statute itself. The rules should reduce the number of claims sent to an independent medical review, and the associated costs. BJA estimates that these changes will eliminate the need for approximately 41 medical reviews each year, saving BJA approximately $67,732 annually in medical review costs,
BJA makes changes to provisions affecting the PSOB payments related to the September 11, 2001, attacks.
First, it provides that OJP will rely on the expertise of the WTC Health Program in making a determination as to whether a condition resulted from a WTC responder's 9/11 exposures, and thus an
Second, it specifies how offset of PSOB benefits by September 11th VCF benefits (a requirement of the Dale Long Act) will be calculated. Offset is required by statute, which the rule merely implements—thus, it creates no new costs.
Third, it clarifies that PSOB claimants whose payments are offset are still eligible for PSOB educational assistance. This change reflects BJA's current practice and the statutory framework;
Fourth, it provides additional time for 9/11 exposure claimants to file their
BJA makes express the coverage of certain public safety officer trainees by adding new terms,
BJA makes a conforming change to this definition related to the Dale Long Act. It creates no new costs.
This rule creates a pre-claim process by which claimants may stay the claim filing deadline while they continue to gather necessary evidence, and BJA may more expeditiously issue a final determination on claims that patently lack necessary evidence. BJA anticipates that this procedure will allow it to better allocate resources to reviewing completed files, and will clarify for reporting purposes which files are “ripe” and should be counted as claims pending with BJA versus those where the claimant is still gathering evidence. BJA expects that this will preempt the need for hearing officer proceedings in several claims each year, and marginally reduce the burden on program staff. Hearing officer proceedings can cost several thousand dollars (or more when claimant attorneys' fees are factored in), thus BJA expects this provision to save several thousand dollars each year for BJA and claimants.
BJA amends the definition of
BJA amends the definition of
BJA amends the term
BJA adds a legal presumption that volunteer fire departments meeting specified criteria satisfy certain elements of the definition of
BJA amends the definition of
BJA makes a technical change conforming the rule to the PSOB Act. This change creates no new costs.
BJA makes express the circumstances under which officers engaging in public safety activity outside of their jurisdictions would be considered to be acting in the line of duty, by adding a series of presumptions in the
BJA makes a conforming change to
BJA amends this provision to implement offset of PSOB death and disability benefits by September 11th VCF program compensation. The amendments reflect BJA's current practice and create no new costs.
BJA amends this section to provide a percentage-fee option, which offers a simplified and more transparent way for attorneys to determine how much they can charge for representing PSOB claimants in their PSOB claims, and eliminates the need for BJA to review fee petitions in such cases. BJA anticipates the change will not result in increased payment of attorneys' fees, but will reduce BJA's administrative burden by 2.5 hours of GS-14 time for
BJA makes certain changes to filing deadlines for 9/11 claimants—see costs-benefit discussion above in paragraph III.B.3.
BJA makes conforming or technical changes to sections 32.14, 32.15, 32.16, 32.24, 32.25, 32.26, 32.32, 32.44, 32.45, 32.52, 32.54, and 32.55, and removes the definitions of
This rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the federal government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The PSOB program statutes provide benefits to individuals and do not impose any special or unique requirements on States or localities. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order No. 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) & (b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988. Pursuant to section 3(b)(1)(I) of the Executive Order, nothing in this rule or any previous rule (or in any administrative policy, directive, ruling, notice, guideline, guidance, or writing) directly relating to the Program that is the subject of this rule is intended to create any legal or procedural rights enforceable against the United States, except as the same may be contained within part 32 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule addresses federal agency procedures; furthermore, this rule makes amendments to clarify existing regulations and agency practice concerning public safety officers' death, disability, and education benefits and does nothing to increase the financial burden on any small entities. Therefore, an analysis of the impact of this rule on such entities is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The PRA requires certain actions before an agency can adopt or revise a collection of information, including publishing a summary of the collection of information and a brief description of the need for and proposed use of the information. 44 U.S.C. 3507.
This rule would not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The PSOB program is a federal benefits program that provides benefits directly to qualifying individuals. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Education, Emergency medical services, Firefighters, Law enforcement officers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rescue squad.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 32 of chapter I of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
34 U.S.C. ch. 101, subch. XI; 34 U.S.C. 10110, 10221(a), 10225, 10226, 10251(a), 10261(a)(4) & (b), 10272, 110286, 10287, 10288; Pub. L. 90 351, title IX, sec. 1601, 82 Stat. 239; Pub. L. 94 430, secs. 4 through 6, 90 Stat. 1348; Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, sec. 1000(a)(1) [title I, sec. 108(a)], 113 Stat. 1535, 1501A-20, as amended by Pub. L. 107-56, title VI, sec. 614, 115 Stat. 370, and codified (as amended) as a statutory note to 34 U.S.C. 10110; Pub. L. 106-553, sec. 1(a)(2) [title I, sec. 108], 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A-6; Pub. L. 107 37, secs. 1 and 2, 115 Stat. 219.
The addition reads as follows:
(g) The Director may prescribe that—
(1) Any filing be filed using electronic means, in which case it shall be deemed filed when it is submitted electronically; and
(2) Any notice, within the meaning of paragraph (c) of this section, be served by the PSOB Office upon an individual by electronic means (such as by telefacsimile or electronic mail addressed to the individual (or to his representative) at his (or his representative's) last address known to such Office), in which case it shall be deemed served on the day that such notice is sent.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(1) In the course of actually responding (as authorized)—
(i) Directly to a fire, rescue, or police emergency; or
(ii) To a particular and extraordinary request (by such public safety agency) for that specific officer to perform public safety activity (including emergency response activity the agency is authorized to perform), within his line of duty; or
(2) Under circumstances not described in paragraph (1) of this definition—
(i) While using a vehicle provided by such agency, pursuant to a requirement or authorization by such agency that he use the same for travel to and from work; or
(ii) While using a vehicle not provided by such agency, pursuant to a requirement by such agency that he use the same for work.
(1) Commissioning of such individual as a law enforcement officer;
(2) Conferral upon such individual of official authority to engage in fire suppression (as an officer or employee of a public fire department or as an officially recognized or -designated member of a legally organized volunteer fire department); or
(3) The granting to such individual of official authorization or -license to engage in rescue activity, or in the provision of emergency medical services, as a member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew that is (or is part of) the agency or entity sponsoring the individual's enrollment or admission
(1) In which the fact (or facts) asserted is the matter specified in § 32.5(f)(3);
(2) That expressly indicates that all of the terms used in making the assertion described in paragraph (1) of this definition (or used in connection with such assertion) are within the meaning of the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10286 or Public Law 107-37, and of this part; and
(3) That otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10286 or Public Law 107-37, and of this part.
(1) Who meets the definition provided in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10284(3); and
(1) Controlled substances within the meaning of the drug control and
(2) Any physical matter (other than alcohol, or anything described in paragraph (1) of this definition) whose introduction into (or presence otherwise in) the human body, ordinarily or objectively can result in a disturbance of mental or physical faculties.
(2) * * *
(iii) Engaging in activity (or in the provision of services) described in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10284(9)(D), under the authority (or by the license) of a public agency (with respect to rescue squad or ambulance crew members).
(1) The individual upon whose injury the claim is predicated—
(i) Was a public safety officer as of the injury date; and
(ii) As the direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty, either—
(A) Died (with respect to a claim under subpart B of this part); or
(B) Became permanently and totally disabled (with respect to a claim under subpart C of this part); and
(2) With respect to a claim under subpart B of this part, the claimant is an eligible payee.
(1) Who believes that he may be an eligible payee;
(2) Who has filed a notice of intention to file a claim; and
(3) Who has no claim pending.
(1) * * *
(i) Whose primary function (as applicable) is public safety activity, only if, not being described in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10282(a), and not being commuting or a frolic or detour—
(A) It is activity or an action that he is obligated or authorized by statute, rule, regulation, condition of employment or service, official mutual-aid agreement, or other law, to perform (including any social, ceremonial, or athletic functions (or any official training programs of his public agency) to which he is assigned, or for which he is compensated), under the auspices of the public agency he serves; and
(B) Such agency (or the relevant government) legally recognizes that activity or action to have been so obligated or authorized at the time performed (or, at a minimum, does not deny (or has not denied) it to have been such); or
(ii) Whose primary function is not public safety activity, only if, not being described in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10282(a), and not being commuting or a frolic or detour—
(A) It is activity or an action that he is obligated or authorized by statute, rule, regulation, condition of employment or service, official mutual-aid agreement, or other law, to perform (including any social, ceremonial, or athletic functions (or any official training programs of his public agency) to which he is assigned, or for which he is compensated), under the auspices of the public agency he serves;
(B) It is performed (as applicable) in the course of public safety activity (including emergency response activity the agency is authorized to perform), or taking part (as a trainer or trainee) in an official training program of his public agency for such activity, and such agency (or the relevant government) legally recognizes it to have been such at the time performed (or, at a minimum, does not deny (or has not denied) it to have been such); and
(C) Such agency (or the relevant government) legally recognizes (or, at a minimum, does not deny (or has not denied) that activity or action to have been—
(
(
(4) A member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew, only if, not being described in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10282(a), and not being commuting or a frolic or detour, it is performed in the course of rescue activity (or of the provision of emergency medical services) that he is authorized or licensed, by law and by his public safety agency, to engage in (or provide) as described in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10284(9)(D), and such agency (and the relevant government) legally recognizes it to have been such at the time performed (or, at a minimum, does not deny (or has not denied) it to have been such).
(2) In connection with any claim in which the injury is not sustained as described in paragraph (1) of this definition:
(i) The injured party's status as a public safety officer was a substantial contributing factor in the injury; and
(ii) Where the injury is brought about by the hostile action of an individual—
(A) The individual knew of the injured party's status as a public safety officer; and
(B) Nothing else motivated the individual's taking of his hostile action to so great a degree as either of the following did:
(
(
(1) That is officially sponsored, -conducted, or -authorized by his public safety agency; and
(2) Whose purpose is to train public safety officers of his kind in (or to improve their skills in), specific activity or actions encompassed within their respective lines of duty.
(1) A public agency—
(i) That an individual described in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10284(9)(A), serves in an official capacity; or
(ii) For which an employee described in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10284(9)(B) or (C) performs official duties; or
(2) An agency or entity under whose authority (or by whose license) a member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew engages in activity (or in the provision of services) described in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10284(9)(D).
(1) In connection with a claim, the term does not include anyone upon whose injury the claim is predicated; and
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
(i) For an individual purporting to be a spouse on the basis of a common-law marriage (or a putative marriage), or on any other basis, to be considered a spouse within the meaning of this definition, it is necessary (but not sufficient) for the jurisdiction of domicile of the parties to recognize such individual as the lawful spouse of the other individual; and
(ii) In deciding who may be the spouse of a public safety officer—
(A) The relevant jurisdiction of domicile is the officer's (as of the injury date); and
(B) With respect to a claim under subpart B of this part, the relevant date is that of the officer's death.
(1) That begins upon the filing of a notice of intention to file a claim, and ends upon the earlier of—
(i) One year thereafter (unless, for good cause shown, the Director extends the period); or
(ii) The date on which such claim is filed; and
(2) During which an intention-notice filer may collect and assemble supporting evidence for his intended claim.
(1) With respect to alcohol,
(i) In any claim arising from a public safety officer's death in which the death was simultaneous (or practically simultaneous) with the injury, it means intoxication as defined in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10284(5), unless convincing evidence demonstrates that the officer did not introduce the alcohol into his body intentionally; and
(ii) In any claim not described in paragraph (1)(i) of this definition, unless convincing evidence demonstrates that the officer did not introduce the alcohol into his body intentionally, it means intoxication—
(A) As defined in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10284(5),
(B) As of the injury date; and
(2) With respect to drugs or other substances, it means intoxication as defined in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10284(5), as evidenced by the presence (as of the injury date) in the body of the public safety officer—
(i) Of any of the following, unless convincing evidence demonstrates that the introduction of the controlled substance into the body was not a culpable act of the officer's under the criminal laws:
(A) Any controlled substance included on Schedule I of the drug control and enforcement laws (see 21 U.S.C. 812(a));
(B) Any controlled substance included on Schedule II, III, IV, or V of the drug control and enforcement laws (see 21 U.S.C. 812(a)) and with respect to which there is no therapeutic range or maximum recommended dosage;
(C) Any controlled substance included on Schedule II, III, IV, or V of the drug control and enforcement laws (see 21 U.S.C. 812(a)) and with respect to which there is a therapeutic range or maximum recommended dosage, at levels above or in excess of such range or dosage; or
(D) Any active metabolite of any controlled substance within the meaning of the drug control and enforcement laws, at 21 U.S.C. 802(6), which metabolite is not itself such a controlled substance;
(ii) Of any drug or other substance (other than one present as described in paragraph (2)(i) of this definition), unless convincing evidence demonstrates that—
(A) The introduction of the drug or other substance into the body was not a culpable act of the officer's under the criminal laws; and
(B) The officer was not acting in an intoxicated manner immediately prior to the injury date.
(1) A WTC-related physical health condition determined by the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, for the specific WTC responder, to meet the definition at section 104.2(i) of this title (as in effect on January 17, 2017);
(2) A WTC-related health condition (other than a mental health condition) that the WTC Health Program has certified, for the specific WTC responder, under (as applicable) 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(b)(1)(B)(ii) or 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(b)(2)(A)(ii); or
(3) An illness or health condition, as defined in (and determined pursuant to) 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(a)(1)(A)(i), that is a WTC-related physical health condition, as defined at section 104.2(i) of this title (as in effect on January 17, 2017).
(1) Meets the definition at 42 U.S.C. 300mm-21(a)(1)(A) and has been identified as enrolled in the WTC Health Program, under 42 CFR 88.3 (as in effect on January 17, 2017);
(2) Meets the definition at 42 U.S.C. 300mm-21(a)(1)(B) and has received an affirmative decision from the WTC Health Program under 42 CFR 88.6(d)(1) (as in effect on January 17, 2017);
(3) Meets the definition at 42 U.S.C. 300mm-31(a)(1) and—
(i) Has been identified as certified-eligible under 42 CFR 88.7 (as in effect on January 17, 2017); or
(ii) Has received the status of a certified-eligible survivor from the WTC Health Program under 42 CFR 88.12 (as in effect on January 17, 2017);
(4) Has been determined by the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund to be an eligible claimant under section 104.2(b)(1) of this title (as in effect on January 17, 2017); or
(5) Subject to 42 U.S.C. 300mm-21(a)(5), meets the definition at 42 U.S.C. 300mm-21(a)(1).
The addition reads as follows:
(e) Unless expressly provided otherwise, any reference in this part to any provision of law not in this part shall be understood to constitute a general reference under the doctrine of incorporation by reference, and thus to include any subsequent amendments to the provision.
The additions read as follows:
(j) Public safety activity that is performed by a law enforcement officer or a firefighter shall be presumed to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (1)(i)(A) or (1)(ii)(A) (as the case may be) of the definition of
(1) Was not forbidden (at the time performed) by any applicable statute, rule, regulation, condition of employment or service, official mutual-aid agreement, or other law; and
(2) Occurred—
(i) Within a jurisdiction where he is authorized to act, in the ordinary course, in an official capacity as such a law enforcement officer or firefighter; or
(ii) Within a jurisdiction (not described in the immediately-preceding paragraph) that, at the time the public safety activity was performed, had a statute, rule, regulation, official mutual-aid agreement, or other law, in effect that authorized law enforcement officers or firefighters from outside such jurisdiction to perform, within the jurisdiction, the activity that occurred.
(k) Absent evidence that the public safety activity was forbidden as described in paragraph (j)(1) of this section, the requirements of such paragraph (j) shall be presumed to be satisfied in any case in which full line-of-duty death or disability benefits (as the case may be) have been paid—
(1) By (or on behalf of) any jurisdiction described in paragraph (j)(2) of this section;
(2) With respect to a law enforcement officer or firefighter; and
(3) Upon an administrative or judicial determination in the ordinary course (other than pursuant to a settlement or quasi-settlement) that such law enforcement officer or firefighter sustained an injury in the line of duty that caused his death or disability.
(l) In the event that the presumption established by paragraph (j) of this section should arise pursuant to paragraph (j)(2)(ii) thereof, the law enforcement officer or firefighter shall be presumed to have been serving the jurisdiction described in such paragraph (j)(2)(ii) in an official capacity at the time he performed the public safety activity.
(m) A volunteer fire department that is legally licensed or-authorized to engage in fire suppression shall be presumed to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (1)(ii) and (2)(iii) of the definition of
The revision and addition read as follows:
(b) No payment shall be made, save pursuant to a claim, filed by (or on behalf of) the payee, that (except as provided in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10281(c)) has been approved in a final agency determination.
(f)(1) If the actual net payment of the Victim Compensation Fund after subtraction of any offset required by law (compensation) made under the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) has been paid with respect to an injury, the total amount payable under subpart B or C of this part, with respect to the same injury, shall be reduced by the amount of such payment of compensation.
(2) Nothing in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, or in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10281(f)(3), shall be understood to preclude payment under this part before the final payment of compensation under such Fund.
(3) Nothing in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10281(f)(3), shall be understood to require reduction of any amount payable under subpart D of this part.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c) Unless the petition is approved pursuant to paragraph (h)(1) of this section (without regard to the exception thereto), consideration of a petition under paragraph (a) of this section shall be subject to paragraph (d) of this section and shall be based on the following factors:
(d) Unless the petition is approved pursuant to paragraph (h)(1) of this
(h)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (h)(2) of this section, the PSOB Office shall approve any petition under paragraph (a) of this section for authorization to receive an amount that is not greater than the following, for representative services provided by an individual who was duly licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction in any State:
(i) In connection with a claim that is approved under subpart B or C, an amount equal to three percent of the benefit paid to (or with respect to) the claimant on whose behalf the representative services were provided;
(ii) In connection with a claim approved under subpart E that is subsequently approved under subpart F, an amount equal to six percent of the benefit paid to (or with respect to) the claimant on whose behalf the representative services were provided; and
(iii) In connection with a claim denied under subpart E that is subsequently approved under subpart F, an amount equal to nine percent of the benefit paid to (or with respect to) the claimant on whose behalf the representative services were provided.
(2) In the event that it decides that the amount set forth in paragraph (h)(1) of this section would be excessive (or otherwise inappropriate) for the representative services that form the substance of a particular petition under paragraph (a) of this section, the PSOB Office shall consider the petition pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
(a) Unless, for good cause shown, the Director extends the time for filing, no claim shall be considered if it is filed with the PSOB Office after whichever of the following is latest:
(1) Three years after the public safety officer's death; or
(2) One year after the later of—
(i) A final determination of entitlement to receive, or of denial of, the benefits, if any, described in § 32.15(a)(1)(i); or
(ii) The receipt of the certification described in § 32.15(a)(1)(ii); or
(3) The end of the supporting-evidence collection period.
(b) Unless, for good cause shown, the Director extends the time for filing, no individual may file a notice of intention to file a claim after the later of—
(1) The period described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or
(2) The period described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(c) In the event that a claim is filed that fails to identify and provide foundational evidence as to status and injury, the Director shall deny the claim for lack of that foundational evidence. Not less than thirty-three days prior to such denial, the PSOB Office shall serve the claimant with notice of the date on which the Director will deny for that lack of evidence. Upon the claimant's request, filed prior to the date specified for the denial, the Director shall, in lieu of the denial—
(1) Allow the claimant to withdraw his claim; and
(2) Deem (as of the date of the request to withdraw) the claimant to have filed a notice of intention to file a claim, if a notice of intention otherwise filed by the claimant on that date would be timely under paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, unless, for good cause shown, the Director extends the time for filing, no claim based on an injury sustained by a WTC responder and resulting from the September 11, 2001, attacks shall be considered if it is filed with the PSOB Office after the latest of—
(1) The time provided in paragraph (a) of this section;
(2) Two years after the earlier of—
(i) The date on which the WTC-related physical health condition, if any, is determined by the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, for the WTC responder, to meet the definition at section 104.2(i) of this title (as in effect on January 17, 2017); or
(ii) The date on which the WTC-related health condition, if any, is certified, for the WTC responder, under (as applicable) 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(b)(1)(B)(ii) or 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(b)(2)(A)(ii); or
(3) June 14, 2020.
(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, unless, for good cause shown, the Director extends the time for filing, no claim based on an injury sustained by a WTC responder and resulting from the September 11, 2001, attacks shall be considered if it is filed with the PSOB Office after the later of—
(1) The time provided in paragraph (a) of this section; or
(2) Two years after the earlier of—
(i) The date on which the WTC-related physical health condition, if any, is determined by the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, for the WTC responder, to meet the definition at section 104.2(i) of this title (as in effect on January 17, 2017); or
(ii) The date on which the WTC-related health condition, if any, is certified, for the WTC responder, under (as applicable) 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(b)(1)(B)(ii) or 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(b)(2)(A)(ii).
The additions read as follows:
(1) Any designation of an individual (including any designation of the biological or adoptive offspring of such individual) made in contemplation of such individual's marriage (or purported marriage) to such officer shall be considered to be revoked by such officer as of such date of death if the marriage (or purported marriage) did not take place, unless preponderant evidence demonstrates that—
(i) It did not take place for reasons other than personal differences between the officer and the individual; or
(ii) No such revocation was intended by the officer; and
(2) Any designation of a spouse (or purported spouse) made in contemplation of or during such spouse's (or purported spouse's) marriage (or purported marriage) to such officer (including any designation of the biological or adoptive offspring of such spouse (or purported spouse)) shall be considered to be revoked by such officer as of such date of death if the spouse (or purported spouse) is divorced from such officer subsequent to the date of designation and before such date of death, unless preponderant evidence demonstrates that no such revocation was intended by the officer.
(1) The Act (or the program it creates); or
(2) All the death benefits with respect to which such officer lawfully could designate a beneficiary (if there be no writing that satisfies paragraph (1) of this definition).
(1) The component of a public agency, in which component—
(i) An individual described in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10284(9)(A), serves in an official capacity; or
(ii) An employee described in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10284(9)(B) or (C) performs official duties; or
(2) The component of an agency or entity, under the authority (or by the license) of which component a member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew engages in activity (or in the provision of services) described in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10284(9)(D).
(1) Ingestion of controlled substances included on Schedule I of the drug control and enforcement laws (see 21 U.S.C. 812(a)); or
(2) Abuse of controlled substances included on Schedule II, III, IV, or V of the drug control and enforcement laws (see 21 U.S.C. 812(a)).
The revision reads as follows:
(a) Upon its approving or denying a claim, the PSOB Office shall serve notice of the same upon the claimant (and upon any other claimant who may have filed a claim with respect to the same public safety officer). Such notice shall
(1) Specify the factual findings and legal conclusions that support it; and
(2) In the event of a denial, provide information as to requesting a Hearing Officer determination.
(a) Unless, for good cause shown, the Director extends the time for filing, no claim shall be considered if it is filed with the PSOB Office after the later of—
(1) Three years after the injury date; or
(2) One year after the later of—
(i) A final determination of entitlement to receive, or of denial of, the benefits, if any, described in § 32.25(a)(1)(i); or
(ii) The receipt of the certification described in § 32.25(a)(1)(ii); or
(3) The end of the supporting-evidence collection period.
(b) Unless, for good cause shown, the Director extends the time for filing, no individual may file a notice of intention to file a claim after the later of—
(1) The period described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or
(2) The period described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(c) In the event that a claim is filed that fails to identify and provide foundational evidence as to status and injury, the Director shall deny the claim for lack of that foundational evidence. Not less than thirty-three days prior to such denial, the PSOB Office shall serve the claimant with notice of the date on which the Director will deny for that lack of evidence. Upon the claimant's request, filed prior to the date specified for the denial, the Director shall, in lieu of the denial—
(1) Allow the claimant to withdraw his claim; and
(2) Deem (as of the date of the request to withdraw) the claimant to have filed a notice of intention to file a claim, if a notice of intention otherwise filed by the claimant on that date would be timely under paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, unless, for good cause shown, the Director extends the time for filing, no claim based on an injury sustained by a WTC responder and resulting from the September 11, 2001, attacks shall be considered if it is filed with the PSOB Office after the latest of—
(1) The time provided in paragraph (a) of this section;
(2) Two years after the earlier of—
(i) The date on which the WTC-related physical health condition, if any, is determined by the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, for the WTC responder, to meet the definition at section 104.2(i) of this title (as in effect on January 17, 2017); or
(ii) The date on which the WTC-related health condition, if any, is certified, for the WTC responder, under (as applicable) 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(b)(1)(B)(ii) or 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(b)(2)(A)(ii); or
(3) June 14, 2020.
(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, unless, for good cause shown, the Director extends the time for filing, no claim based on an injury sustained by a WTC responder and resulting from the September 11, 2001, attacks shall be considered if it is filed with the PSOB Office after the later of—
(1) The time provided in paragraph (a) of this section; or
(2) Two years after the earlier of—
(i) The date on which the WTC-related physical health condition, if any, is determined by the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, for the WTC responder, to meet the definition at section 104.2(i) of this title (as in effect on January 17, 2017); or
(ii) The date on which the WTC-related health condition, if any, is certified, for the WTC responder, under (as applicable) 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(b)(1)(B)(ii) or 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(b)(2)(A)(ii).
The revision reads as follows:
(a) Upon its approving or denying a claim, the PSOB Office shall serve notice of the same upon the claimant (and upon any other claimant who may have filed a claim with respect to the same public safety officer). Such notice shall—
(1) Specify the factual findings and legal conclusions that support it; and
(2) In the event of a denial, provide information as to—
(i) Requesting a Hearing Officer determination; or
(ii) As applicable, moving to reconsider a negative disability finding.
The revision reads as follows:
(1) With respect to whose death, benefits under subpart B of this part properly—
(i) Have been paid; or
(ii) Would have been paid but for operation of the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10281(f); or
(2) With respect to whose disability, benefits under subpart C of this part properly—
(i) Have been paid; or
(ii) Would have been paid, but for operation of—
(A) Paragraph (b) of § 32.6; or
(B) The Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10281(f).
(b) Upon a Hearing Officer's approving or denying a claim, the PSOB Office shall serve notice of the same simultaneously upon the claimant (and upon any other claimant who may have filed a claim with respect to the same public safety officer). Such notice shall—
(1) Specify the Hearing Officer's factual findings and legal conclusions that support it; and
(2) In the event of a denial, provide information as to Director appeals.
The addition reads as follows:
(d) * * *
(3) Shall (unless the Director should direct or allow otherwise) be the only individual (other than the claimant's representative, if any) who may examine the claimant.
The addition reads as follows:
(d) The Director may reconsider a claim under subparts B or C of this part that has been denied in a final agency determination if—
(1) The public safety officer was a WTC responder;
(2) The claim was based on the allegation that—
(i) The WTC responder sustained an injury that was the direct and proximate cause of his death or of his permanent and total disability; and
(ii) The WTC responder's injury was sustained in the course of performance of line of duty activity or a line of duty action that exposed him to airborne toxins, other hazards, or other adverse conditions resulting from the September 11, 2001, attacks;
(3) The sole ground of the denial was that the claim did not establish that—
(i) The WTC responder sustained an injury in the course of performance of line of duty activity or a line of duty action; or
(ii) The injury allegedly sustained by the WTC responder was the direct and proximate cause of his death or permanent and total disability;
(4) The alleged injury on which the claim was based is a WTC-related health condition; and
(5) The claimant files with the PSOB Office a motion for such reconsideration before the later of—
(i) Two years after the earlier of—
(A) The date on which the WTC-related physical health condition, if any, is determined by the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, for the WTC responder, to meet the definition at section 104.2(i) of this title (as in effect on January 17, 2017); or
(B) The date on which the WTC-related health condition, if any, is certified, for the WTC responder, under (as applicable) 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(b)(1)(B)(ii) or 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(b)(2)(A)(ii); or
(ii) June 14, 2020.
(d) * * *
(5) The claimant files with the PSOB Office a motion for such reconsideration before the earlier of two year—
(i) The date on which the WTC-related physical health condition, if any, is determined by the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, for the WTC responder, to meet the definition at section 104.2(i) of this title (as in effect on January 17, 2017); or
(ii) The date on which the WTC-related health condition, if any, is certified, for the WTC responder, (as applicable) 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(b)(1)(B)(ii) or 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(b)(2)(A)(ii).
The revision reads as follows:
(a) Upon the Director's approving or denying a claim, the PSOB Office shall serve notice of the same simultaneously upon the claimant (and upon any other claimant who may have filed a claim with respect to the same public safety officer), and upon any Hearing Officer who made a determination with respect to the claim. Such notice shall—
(1) Specify the factual findings and legal conclusions that support it; and
(2) In the event of a denial, provide information as to judicial appeals.
Consistent with § 32.8, no administrative action other than an approval or denial described in § 32.54(a) shall constitute a final agency determination for purposes of the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10287.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the regulation for valuation dates in June 2018. The interest assumptions are used for paying benefits under
Effective June 1, 2018.
Hilary Duke (
PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminated single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's website (
PBGC uses the interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.
The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for June 2018.
The June 2018 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 1.25 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for May 2018, these assumptions represent an increase of 0.25 percent in the immediate rate and are otherwise unchanged.
PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during June 2018, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.
PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of expired temporary rules issued.
This document provides notification of substantive rules issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective but expired before they could be published in the
This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules that became effective, primarily between January 2018 and March 2018, unless otherwise indicated, and were terminated before they could be published in the
Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed online, under their respective docket numbers, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions on this document contact Yeoman First Class David Hager, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, telephone (202) 372-3862.
Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations.
Timely publication of these rules in the
The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between January 2018 and March 2018 unless otherwise indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Sacramento County highway bridge across Georgiana Slough, mile 12.4, near Walnut Grove, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow participants in the AMGEN Tour of California bicycle race to cross the drawspan safely and without interruption. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.
This deviation is effective from 11 a.m. through 3 p.m. on May 17, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0434, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, email
Sacramento County has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Sacramento County highway bridge, mile 12.4, over Georgiana Slough, near Walnut Grove, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 14 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR 117.157. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 11 a.m. through 3 p.m. on May 17, 2018, to allow the participants in the AMGEN Tour of California bicycle race to cross the drawspan safely and without interruption. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the security zone for the Portland Rose Festival on the Willamette River in Portland, OR, from 8 a.m. on June 6, 2018, through 4 p.m. on June 11, 2018. This action is necessary to ensure the security of vessels participating in the 2018 Portland Rose Festival on the Willamette River during the event. Our regulation for the Security Zone Portland Rose Festival on the Willamette River identifies the regulated area. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the security zone without permission from the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1312 will be enforced from 8 a.m. on June 6, 2018, through 4 p.m. on June 11, 2018.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email LCDR Laura Springer, Waterways Management Division, MSU Portland, Oregon, Coast Guard; telephone 503-240-9319, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the security zone for the Portland Rose Festival detailed in 33 CFR 165.1312 from 8 a.m. on June 6, 2018, through 4 p.m. on June 11, 2018. This action is necessary to ensure the security of vessels participating in the 2018 Portland Rose Festival on the Willamette River during the event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1312 and subpart D of part 165, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the security zone, consisting of all waters of the Willamette River, from surface to bottom, encompassed by the Hawthorne and Steel Bridges, without permission from the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port. Persons or vessels wishing to enter the security zone may request permission to do so from the on-scene Captain of the Port representative via VHF Channel 16 or 13. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority 33 CFR 165.1312 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission's Report and Order updating, clarifying and streamlining the Commission's rules governing non-geostationary satellite orbit, fixed-satellite service systems to better reflect current technology and promote additional operational flexibility.
The amendments to §§ 25.114, 25.115, 25.146, and 25.164, published December 18, 2017, at 82 FR 59972, are effective May 31, 2018. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule for § 25.146 is approved by the Director of the
Cathy Williams,
On May 1, 2018, OMB approved the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 17-122, published at 82 FR 59972, December 18, 2017. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0678. Accordingly, the effective date of the amendments to §§ 25.114, 25.115, 25.146, and 25.164 is May 31, 2018. The other rule amendments adopted in the Report and Order, which did not require OMB approval, became effective on January 17, 2018.
If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0678, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the internet if you send them to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on May 1, 2018, for the new information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 25.114, 25.115, 25.146, and 25.164.
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0678.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), reclassify Tobusch fishhook cactus (
This rule becomes effective June 14, 2018.
This final rule is available on the internet at
Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
After conducting a review of its biological status and threats, we have determined that Tobusch fishhook cactus is no longer in danger of extinction throughout all or a signification portion of its range; however, the subspecies is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future as a result of changes in vegetation and wildfire frequency (Factor A), insect parasites and feral hog rooting (Factor C), and the demographic and genetic consequences of small population sizes and densities (Factor E).
We sought comments from independent specialists to ensure that our determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers to comment on our reclassification proposal, and we considered all comments and information received during the public comment period.
This rule finalizes the reclassification of Tobusch fishhook cactus from an endangered to a threatened species, and adopts the latest taxonomic assignment of the scientific name, changing it from
We published a final rule to list Tobusch fishhook cactus as an endangered species under the Act on November 7, 1979 (44 FR 64736). At that time, we also determined that it was not prudent to designate critical habitat. On March 18, 1987, we finalized a recovery plan for Tobusch fishhook cactus. On January 5, 2010, a status review (“5-year review”) was completed under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act, which recommended that Tobusch fishhook cactus be reclassified from endangered to threatened (Service 2010).
On July 16, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from The Pacific Legal Foundation, Jim Chilton, the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association, New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau, New Mexico Federal Lands Council, and Texas Farm Bureau requesting that Tobusch fishhook cactus be reclassified as threatened based on the analysis and recommendation contained in the 5-year review. The Service published a 90-day finding on September 9, 2013 (78 FR 55046), that the petition contained substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. On November 20, 2015, the Service received a complaint (
We prepared a Species Status Assessment (SSA) for Tobusch fishhook cactus (Service 2016; available at
Tobusch fishhook cactus is a rare, endemic plant of the Edwards Plateau of central Texas that is armed with curved “fishhook” spines. In the wild, this globose or columnar cactus rarely exceeds 5 centimeters (2 inches) in diameter and in height (Poole and Janssen 2002, p. 7).
The taxonomic classifications of Tobusch fishhook cactus include several published synonyms. We listed it as a species,
Tobusch fishhook cactus grows slowly, reaching a reproductive size of about 2 centimeters (0.8 inches) in diameter after 9 years (Emmett 1995, pp. 168-169). It flowers between late January and mid-March, and its major pollinators are honey bees and halictid bees (Emmett 1995, pp. 74-75; Lockwood 1995, pp. 428-430; Reemts and Becraft 2013, pp. 6-7; Langley 2015, pp. 21-23). The breeding system is primarily out-crossing, requiring fertilization between unrelated individuals; relatively few viable seeds are produced from self-fertilized flowers (Emmett 1995, p. 70; Langley 2015, pp. 24-28). Reproductive individuals produce an average of 112 seeds per year (Emmett 1995, p. 108). Ants may be seed predators, dispersers, or both (Emmett 1995, pp. 112-114, 124). Mammals or birds may also accomplish longer distance seed dispersal (Emmett 1995, pp. 115-116, 126). There is little evidence that seeds persist in the soil (Emmett 1995, pp. 120-122).
When listed as endangered in 1979, fewer than 200 individuals of Tobusch fishhook cactus were known from 4 riparian sites, 2 of which had been destroyed by floods (44 FR 64736, November 7, 1979; Service 1987, pp. 4-5). We now understand that those riparian habitats were atypical; the great majority of populations that have now been documented occur in upland sites dominated by Ashe juniper-live oak woodlands and savannas on the Edwards Plateau (Poole and Janssen 2002, p. 2). Soils are classified in the Tarrant, Ector, Eckrant, and similar series. Within a matrix of woodland and savanna, the subspecies occurs in discontinuous patches of very shallow, gravelly soils where bare rock and rock fragments comprise a large proportion of the surface cover (Sutton et al. 1997, pp. 442-443). Associated vegetation includes small bunch grasses and forbs. The subspecies' distribution within habitat patches is clumped and tends to be farther from woody plant cover (Reemts 2014, pp. 9-10). The presence of cryptograms, primitive plants that reproduce by spores rather than seeds, may be a useful indicator of fine-scale habitat suitability (Service 2010, p. 17). Wildfire (including prescribed burning) causes negligible damage to Tobusch fishhook cactus populations (Emmett 1995, p. 42; Poole and Birnbaum 2003, p. 12). The subspecies probably does not require fire for germination, establishment, or reproduction, but periodic burning may be necessary to prevent the encroachment of woody plants into its habitats.
A population of an organism is a group of individuals within a geographic area that are capable of interbreeding or interacting. Although
Populations of Tobusch fishhook cactus are now confirmed in eight central Texas counties: Bandera, Edwards, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Real, Uvalde, and Val Verde. The Texas Native Diversity Database (2016, pp. 1-202) listed 97 element occurrences, areas in which the plant was present (EOs; NatureServe 2002, p. 10), of Tobusch fishhook cactus, totaling 3,336 individuals. In addition, recent surveys conducted through Section 7 consultations and at preserves managed by The Nature Conservancy, that are not included in the TXNDD report, bring the total number of documented individuals to approximately 4,500. Although the numbers of individuals at each site fluctuate over time, due to the combined, continuing effects of mortality and recruitment of new individuals, our best estimate of the total live individuals at all documented sites at any one time is 4,500.
Tobusch fishhook cactus plants occur in patches of very shallow, rocky soil overlying limestone. The immediate vicinity of plants is sparsely vegetated with small bunch grasses and forbs and there is little or no woody plant cover. Individual plants require an estimated 9 years to reach a reproductive size of about 2 centimeters (0.8 inches) in diameter. Reproduction is primarily by out-crossing between unrelated individuals, and the known pollinators include honey bees and halictid bees. Out-crossing requires genetically diverse cactus populations within the foraging range of pollinators, and is less likely to occur in small, isolated populations. Healthy pollinator populations, in turn, require intact, diverse, native plant communities. Halictid bees are frequent natural pollinators of Tobusch fishhook cactus. We expect the foraging range of these bees, given their relatively small size, to be fairly limited. Therefore, the health and diversity of native vegetation within the vicinity of Tobusch fishhook cactus plants (a range of 50 to 500 meters (164 to 1,640 feet)) may be particularly important for successful cactus reproduction. Healthy pollinator populations also require the least possible exposure to agricultural pesticides within their foraging ranges.
Resilient populations are those that exhibit stable or increasing demographic trends. The assessment of demographic trends, however, depends on how populations are delineated (81 FR 95932, December 29, 2016). For Tobusch fishhook cactus, we conclude that it is more appropriate to track the collective populations of multiple colonies that interact on a landscape scale (
One measure of population resilience is minimum viable population (MVP), which is an estimate of the minimum population size that has a high probability of enduring a specified period of time. Poole and Birnbaum (2003, p. 1) estimated an MVP of 1,200 individuals for Tobusch fishhook cactus, using a surrogate species approach (Pavlik 1996, pp. 136-137). Although some Tobusch fishhook cactus individuals live for decades, annual mortality rates are often greater than 20 percent, and relatively few individuals live long enough to reproduce. Mortality within monitored colonies often exceeds recruitment, and some colonies have died out. Nevertheless, even where individual colonies have collapsed, the total documented population sizes at many protected natural areas are stable or increasing, due to discoveries of new individuals and colonies. For this reason, MVP levels are more appropriately applied to metapopulations rather than individual colonies of this cactus.
The degree of genetic diversity within Tobusch fishhook cactus populations is important for several reasons. First, diversity within populations should confer greater resistance to pathogens and parasites and greater adaptability to environmental stochasticity (random variations, such as annual rainfall and temperature patterns) and the effects from climate change. Second, low genetic diversity within interbreeding populations leads to a higher incidence of inbreeding, and potentially to inbreeding depression (reduced biological fitness), which lowers a population's ability to survive and reproduce. Finally, the breeding system of Tobusch fishhook cactus is primarily out-crossing, so populations with too little genetic diversity would produce fewer progeny.
Fire, whether natural or prescribed, appears to have little effect on individual Tobusch fishhook cactus plants. This outcome is because the plants occur where vegetation is very sparse, and the plants protrude very little above the ground and are protected by surrounding rocks from the heat of vegetation burning nearby. On the other hand, periodic fire is likely to be necessary for population persistence to reduce juniper encroachment into suitable habitats. Furthermore, the diverse shrub and forb vegetation that sustains healthy pollinator populations is maintained by periodic wildfire; without fire, dense juniper groves frequently displace these shrubs and forbs. Hence, if the native plant diversity of entire landscapes surrounding Tobusch fishhook cactus populations succumbs to juniper encroachment, pollinator populations will likely decline, and reproduction of Tobusch fishhook cactus and gene flow between its colonies may be reduced.
In addition to population resilience, we assessed the subspecies' viability in terms of its redundancy (ability to withstand catastrophic events) and representation (ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions).
One influence on representation is genetic diversity, both within and among populations, that is necessary to conserve long-term adaptive capability (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 307-308). Genetic diversity within a population can be measured by the numbers of variant forms of genes represented in that population. One measure of this within-population genetic diversity is called heterozygosity; possible values range from 0 (all members of a population are genetically identical for specified genes) to 1.0 (all members of a population are genetically different). Another useful measure is the inbreeding coefficient (F
A study by Rayamajhi (2015, entire) determined that the mean expected heterozygosity (H
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. Recovery plans identify site-specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species, measurable criteria that set a trigger for review of the species' status, and estimates of the time and cost to recovery.
Recovery plans are not regulatory documents; instead they are intended to establish goals for long-term conservation of listed species and define criteria that are designed to indicate when the threats facing a species have been removed or reduced to such an extent that the species may no longer need the protections of the Act, as well as actions that may be employed to achieve reaching the criteria. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may, at times, be achieved without all criteria being fully met or all actions fully implemented. Recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
The Tobusch fishhook cactus recovery plan was approved by the Service on March 18, 1987 (Service 1987). Delisting criteria were not established in the recovery plan. However, the recovery plan did establish a criterion of 3,000 individuals in each of 4 safe sites for reclassification from endangered to threatened. The explanation for how this level was calculated is not included in the recovery plan, and to date this criterion has not been met. No individual colonies have reached this size, and we now understand that insect parasites are able to devastate large, dense populations of Tobusch fishhook cactus. Thus, the downlisting criterion of 3,000 individuals per population may be unattainable or unsustainable. Such large cactus populations would eventually host very large parasite populations, leading to their collapse (Service 2017, p. 40).
Currently, many small populations exist, and surveyors have documented a total of approximately 4,500 Tobusch fishhook cactus individuals in 8 counties of the Edwards Plateau. Monitored populations, ranging from 34 to 1,090 individuals, occur on 12 properties managed either by the State or conservation organizations. We conclude that a few large cactus populations are much more vulnerable than many small populations, and we will consider revision of the 1989 recovery plan to include delisting criteria based on our new understanding of Tobusch fishhook cactus demographics.
We have made no changes from the proposed rule.
In the proposed rule published on December 29, 2016 (81 FR 95932), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by February 27, 2017, and we reopened the public comment period from June 13, 2017, to July 13, 2017 (82 FR 27033, June 13, 2017). We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the San Antonio Express News on June 13, 2017. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided during comment periods has
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with Tobusch fishhook cactus and its habitat, biological needs, and threats. We received responses from all three of the peer reviewers that they concurred with our decision to reclassify Tobusch fishhook cactus as a threatened subspecies. We received a total of five comments on the proposed rule; one from the State of Texas and four from the public. We did not receive comments from other Federal agencies or Tribes. We reviewed all comments received during the two public comment periods for substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed reclassification of Tobusch fishhook cactus. Four commenters were in favor of the proposed reclassification, and one commenter was in support of delisting Tobusch fishhook cactus. Substantive comments we received are addressed below.
(1)
(2)
(3)
We also recognize that the subspecies may be more abundant than previously estimated at the time of listing; however, calculations of true population size are difficult to make. In the SSA, we estimated that the total subspecies population is about 480,000 individuals, and total estimated potential habitat ranges over 5 million acres. However, this estimate may overstate the actual population size, as only 4,564 Tobusch fishhook cactus individuals were actually detected from 2003 to 2015. In Appendix B of the SSA Report, we explained that the estimate of the total population size of Tobusch fishhook cactus is a simple extrapolation of the average population density within surveys of potential habitat to the total amount of potential habitat. The extremely uneven distribution of this cactus complicates estimates of the true population size (Service 2016, p. 21). In the SSA Report, we also stated that the estimated population size is not a precise determination, but is the best estimate we are currently able to make with available quantitative data that has been obtained from a small number of areas (Service 2016, p. 32). One peer reviewer of the SSA stated that the general approach we used to estimate the total number of plants was sound, but because the areas surveyed were a biased sample of potential habitats, our approach likely overestimated the amount of potential habitat and population size. This overestimate is because State parks and other areas surveyed are not representative of all areas of potential habitat within the subspecies' range. We concur with these comments. The survey sample size was small and was unavoidably biased, and the method we used did not establish confidence limits to the estimate. Due to the drastic collapse of many large colonies from insect parasites, we require statistically rigorous estimates of metapopulation trends to project long-term viability.
Although the available data do indicate that both the subspecies' viability and population sizes are greater than when it was listed and that it is not currently in danger of extinction, threats to the subspecies remain unabated and Tobusch fishhook cactus is likely to become endangered with extinction in the foreseeable future.
Under section 4 of the Act, we administer the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, which are set forth in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at part 17 (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). We can determine, on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, whether a species may be listed, delisted, or reclassified as described in 50 CFR 424.11. Tobusch fishhook cactus was listed as endangered in 1979 due to: Few known populations, habitat destruction, and altered stream flows (Factor A); illegal collection (Factor B); and very limited geographic range, small population sizes, restricted gene pool, and lack of reproduction (Factor E). We now know there are many more populations over a much wider area; approximately 4,500 individuals have been documented at more than 97 EOs and other monitoring sites. Most habitats are relatively secure, given that they are in remote, rocky areas that are unsuitable for growing crops. However, the great majority is on private lands that are becoming increasingly fragmented and may be subject to destruction or modification. Many of the known populations are small and isolated, and the monitored portions of numerous populations have declined. Demographic population viability analyses predict an overall future decline in subspecies' viability. However, we do not know how well these analyses project the demographic trends of metapopulations distributed over larger landscapes. We know that insect parasites are a major cause of mortality and may naturally reduce populations to low densities. Many populations have sufficient genetic diversity to confer long-term adaptive capability, but some small, isolated populations have higher levels of inbreeding and may be affected by
Using the SSA framework, we have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to Tobusch fishhook cactus to consider what the subspecies needs to maintain viability. We have determined that Tobusch fishhook cactus is currently no longer in danger of extinction, because it has larger, more numerous populations that are much more widely distributed than we previously understood, and therefore the subspecies has greater resilience, redundancy, and representation. Nevertheless, it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future because the following threats have not been fully ameliorated and are expected to continue into the foreseeable future: Habitat destruction and modification due to changes in vegetation and wildfire frequency (Factor A), insect parasites and feral hog rooting (Factor C), and the demographic and genetic consequences of small population sizes and densities (Factor E). In the SSA Report, we projected what the future viability of Tobusch fishhook cactus could be using the timeframe 2050 to 2074. This is the same timeframe that has been used to project future climate conditions for Edwards County, Texas (U.S. Geological Survey 2015), and although climate change is not likely a direct stressor to Tobusch fishhook cactus viability, the effects from climate change on the threats to Tobusch fishhook cactus are likely to impact the future viability of the species. We used the National Climate Change Viewer (NCCV; U.S. Geological Survey 2015) to compare past and projected future climate conditions. The baseline for comparison was the observed mean values from 1950 through 2005, and 30 climate models were used to project future conditions. The NCCV generates projections for three timeframes: 2025 to 2049, 2050 to 2074, and 2075 to 2099. We chose the intermediate timeframe of 2050 to 2074 for our projections of the species status in the foreseeable future because relatively few changes may be apparent in the earlier timeframe, and projection uncertainty is greatest in the later timeframe.
Below we present our analysis of threats to Tobusch fishhook cactus. For a complete discussion of all threats, including those considered significant at the time of listing and those considered potential future threats, please refer to the SSA Report (Service 2016).
Bray (1904, pp. 14-15, 23-24) documented the rapid transition of grasslands to woodlands in the Edwards Plateau occurring more than a century ago; he attributed this change to overgrazing, the depletion of grasses, and the cessation of wildfires. Fonteyn et al. (1988, p. 79) state that savannas covered portions of the pre-settlement Edwards Plateau, and since 1850 were transformed to shrubland or woodland “primarily by suppression of recurring natural and anthropogenic fires and the introduction of livestock.” They list the fire-sensitive Ashe juniper (
Vegetation and fire frequency may also be influenced by climate changes. The means of 30 climate models project increasing temperatures for the Edwards Plateau of Texas over the 2050 to 2074 projection period (U.S. Geological Survey 2015). However, these models do not simulate well the projected patterns of regional precipitation (IPCC 2013, p. 11). Average precipitation may increase or decrease, seasonal rainfall patterns may change, and annual variation in rainfall may increase. Consequently, we do not know what the net effect of climate changes will be on vegetation and wildfire frequency nor how these changes might affect the viability of Tobusch fishhook cactus.
The listing of Tobusch fishhook cactus as an endangered species (44 FR 64736) included collection from wild populations for the commercial cactus trade as a threat to the species. Subsequently, we have detected very little evidence of illicit collection from wild populations; this potential threat has not substantively affected the species survival.
The Tobusch fishhook cactus weevil (
The incidence of herbivory by jackrabbits, rodents, and other native herbivores on Tobusch fishhook cactus is relatively minor (Poole and Birnbaum (2003, pp. 11-12). However, introduced feral hogs are abundant throughout the subspecies' range and have damaged and destroyed Tobusch fishhook cactus individuals and habitats in many sites (Reemts 2015, p. 1). Feral hog populations remain undiminished in Texas despite active hunting and trapping efforts. Therefore, this threat remains unabated, and we expect it will continue at least through the 2050 to 2074 projection period (described above), which we define as the foreseeable future for this threat.
Only a very small fraction of the potential habitat of Tobusch fishhook cactus occurs on state parks or other public lands where the habitat could be directly managed through regulatory mechanisms. Regulatory mechanisms cannot ensure habitat management and species conservation on the great majority of the species habitats that occur on privately owned land. Thus the habitat-related threats and feral hog issues described above are anticipated to continue to impact the species regardless of existing regulatory mechanisms.
Small populations are less able to recover from losses caused by random environmental changes (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 308-310), such as fluctuations in recruitment (demographic stochasticity), variations in rainfall (environmental stochasticity), or changes in the frequency of wildfires. Poole and Birnbaum (2003, p. 1) estimated a minimum viable population (MVP) size of 1,200 individuals for Tobusch fishhook cactus (Service 2016, section II.7.5, available at
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species.” The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and a “threatened species” as a species that is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species” because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. The same factors apply whether we are analyzing the species' status throughout all of its range or throughout a significant portion of its range.
On July 1, 2014, we published a final policy interpreting the phrase “significant portion of its range” (SPR) (79 FR 37578) (SPR Policy). Aspects of that policy were vacated for species that occur in Arizona by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Our final policy addresses the consequences of finding that a species is in danger of extinction in an SPR, and interprets what would constitute an SPR. The final policy includes four elements: (1) If a species is found to be endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the entire species is listed as an endangered species or a threatened species, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is “significant” if the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is considered to be the general geographical area within which that species can be found at the time the Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service makes any particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
The SPR policy applies to analyses for all status determinations, including listing, delisting, and reclassification determinations. As described in the first element of our policy, once the Service determines that a “species”—which can include a species, subspecies, or distinct population segment (DPS)—meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species,” the species must be listed in its entirety and the Act's protections applied consistently to all individuals of the species wherever found (subject to modification of protections through special rules under sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act).
For the second element, the policy sets out the procedure for analyzing
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to Tobusch fishhook cactus. Based on the analysis in the SSA, and information summarized above, we have determined that Tobusch fishhook cactus' current viability is higher than was known at the time of listing, and we believe that Tobusch fishhook cactus is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. However, due to continued threats from the demographic and genetic consequences of small population sizes and geographic isolation, insect parasitism, feral hog depredation, and changes in the wildfire cycle and vegetation, as well as unknown long-term effects of land use changes and climate changes, we find that Tobusch fishhook cactus is likely to become an endangered subspecies within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Consistent with our interpretation that there are two independent bases for listing species as described above, after examining the status of Tobusch fishhook cactus throughout all of its range, we now examine whether it is necessary to determine its status throughout a significant portion of its range. Per our final SPR policy, we must give operational effect to both the “throughout all” of its range language and the SPR phrase in the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” As discussed earlier and in greater detail in the SPR Policy, we have concluded that to give operational effect to both the “throughout all” language and the SPR phrase, the Service should conduct an SPR analysis if (and only if) a species does not warrant listing according to the “throughout all” language.
Because we found that Tobusch fishhook cactus is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, per our Service's Significant Portion of its Range (SPR) Policy (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014), no portion of its range can be significant for purposes of the definitions of endangered species and threatened species. We therefore do not need to conduct an analysis of whether there is any significant portion of its range where the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we are reclassifying Tobusch fishhook cactus as a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, a determination that a species is endangered or threatened also requires the Secretary, to the maximum extent prudent, to specify any habitat of such species which is considered to be critical habitat. The determination that it would not be prudent to designate critical habitat for Tobusch fishhook cactus that was made at the time the plant was listed as an endangered species remains true (44 FR 64737, November 7, 1979). Publication of critical habitat maps and cactus population locations increases the plants' vulnerability to collection from areas not under Federal jurisdiction, an activity that is not prohibited for plants under the Act. While there has been no recent evidence of collection of this species, collection is a threat to most cactus species, and is likely to increase if population sites are publicized. Given the predominance of private land ownership patterns for Tobusch fishhook cactus habitats, collection still may become a threat in the foreseeable future.
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The current Tobusch fishhook cactus recovery plan was approved by the Service on March 18, 1987 (Service 1987). As a result of this reclassification, a revision of the plan is planned to address continuing threats to the subspecies, and will also establish delisting criteria. When completed, a revised draft and final recovery plan will be available on our website (
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (
Following publication of this final reclassification rule, funding for recovery actions will continue to be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for Tobusch fishhook cactus. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this subspecies whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both, as described in the preceding paragraph, include management and any other landscape-altering activities related to the issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the Army Corps of Engineers, and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
With respect to threatened plants, 50 CFR 17.71 provides that all of the provisions in 50 CFR 17.61 shall apply to threatened plants. These provisions make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or to remove and reduce to possession any such plant species from areas under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, the Act prohibits malicious damage or destruction of any such species on any area under Federal jurisdiction, and the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying of any such species on any other area in knowing violation of any State law or regulation, or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law. However, there is the following exception for threatened plants: Seeds of cultivated specimens of species treated as threatened shall be exempt from all the provisions of 50 CFR 17.61, provided that a statement that the seeds are of “cultivated origin” accompanies the seeds or their container during the course of any activity otherwise subject to these regulations. Exceptions to these prohibitions are outlined in 50 CFR 17.72.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened plants under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.72. With regard to threatened plants, a permit issued under this section must be for one of the following: Scientific purposes, the enhancement of the propagation or survival of threatened species, economic hardship, botanical or horticultural exhibition, educational purposes, or other activities consistent with the purposes and policy of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
(1) Normal agricultural and silvicultural practices, including herbicide and pesticide use, which are carried out in accordance with any existing regulations, permit and label requirements, and best management practices; and
(2) Normal residential landscape activities.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see
This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) to reclassify Tobusch fishhook cactus from endangered to threatened on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, and changes the scientific name from
On the effective date of this rule (see
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes.
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the Austin Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245; unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule for the 2018 Pacific whiting fishery under the authority of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006. This final rule announces the 2018 U.S. Total Allowable Catch of 441,433 metric tons (mt) of Pacific whiting, establishes a tribal allocation of 77,251 mt, establishes a set-aside for research and bycatch of 1,500 mt, and announces the allocations of Pacific whiting to the non-tribal fishery for 2018. The catch limits in this rule are intended to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Pacific whiting stock.
Effective May 15, 2018.
Frank Lockhart (West Coast Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-6142, and email:
This final rule is accessible via the internet at the Office of the Federal Register website at
The final environmental impact statement regarding Harvest Specifications and Management Measures for 2015-2016 and Biennial Periods Thereafter, and the Final Environmental Assessment for Pacific Coast Groundfish Harvest Specifications and Management Measures for 2017-2018 and Amendment 27 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, are available on the NMFS West Coast Region website at:
This final rule announces the total allowable catch (TAC) for Pacific whiting, which was determined under the terms of the Agreement with Canada on Pacific Hake/Whiting (Agreement) and the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006 (Whiting Act). The Agreement and the Whiting Act establish bilateral bodies to implement the terms of the Agreement. The bilateral bodies include: The Joint Management Committee (JMC), which recommends the annual catch level for Pacific whiting; the Joint Technical Committee (JTC), which conducts the Pacific whiting stock assessment; the Scientific Review Group (SRG), which reviews the stock assessment; and the Advisory Panel (AP), which provides stakeholder input to the JMC.
The Agreement establishes a default harvest policy of F-40 percent, which means a fishing mortality rate that would reduce the biomass to 40 percent of the estimated unfished level (F-40). The Agreement also allocates 73.88 percent of the TAC to the United States and 26.12 percent of the TAC to Canada. The JMC is primarily responsible for developing a TAC recommendation to the United States and Canada. The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, has the authority to accept or reject this recommendation.
The JTC completed a stock assessment for Pacific whiting in March 2018. The assessment is available at
Pacific whiting spawning stock biomass has been relatively stable since 2013. The 2018 spawning biomass estimated to be 1.357 million mt. Relative female spawning biomass for 2018 is estimated at 66.7 percent of the unfished levels. The stock is currently estimated to be at its highest level since the 1980s, as a result of an exceptionally strong 2010 cohort and above average 2014 cohort. As with past estimates, there is a considerable range of uncertainty associated with this estimate, because the youngest cohorts that make up a large portion of the survey biomass have not been observed for very long.
The JTC provided tables showing catch alternatives for 2018. Using the default F-40 percent harvest rate identified in the Agreement (Paragraph 1 of Article III), the coastwide TAC for 2018 would be 725,984 mt. Projections setting the 2018 and 2019 catch equal to the 2017 TAC of 597,500 mt show the estimated median relative spawning biomass decreasing from 67 percent in 2018 to 59 percent in 2019 and to 50 percent in 2020, with a 36 percent chance of the spawning biomass falling below 40 percent of estimated historic biomass levels in 2020. There is an estimated 73 percent chance of the spawning biomass declining from 2018 to 2019, and an 82 percent chance of it declining from 2019 to 2020 under this constant catch level. However, the 2018 estimate of median stock biomass is well above the overfished threshold, and fishing intensity is below the F-40 percent target. This indicates that the coastal Pacific whiting stock is not overfished and that overfishing is not occurring.
The SRG, a bilateral body created under the Agreement, met in Lynnwood, Washington on February 26-March 1, 2018, to review the draft stock assessment document. The SRG determined that the 2018 Pacific whiting assessment report and appendices present the best available scientific information for the management of Pacific whiting. During the meeting, however, the SRG raised a concern that the model results and corresponding estimates of spawning stock biomass are strongly affected by the choice of weights-at-age used in estimating fecundity. To consider the variability in stock status estimates, the SRG requested that the JTC analyze two approaches using different weights-at-age (Appendix A in the stock assessment report). The first approach is consistent with previous assessments, and includes time-invariant fecundity-at-age based on the average vector of weights-at-age over all years. The second approach is derived from an alternative model using time-varying fecundity-at-age calculated with annual estimates of mean weights-at-age. The range of uncertainty of each model includes the median estimate of current spawning biomass estimated by the other model. However, the alternative model estimates that 2018 spawning stock biomass is lower and much closer to the reference point (B40) than the base-case model. The SRG's analysis suggested that this may be because weights-at-age are important to calculating unfished spawning biomass (B0), and the alternative model estimates a higher B0 as a consequence of using higher mean weights-at-age in the early years of the time series (1975-1979). The probability that 2018 spawning biomass is below the B40 reference point is estimated as 7 percent by the base-case model and 48 percent by the alternative model. Despite substantial discussion, the SRG was unable to offer advice on which model is more plausible, and requested additional work in the coming year from the JTC to address the issue.
The AP and JMC met on March 5-6, 2018, in Lynnwood, Washington, to develop advice on a 2018 coastwide TAC. The AP provided its 2018 TAC recommendation to the JMC on March 6, 2018. The JMC reviewed the advice of the JTC, the SRG, and the AP, and agreed on a TAC recommendation for transmittal to the United States and Canadian Governments.
The Agreement directs the JMC to base the catch limit recommendation on the default harvest rate unless scientific evidence demonstrates that a different rate is necessary to sustain the offshore Pacific whiting resource. After consideration of the 2018 stock assessment and other relevant scientific information, the JMC did not use the default harvest rate, and instead agreed on a more conservative approach, using the same catch limits as 2017. There were three primary reasons for choosing a TAC below the default level of F-40 percent. First, the growth of the 2010 year class is slowing, which the recent historic-high catch has in part depended on, and JMC members wanted to extend the harvest available from this year class. Second, the 2018 stock assessment estimated a lower abundance than last year's assessment for the 2014 year class, which comprised more of the 2016 fall catch than the large 2010 cohort, so the JMC did not want to increase mortality on this year class, which is anticipated to be important to the fishery over the next several years. Finally, the overall abundance of Pacific hake/whiting is projected to begin declining from its recent historic high levels, and the JMC did not want to accelerate this decline by increasing the TAC. This conservative TAC setting process, endorsed by the AP, resulted in a TAC that is less than what it would be using the default harvest rate under the Agreement.
The recommendation for an unadjusted 2018 U.S. TAC of 382,532 mt, plus 58,901 mt carryover of uncaught quota from 2017 results in an adjusted U.S. TAC of 441,433 mt for 2018 (73.88 percent of the coastwide TAC). This recommendation is consistent with the best available scientific information, provisions of the Agreement, and the Whiting Act. The recommendation was transmitted via letter to the United States and Canadian Governments on March 6, 2018. NMFS, under delegation of authority from the Secretary of Commerce, approved the adjusted TAC recommendation of 441,433 mt for U.S. fisheries on April 23, 2018.
This final rule establishes the tribal allocation of Pacific whiting for 2018. NMFS issued a proposed rule regarding this allocation on January 24, 2018 (83 FR 3291). This action finalizes the tribal allocation. Since 1996, NMFS has been allocating a portion of the U.S. TAC of Pacific whiting to the tribal fishery. Regulations for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan specify that the tribal allocation is subtracted from the total U.S. Pacific whiting TAC. The tribal Pacific whiting fishery is managed separately from the non-tribal Pacific whiting fishery, and is not governed by limited entry or open access regulations or allocations.
The proposed rule described the tribal allocation as 17.5 percent of the U.S. TAC, and projected a range of potential tribal allocations for 2018 based on a
As with prior tribal Pacific whiting allocations, this final rule is not intended to establish precedent for future Pacific whiting seasons, or for the determination of the total amount of whiting to which the Tribes are entitled under their treaty right. Rather, this rule adopts an interim allocation. The long-term tribal treaty amount will be based on further development of scientific information and additional coordination and discussion with and among the coastal tribes and the states of Washington and Oregon.
In addition to the tribal allocation described in the proposed rule, this final rule establishes the fishery harvest guideline (HG), called the non-tribal allocation, which had not yet been determined at the time the proposed rule was published. Although this was not part of the proposed rule, the environmental assessment for the 2017-2018 harvest specifications rule (see ELECTRONIC ACCESS) analyzed a range of TAC alternatives for 2018, and the final 2018 TAC falls within this analyzed range. In addition, via the 2017-2018 specifications rulemaking process, the public had an opportunity to comment on the 2017-2018 TACs for whiting, just as they did for all species in the groundfish FMP. NMFS follows this process because, unlike for all other groundfish species, the TAC for whiting is decided in a highly abbreviated annual process from February through April of every year, and the normal rulemaking process would not allow for the fishery to open with the new TAC on the annual season opening date of May 15.
The HG is allocated among the three non-tribal sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery. The 2018 fishery HG for Pacific whiting is 362,682 mt. This amount was determined by deducting the 77,251 mt tribal allocation and the 1,500 mt allocation for scientific research catch and fishing mortality in non-groundfish fisheries from the total U.S. TAC of 441,433 mt.
NMFS did not include the HG in the tribal whiting proposed rule published on January 24, 2018 (83 FR 3291), for two reasons related to timing and process. First, a recommendation on the coastwide TAC for Pacific whiting for 2018, under the terms of the Agreement with Canada, was not available during development of the proposed rule. NMFS, under delegation of authority from the Secretary of Commerce, approved a U.S. TAC on April 23, 2018. Second, the fishery HG is established following deductions from the U.S. TAC for the tribal allocation, mortality in scientific research activities, and fishing mortality in non-groundfish fisheries. The Council recommends to NMFS the research and bycatch set-aside on an annual basis, based on estimates of scientific research catch and estimated bycatch mortality in non-groundfish fisheries.
The regulations further allocate the fishery HG among the non-tribal catcher/processor (C/P) Coop Program, Mothership (MS) Coop Program, and Shorebased Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery. The C/P Coop Program is allocated 34 percent (123,312 mt for 2018), the MS Coop Program is allocated 24 percent (87,044 mt for 2018), and the Shorebased IFQ Program is allocated 42 percent (152,326.5 mt for 2018). The fishery south of 42° N lat. may not take more than 7,616 mt (5 percent of the Shorebased IFQ Program allocation) prior to May 15, the start of the primary Pacific whiting season north of 42° N lat.
In 2018, NMFS published a final rule changing the management of darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean perch from a total catch limit allocation to a set-aside (January 8, 2018; 83 FR 757). These set asides as well as the allocations of canary and widow rockfish to the Pacific whiting fishery are described in the footnotes to Table 2.b to part 660, subpart C and are not changed in this rulemaking.
On January 24, 2018, NMFS issued a proposed rule for the allocation and management of the 2018 tribal Pacific whiting fishery (83 FR 3291). The comment period on the proposed rule closed on February 23, 2018. No relevant comments were received, and no changes were made from the proposed allocation and management measures for the 2018 tribal Pacific whiting fishery.
The Annual Specifications and Management Measures for the 2018 Tribal and non-Tribal Fisheries for Pacific Whiting are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the Whiting Act of 2006. The measures are in accordance with 50 CFR part 660, subparts C through G, the regulations implementing the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, and NMFS has determined that this rule is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), the NMFS Assistant Administrator finds good cause to waive prior public notice and comment and delay in effectiveness for those provisions in this final rule that were not included in proposed rule (83 FR 3291),
Every year, NMFS conducts a Pacific whiting stock assessment with participation from U.S. and Canadian scientists. The 2018 stock assessment for Pacific whiting was prepared in early 2018, and included updated total catch, length and age data from the U.S. and Canadian fisheries from 2017, and biomass indices from the 2017 Joint U.S.-Canadian acoustic/midwater trawl surveys. Because of this late availability of the most recent data for the assessment, and the need for time to conduct the treaty process for determining the TAC using the most recent assessment, a determination on
A delay in implementing the Pacific whiting harvest specifications to allow for notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest because it would require either a shorter primary whiting season or development of a TAC without the most recent data. A shorter season could prevent the tribal and non-tribal fisheries from attaining their 2018 allocations, which would result in unnecessary short-term adverse economic effects for the Pacific whiting fishing vessels and the associated fishing communities. A TAC determined without the most recent data could fail to account for significant fluctuations in the biomass of this relatively short-lived species. To prevent these adverse effects and to allow the Pacific whiting season to commence, it is in the best interest of the public to waive prior notice and comment.
In addition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the NMFS Assistant Administrator finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness. Waiving the 30-day delay in effectiveness will not have a negative impact on any entities, as there are no new compliance requirements or other burdens placed on the fishing community with this rule. Failure to make this final rule effective at the start of the fishing year will undermine the intent of the rule, which is to promote the optimal utilization and conservation of Pacific whiting. Making this rule effective immediately would also serve the best interests of the public because it will allow for the longest possible Pacific whiting fishing season and therefore the best possible economic outcome for those whose livelihoods depend on this fishery. Because the 30-day delay in effectiveness would potentially cause significant financial harm without providing any corresponding benefits, this final rule is effective upon publication in the
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this final rule is 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.
The description of this action, its purpose, and its legal basis are described in the preamble to the proposed rule and are not repeated here. A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared and incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA). NMFS also prepared a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for this action. A copy of the RIR/FRFA is available from NMFS (see
NMFS published a proposed rule on January 24, 2018 (83 FR 13291), for the allocation of the 2018 tribal Pacific whiting fishery. The comment period on the proposed rule closed on February 23, 2018, and no comments were received from either the public or the Small Business Administration on the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) or the economic impacts of this action generally.
The FRFA describes the impacts on small entities, which are defined in the IRFA for this action and not repeated here.
The current Shorebased IFQ Program is composed of 180 Quota Share permits/accounts, 154 vessel accounts, and 47 first receivers, only a portion of which participate in the Pacific whiting fishery. These regulations also directly affect participants in the MS Coop Program, a general term to describe the limited access program that applies to eligible harvesters and processors in the MS sector of the Pacific whiting at-sea trawl fishery. This program currently consists of six MS processor permits, and a catcher vessel fleet currently composed of a single coop, with 34 Mothership/Catcher Vessel (MS/CV) endorsed permits (with three permits each having two catch history assignments).
These regulations also directly affect the C/P Coop Program, composed of 10 C/P endorsed permits owned by three companies that have formed a single coop. These coops are considered large entities from several perspectives; they have participants that are large entities, and have in total more than 750 employees worldwide including affiliates.
Although there are three non-tribal sectors, many companies participate in two sectors and some participate in all three sectors. As part of the permit application processes for the non-tribal fisheries, based on a review of the Small Business Administration size criteria, permit applicants were asked if they considered themselves a “small” business, and to provide detailed ownership information. After accounting for cross participation, multiple quota share account holders, and affiliation through ownership, NMFS estimates there are 103 non-tribal entities directly affected by these final regulations, 89 of which are considered “small” businesses.
Sector allocations in 2018 are the same as those in 2017. NMFS concludes that this rule will have similar outcomes as 2017 for both large and small entities, and will not disproportionately affect small entities. The U.S. portion of the TAC is divided between tribal, at-sea mothership, at-sea catcher processors, and shoreside whiting sectors at fixed percentages described above. Within the non-tribal sectors, a catch share program allocates whiting to the individual vessel level based on history in the shoreside and mothership sectors. The catcher-processor coop harvests according to a coop agreement with agreed upon allocations to each company, which have not changed in the past eight years. With allocation determined down to the individual level in each sector, the TAC should benefit both large and small entities equal to the proportion of the individual level, and small entities would not feel disproportionate effects relative to large entities. With the high 2018 TAC, small entities are expected to benefit, and experience no adverse effects from this rule.
NMFS considered two alternatives for this action: The “No-Action” and the “Proposed Action.” Under the Proposed Action alternative, NMFS proposed to set the tribal allocation percentage at 17.5 percent, as requested by the tribes. These requests reflect the level of participation in the fishery that will allow the tribes to exercise their treaty right to fish for Pacific whiting. Consideration of a percentage lower than the tribal request of 17.5 percent is not appropriate in this instance. As a matter of policy, NMFS has historically supported the harvest levels requested by the tribes. Based on the information available to NMFS, the tribal request is within their tribal treaty rights. A higher percentage would arguably also be within the scope of the treaty right.
There are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements associated with this final rule. No federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide will be sent to stakeholders, and copies of this final rule and guides (
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this final rule was developed after meaningful collaboration with tribal officials from the area covered by the FMP. Consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council is a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In addition, NMFS has coordinated specifically with the tribes interested in the whiting fishery regarding the issues addressed by this final rule.
Fisheries, Fishing, Indian fisheries.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(f) * * *
(4)
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) For the trawl fishery, NMFS will issue QP based on the following shorebased trawl allocations:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; opening.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for species that comprise the deep-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to fully use the 2018 groundfish total allowable catch specified for the species comprising the deep-water species category in the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), May 15, 2018, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., July 1, 2018.
Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., May 29, 2018.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2017-0107 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
NMFS prohibited directed fishing for species that comprise the deep-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the GOA, effective 1200 hours, A.l.t., April 23, 2018 (83 FR 18235, April 26, 2018) under § 679.21(d)(6)(i). That action was necessary because the second seasonal apportionment of the Pacific halibut catch (PSC) allowance specified for the deep-water species fishery in the GOA was reached. The species and species groups that comprise the deep-water species fishery include sablefish, rockfish, deep-water flatfish, rex sole, and arrowtooth flounder.
Regulations at § 679.21(d)(4)(iii)(D) require NMFS to combine management of the available trawl halibut PSC limits in the second season (April 1 through July 1) deep-water and shallow-water species fishery categories for use in either fishery from May 15 through June 30 of each year. The combined second seasonal apportionment of Pacific halibut PSC limit is 702 metric tons (mt). This includes the deep-water and shallow water Pacific halibut PSC limits carried forward from the first seasonal apportionments (January 20 through April 1). The deep-water and shallow-water Pacific halibut PSC limit apportionments were established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018).
As of May 9, 2018, NMFS has determined that there is approximately 411 mt of the trawl Pacific halibut PSC limit remaining in the deep-water fishery and shallow-water fishery second seasonal apportionments. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the 2018 groundfish total allowable catch available in the deep-water species fishery category NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening directed fishing for species comprising the deep-water fishery category in the GOA. The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current harvest of Pacific halibut PSC in the deep-water species trawl fishery of the GOA and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the trawl deep-water species fishery in the GOA to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until May 29, 2018.
This action is required by §§ 679.21 and 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Discontinuation of rulemaking activity.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is discontinuing the rulemaking activity that would have developed cyber security requirements for byproduct materials licensees possessing risk-significant quantities of radioactive materials. The purpose of this action is to inform members of the public of the discontinuation of the rulemaking activity and to provide a brief discussion of the NRC's decision. The rulemaking activity will no longer be reported in the NRC's portion of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (the Unified Agenda).
As of May 15, 2018, the rulemaking activity discussed in this document is discontinued.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0019 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Vanessa Cox, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8342; email:
The NRC and Agreement States are responsible for overseeing and implementing the National Materials Program to enable the safe and secure use of radioactive materials licensed for commercial, industrial, academic, and medical uses. The program includes thousands of byproduct materials licensees in varying operating environments, ranging from small industrial radiography and well-logging businesses to large manufacturing facilities, universities, and medical facilities. The majority of the licensees that possess risk-significant quantities of radioactive materials are regulated by Agreement States. Risk-significant quantities of radioactive material are defined as those meeting the thresholds for Category 1 and Category 2 included in appendix A to part 37 of title 10 of the
In a Commission paper, SECY-12-0088, “The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cyber Security Roadmap,” dated June 25, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12135A050), the NRC staff described its plan to evaluate the need for cyber security requirements for NRC and Agreement State licensees and facilities, including byproduct materials licensees. As described in that paper, the NRC staff planned to form a working group, with Agreement State participation, to develop self-assessment tools for licensees and conduct a limited number of site visits. Based on the results of these assessments and site visits, the working group intended to prepare a paper outlining potential actions for Commission consideration.
In July 2013, the NRC established the Byproduct Materials Cyber Security Working Group, comprised of headquarters and regional NRC staff and representation from the Organization of Agreement States. The purpose of the working group was to identify potential cyber security vulnerabilities among commercial, medical, industrial, and academic users of risk-significant radioactive materials and determine if the results warranted regulatory action. The working group worked with the NRC's Intelligence Liaison and Threat Assessment Branch, which regularly monitors the threats associated with cyber security and shares cyber threat information with licensees, as appropriate.
The working group identified four sets of digital assets that the NRC should evaluate with respect to cyber threat protection:
(1) Digital/microprocessor-based systems and devices that support the physical security of the licensee's facilities. These include access control systems, physical intrusion detection and alarm systems, video camera monitoring systems, digital video recorders, door alarms, motion sensors, keycard readers, and biometric scanners;
(2) Equipment and devices with software-based control, operation, and automation features, such as panoramic irradiators and gamma knives;
(3) Computers and systems used to maintain source inventories, audit data, and records necessary for compliance with security requirements and regulations; and
(4) Digital technology used to support incident response communications and coordination such as digital packet radio systems, digital repeater stations, and digital trunk radio systems.
On January 6, 2016, the NRC staff submitted a memorandum to the
As part of the information gathering effort, the NRC staff distributed a voluntary survey, “Questionnaire on Cyber Security at Byproduct Materials Licensees” (ADAMS Accession No. ML15246A306) on April 29, 2016, to all NRC and Agreement State licensees that possessed Category 1 and 2 quantities of radioactive materials. The purpose of the questionnaire was to identify what key digital assets existed at each licensee type, how they were connected to internal/external networks and the internet, and what technical and procedural security measures were in place for protection and operation of these systems and devices. The NRC staff also conducted outreach to stakeholders to encourage completion of the questionnaire, and site visits to manufacturers and panoramic irradiator licensees.
The consequence analysis was conducted in parallel with the information gathering effort, and evaluated the potential for onsite and offsite consequences that could occur if the availability, integrity, or confidentiality of data or systems associated with nuclear materials were compromised by a cyber attack.
Given the regulatory responsibilities of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the NRC limited its evaluation of the software systems used in medical applications to the systems related to the radiation safety and physical protection authority of the NRC. The NRC has a memorandum of understanding with the FDA that clarifies the respective roles of each agency in regulating the safe use of radiopharmaceuticals and sealed sources, and other medical devices containing radioactive material (ADAMS Accession No. ML023520399). Additional information on the FDA's activities, role, and expectations for the continued cyber security of medical devices can be found at
On February 28, 2017, the NRC staff provided an update to the Commission on the status of agency activities pertaining to cyber security at licensee facilities in a Commission paper, SECY-17-0034, “Update to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cyber Security Roadmap” (ADAMS Accession No. ML16354A258). The update noted the NRC staff's further consideration of cyber security requirements for radioactive materials licensees since the January 2016 memorandum. Additionally, the paper stated that the working group planned to complete its evaluation of the questionnaire responses, consequence analysis, and any follow-up communication with stakeholders and develop recommendations for a path forward.
Subsequently, the NRC completed its evaluation of cyber security requirements for byproduct materials licensees in October 2017.
The NRC staff concluded that byproduct materials licensees that possess risk-significant quantities of radioactive material do not rely solely on digital assets to ensure safety or physical protection. Rather, these licensees generally use a combination of measures, such as doors, locks, barriers, human resources, and operational processes, to ensure security, which reflects a defense-in-depth approach to physical protection and safety. As a result, the staff concluded that a compromise of any of the digital assets identified in the January 6, 2016, Commission memorandum would not result in a direct dispersal of risk-significant quantities of radioactive material, or exposure of individuals to radiation, without a concurrent and targeted breach of the physical protection measures in force for these licensees.
Therefore, the NRC staff determined that the current cyber security threat and potential consequences do not warrant regulatory action. However, the NRC staff determined that it would be prudent to issue an Information Notice (IN) to communicate effective practices for cyber security to byproduct materials licensees possessing risk-significant quantities of radioactive material. The IN will provide licensees with a better understanding of contemporary cyber security issues and strategies to protect digital assets (
For the reasons discussed in this document, the NRC is discontinuing rulemaking activity to develop cyber security requirements for byproduct materials licensees possessing risk-significant quantities of radioactive materials. In the next edition of the Unified Agenda, the NRC will update the entry for this rulemaking activity and refer to this document to indicate that the rulemaking has been discontinued. This rulemaking activity will appear in the “Completed Actions” section of the next edition of the Unified Agenda, but will not appear in future editions. If the NRC decides to pursue similar or related rulemaking activities in the future, it will inform the public through a new rulemaking entry in the Unified Agenda.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A350-941 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an inspection on the production line that revealed evidence of paint peeling on the forward and aft cargo frame forks around the hook bolt hole. This proposed AD would require a detailed visual inspection for any deficiency of the frame forks around the hook bolt hole on certain forward and aft cargo doors and applicable corrective actions. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 29, 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 NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0031, dated January 31, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A350-941 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Following an inspection on the production line, paint peeling was found on forward and aft cargo door frame forks around the hook bolt hole. Subsequent investigations determined this had been caused by incorrect masking method during application of primer, top coat and Tartaric Sulfuric Anodizing (TSA) layer. As the cargo doors are located in an area with high corrosion sensitivity, where a surface protection with primer, top coat and TSA is specified, in case of paint peeling off, galvanic corrosion could develop.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to cargo door failure, possibly resulting in decompression of the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus identified the affected parts and issued the SB [Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A350-52-P011, dated May 12, 2017] to provide inspection instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time detailed [visual] inspection (DET) of the affected parts [for discrepancies] and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s) [
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P011, dated May 12, 2017. This service information describes procedures for a one-time detailed visual inspection of the frame forks around the hook bolt hole on the forward and aft cargo door, and applicable corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 9 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action:
According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed regulation:
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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by June 29, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A350-941 airplanes certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by an inspection on the production line that revealed evidence of paint peeling on the forward and aft cargo frame forks around the hook bolt hole. We are issuing this AD to address paint peeling on the forward and aft cargo doors that could develop into galvanic corrosion, which could lead to cargo door failure and possibly result in decompression of the airplane and injury to occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For the purpose of this AD, the affected parts are forward cargo doors, part number (P/N) WG102AGAAAAF and P/N WG102AKAAAAF, serial number (S/N) UH10007 through UH10022 inclusive, except S/N UH10009; and aft cargo doors P/N WH102AHAAAAC and P/N WH102ALAAAAC, S/N UH10008 through UH10022 inclusive.
(2) For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable forward cargo door or a serviceable aft cargo door is a part that is not identified as an affected part, or is a part identified as an affected part on which a detailed visual inspection specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P011, dated May 12, 2017, has been done and there were no findings.
Within 36 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, accomplish a detailed visual inspection of each affected part for any deficiency (
If, during any detailed visual inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, any deficiency is found, before next flight, restore the anti-corrosion protection of frame forks of the affected part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P011, dated May 12, 2017, except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD.
Where Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P011, dated May 12, 2017, specifies contacting Airbus, and specifies that action as RC: This AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD.
From the effective date of this AD, it is allowed to install on an airplane a forward cargo door or an aft cargo door, provided the part is a serviceable forward cargo door or serviceable aft cargo door as defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0031, dated January 31, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-13-16, which applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. AD 2016-13-16 requires an inspection or records check to determine if affected horizontal stabilizers are installed, related investigative actions, and, for affected horizontal stabilizers, repetitive inspections for any crack of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar upper chord, and corrective action if necessary. Since we issued AD 2016-13-16, we have determined that clarification of inspection areas and serial number information of the horizontal stabilizer is necessary. Therefore, this proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2016-13-16, with revised service information that clarifies the inspection areas and serial number information of the horizontal stabilizer. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 29, 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 NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Lu Lu, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3525; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 2016-13-16, Amendment 39-18581 (81 FR 44503, July 8, 2016) (“AD 2016-13-16”), for all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. AD 2016-13-16 requires an identification plate inspection or records check to determine if affected horizontal stabilizers are installed, related investigative actions, and for affected horizontal stabilizers, repetitive inspections for any crack of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar upper chord, and corrective action if necessary. AD 2016-13-16 resulted from reports of a manufacturing oversight, in which a supplier omitted the required protective finish on certain bushings installed in the rear spar upper chord on horizontal stabilizers, which could lead to galvanic corrosion and consequent cracking of the rear spar upper chord. We issued AD 2016-13-16 to address cracking of the rear spar upper chord, which can result in the failure of the upper chord, consequent departure of the horizontal stabilizer from the airplane, and loss of control of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2016-13-16, it has been determined that clarification of inspection areas and serial number information of the horizontal stabilizer is necessary. Therefore, the service information has been revised to clarify the inspection areas for cracking and serial number information of the horizontal stabilizer.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2017. This service information describes procedures for an identification plate inspection or records check to determine whether affected horizontal stabilizers are installed, related investigative actions, and for affected horizontal stabilizers, repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for any crack of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar upper chord, and corrective action. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2016-13-16, this proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2016-13-16. Those requirements are referenced in the service information identified previously, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would clarify the inspection areas and serial number information of the horizontal stabilizer. This proposed AD would also require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2017, described previously.
For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,748 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 29, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2016-13-16, Amendment 39-18581 (81 FR 44503, July 8, 2016) (“AD 2016-13-16”).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and 900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by reports of a manufacturing oversight, in which a supplier omitted the required protective finish on certain bushings installed in the rear spar upper chord on horizontal stabilizers, which could lead to galvanic corrosion and consequent cracking of the rear spar upper chord. We are issuing this AD to address cracking of the rear spar upper chord, which could result in the failure of the upper chord, consequent departure of the horizontal stabilizer from the airplane, and loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2017.
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2017, uses the phrase “the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2017, specifies contacting Boeing, and specifies that action as RC: This AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a horizontal stabilizer on any airplane, except as specified in paragraphs (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.
(1) A horizontal stabilizer may be installed if the part is inspected in accordance with “Part 2: Horizontal Stabilizer Identification Plate Inspection” of the Accomplishments Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2017, and no affected serial number is found.
(2) A horizontal stabilizer may be installed if the part is inspected in accordance with “Part 2: Horizontal Stabilizer Identification Plate Inspection” of the Accomplishments Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2017, and an affected serial number is found, provided that the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD are done, as applicable.
(i) Initial and repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections, which are part of the required actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, are completed within the compliance times specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
(ii) All applicable corrective actions, which are part of the required actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, are done within the compliance times specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
For Groups 1 and 2, Configuration 1 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2017: This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2016-13-16 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, Revision 1, dated September 20, 2017, that are required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(5) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(5)(i) and (k)(5)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Lu Lu, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3525; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd.,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-16-05, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. AD 2017-16-05 requires a one-time detailed visual inspection for discrepancies in the Krueger flap bullnose attachment hardware, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. Since we issued AD 2017-16-05, we received a report of a missing no. 2 Krueger flap bullnose hinge bolt from an airplane that was not included in the applicability of AD 2017-16-05. This proposed AD would add airplanes and an additional inspection to determine if any Krueger flap no. 1, 2, 3, or 4 has been replaced, and related investigative and corrective actions. Since this is a rotable parts issue, the applicability of this AD has been expanded beyond the airplanes listed in the related service bulletin to include all airplanes on which a Krueger flap bullnose may be installed. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 29, 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 NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3527; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 2017-16-05, Amendment 39-18982 (82 FR 39344, August 18, 2017) (“AD 2017-16-05”), for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. AD 2017-16-05 requires a one-time detailed visual inspection for discrepancies in the Krueger flap bullnose attachment hardware, and related investigative and corrective actions, if necessary. AD 2017-16-05 resulted from a report of a Krueger flap bullnose departing an airplane during taxi, which caused damage to the wing structure and thrust reverser. We issued AD 2017-16-05 to detect and correct missing Krueger flap bullnose hardware. Such missing hardware could result in the Krueger flap bullnose departing the airplane during flight, which could damage empennage structure and lead to the inability to maintain continued safe flight and landing.
Since we issued AD 2017-16-05, we have received a report of a missing no. 2 Krueger flap bullnose hinge bolt from an airplane that was not included in the applicability of AD 2017-16-05.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1327, Revision 2, dated July 25, 2017 (“BASB 737-57A1327, R2”). This service information describes procedures for a one-time detailed visual inspection for discrepancies in the Krueger flap bullnose attachment hardware, and related investigative and corrective actions; and an inspection to determine if any Krueger flap no. 1, 2, 3, or 4 has been replaced, and related investigative and corrective actions.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition
Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2017-16-05, this proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2017-16-05. Those requirements are referenced in the service information identified previously, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would add airplanes and an additional inspection to determine if any Krueger flap no. 1, 2, 3, or 4 has been replaced, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. This proposed AD would also require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of BASB 737-57A1327, R2, described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.”
For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
Because the affected parts identified in this NPRM are rotable parts, we have determined that these parts could later be installed on airplanes that were initially delivered with acceptable parts, thereby subjecting those airplanes to the unsafe condition. Therefore, while the effectivity of BASB 737-57A1327, R2 is limited to line numbers 1 through 6465 inclusive, the applicability of this proposed AD includes all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This difference has been coordinated with Boeing.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,814 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 29, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2017-16-05, Amendment 39-18982 (82 FR 39344, August 18, 2017) (“AD 2017-16-05”).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this AD.
(1) Airplanes in Groups 1 and 2 as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1327, Revision 2, dated July 25, 2017 (“BASB 737-57A1327, R2”).
(2) Airplanes in Group 3, as identified in BASB 737-57A1327, R2, except where this service bulletin specifies the groups as line numbers 6422 through 6465 inclusive, this AD specifies those groups as line number 6422 through any line number airplane with an original Certificate of Airworthiness or an original Export Certificate of Airworthiness dated on or before the effective date of this AD.
(3) All Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900 and -900ER series airplanes with an original Certificate of Airworthiness or an original Export Certificate of Airworthiness dated after the effective date of this AD.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report of a Krueger flap bullnose departing an airplane during taxi, which caused damage to the wing structure and thrust reverser, and a report of a missing no. 2 Krueger flap bullnose hinge bolt from an airplane that was not included in the effectivity of AD 2017-16-05. We are issuing this AD to address missing Krueger flap bullnose hardware. Such missing hardware could result in the Krueger flap bullnose departing the airplane during flight, which could damage empennage structure and lead to the inability to maintain continued safe flight and landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD: Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of BASB 737-57A1327, R2, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of BASB 737-57A1327, R2.
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where BASB 737-57A1327, R2 uses the phrase “the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires using September 22, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-16-05).
(2) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where BASB 737-57A1327, R2 uses the phrase “the Revision 2 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a Krueger flap or Krueger flap bullnose on any airplane, unless the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD have been accomplished on the Krueger flap bullnose.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before September 22, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-16-05), using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1327, dated May 20, 2016.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD, using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1327, Revision 1, dated September 28, 2016.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2017-16-05 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of BASB 737-57A1327, R2 that are required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(5) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (k)(5)(i) and (k)(5)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Operators may deviate from steps not labeled as RC by using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3527; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; internet:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-25-06, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. AD 2010-25-06 requires repetitive inspections for cracking of certain fuselage frames and stub beams, and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2010-25-06 also provides for an optional repair, which terminates the repetitive inspections. For airplanes on which a certain repair is done, AD 2010-25-06 also requires repetitive inspections for cracking of certain fuselage frames and stub beams,
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 29, 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 NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 2010-25-06, Amendment 39-16539 (75 FR 81409, December 28, 2010) (“AD 2010-25-06”), for certain Model 737-200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. AD 2010-25-06 requires repetitive inspections for cracking of certain fuselage frames and stub beams, and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2010-25-06 also provides for an optional repair, which terminates the repetitive inspections. For airplanes on which a certain repair is done, AD 2010-25-06 also requires repetitive inspections for cracking of certain fuselage frames and stub beams, and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2010-25-06 resulted from reports of the detection of fatigue cracks at certain frame sections, in addition to stub beam cracking, caused by high flight cycle stresses from both pressurization and maneuver loads. We issued AD 2010-25-06 to detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain fuselage frames and stub beams and possible severed frames, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the frames. This reduced structural integrity can increase loading in the fuselage skin, which will accelerate skin crack growth and could result in rapid decompression of the fuselage.
Since we issued AD 2010-25-06, additional cracking was found in areas not covered by the inspections. During an inspection of the body station (BS) 616 stub beam upper chord, an operator identified additional cracking at buttock line (BL) 64. We determined that eddy current inspections of the upper chord at BL 64 and BL 65 must be done to maintain structural integrity. In addition, during inspections of the longitudinal floor beam web at the BS 639 stub beams operators found cracking in the floor beam web. It was determined that the inspections required by AD 2010-25-06 were inadequate, and eddy current inspections of the BL 45.5 floor beam web at the BS 639 stub beam interface must be done to address this cracking.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017. The service information describes procedures for detailed and eddy current inspections of the fuselage frame and over wing stub beam at BS 616, BS 639, and BS 597 or BS 601, and BL 45.5 floor beam web at the BS 639 stub beam attachment, and relative investigative and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2010-25-06. This proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2010-25-06. Those requirements are referenced in the service information identified previously, which, in turn, is referenced in this proposed AD, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would add new repetitive inspections for cracking of certain other fuselage frames and stub beams. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017, provides two economic inspections to find cracking prior to frame damage, which could require extensive repairs. These inspections are recommended but are not mandated in this proposed AD.
The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. Corrective actions correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 67 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do certain necessary repairs/replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs/replacements:
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 proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 29, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2010-25-06, Amendment 39-16539 (75 FR 81409, December 28, 2010) (“AD 2010-25-06”).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by the detection of fatigue cracks at certain frame sections, in addition to stub beam cracking, caused by high flight cycle stresses from both pressurization and maneuver loads and additional cracking found in areas not covered by the inspections in AD 2010-25-06. We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking of certain fuselage frames and stub beams and possible severed frames, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the frames. This reduced structural integrity can increase loading in the fuselage skin, which will accelerate skin crack growth and
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable time specified table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017: Do a detailed or high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the body station (BS) 616 and 639 frames and stub beams and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017, except as required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at the applicable time specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017.
At the applicable time specified table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017: Do the inspections required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD; or the inspection required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD; as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017, except as required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at the applicable time specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017.
(1) Do a low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspection of the web, and an HFEC inspection of the inner and outer chord common to the upper end fastener rows of the web splice doubler for cracking.
(2) Do the inspection specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) or (h)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Do a detailed inspection of the replacement frame section for cracking.
(ii) Do an HFEC and LFEC inspection of the replacement frame section for cracking.
(3) Do a detailed or HFEC inspection of the replacement stub beam for cracking.
For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017, at the time specified table 3 or table 4, as applicable, of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017, except as required by paragraph (m)(2) of this AD: Do the inspections required by paragraph (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017, except as required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Thereafter, repeat the inspections at the time specified in table 3 or table 4, as applicable, of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017.
(1) Do an open-hole HFEC inspection for cracking of the buttock line (BL) 45.5 longitudinal floor beam web at each fastener hole common to the stub beam attachment angle.
(2) Do an HFEC surface inspection for cracking of the BL 45.5 longitudinal floor beam web around the fastener head/tail at each fastener location common to the backup strap.
For Group 2 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017, at the applicable time specified table 5 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017, except as required by paragraph (m)(2) of this AD: Do the inspections required by paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017, except as required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Thereafter, repeat the inspections at the applicable time specified in table 5 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017.
(1) Do an open-hole HFEC inspection for cracking of the BL 45.5 longitudinal floor beam web filler at each fastener hole common to the stub beam attachment angle.
(2) Do an HFEC surface inspection for cracking of the BL 45.5 longitudinal floor beam web filler around the fastener head/tail at each fastener location common to the backup strap.
For Group 2 and Group 3 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017, at the applicable time specified in table 9 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017, except as required by paragraph (m)(2) of this AD; do detailed and medium frequency eddy current subsurface inspections for cracking of the BS 616 machined stub beam upper chord, and all applicable corrective actions, except as required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Thereafter, repeat the inspections at the applicable time specified in table 9 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD, using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD, using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, do the repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
(2) Where Paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 3 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (o)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2010-25-06 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017, that are required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
(1) For information about this AD, contact Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A319-115 and -132 airplanes, and Model A320-214, -216, -232, and -233 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that certain modified airplanes do not have electrical ground wires on the fuel level sensing control unit (FLSCU), which adversely affects the fuel gravity feeding operation. This proposed AD would require modification of the FLSCU wiring. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 29, 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 NPRM, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax: 206-231-3223.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0216, dated October 30, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A319-115 and -132 airplanes, and Model A320-214, -216, -232, and -233 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Airbus introduced mod 154327 on A319 and A320 aeroplanes which substituted the pump fuel feed system from the centre fuel tank with a jet pump transfer system, based on the Airbus A321 design. Following the modification introduction, it was discovered that the modified aeroplanes do not have electrical ground signals that replicate those from the deleted centre tank pump pressure switches. These signals are used as part of the fuel recirculation inhibition request logic. Subsequent investigation determined that ground wires had not been installed on the fuel level sensor control units (FLSCU) of post-mod aeroplanes, due to a drawing error on the fuel system recirculation principle diagram. Without these ground wires providing inputs, the FLSCU logic is not correctly implemented for gravity feeding operation.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to reduced fuel pressure at the engine inlet, possibly resulting in an uncommanded in-flight shut-down when flying at the gravity feed ceiling levels, as defined in the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM).
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued AFM Temporary Revision (TR) 695 Issue 1 and AFM TR 699 Issue 1 to prohibit the use of Jet B and JP4 fuel, and AFM TR 700 Issue 1 to provide instructions for amendment of the gravity feed procedure for the other fuels.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0205 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2016-25-23, Amendment 39-18749 (81 FR 90971, December 16, 2016) (“AD 2016-25-23”)], requiring amendment of the applicable AFM to include the new gravity feed procedure and to reduce the list of authorised fuels.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus developed a wiring modification to restore the intended FLSCU logic, and issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-28-1242, later revised, providing instructions to modify affected aeroplanes.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0205, which is superseded, and requires modification of FLSCU wiring. This [EASA] AD also allows, after that modification, to remove the previously inserted AFM TR's from the applicable AFM.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
This NPRM would not supersede AD 2016-25-23. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require modification of the FLSCU wiring. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all of the requirements of AD 2016-25-23.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-28-1242, Revision 01, dated October 3, 2017. The service information describes procedures for modification of the FLSCU wiring. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 58 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed regulation:
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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by June 29, 2018.
This AD affects AD 2016-25-23, Amendment 39-18749 (81 FR 90971, December 16, 2016) (“AD 2016-25-23”).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A319-115 and -132 airplanes, and Model A320-214, -216, -232, and -233 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus modification 154327 has been embodied in production, except those on which Airbus modification 158740 has been embodied.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that certain modified airplanes do not have electrical ground wires on the fuel level sensing control unit (FLSCU), which adversely affects the fuel gravity feeding operation. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced fuel pressure at the engine inlet, potentially resulting in an uncommanded in-
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the FLSCU wiring in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1242, Revision 01, dated October 3, 2017.
Modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all of the requirements of AD 2016-25-23 for that airplane. After modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, remove Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Temporary Revision TR695, Issue 1.0, dated August 1, 2016; or Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Temporary Revision TR699, Issue 1.0, dated August 1, 2016; as applicable; and Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Temporary Revision TR700, Issue 1.0, dated August 1, 2016, from the applicable AFM of that airplane.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1242, dated December 21, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0216, dated October 30, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax: 206-231-3223.(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is proposing to amend its regulations concerning the classification of products as biological products, devices, drugs, or combination products, and their assignment to Agency components for premarket review and regulation. This proposed rule would update the regulations to clarify the scope of the regulations, streamline and clarify the appeals process, align the regulations with more recent legislative and regulatory measures, update advisory content, and otherwise clarify the regulations, including updates to reflect Agency practices and policies. These changes are intended to enhance regulatory clarity and efficiency.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed rule by July 16, 2018.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before July 16, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management
• 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
John Barlow Weiner, Associate Director for Policy, Office of Combination Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5129, Silver Spring, MD 20933, 301-796-8930,
FDA promulgated its product jurisdiction regulations, codified at part 3 (21 CFR part 3), in 1991 (see 56 FR 58754, November 21, 1991). Although FDA amended these regulations most recently in 2005, to clarify the meaning of the statutory term “primary mode of action” for assignment of combination products to Agency components (see 70 FR 49848, August 25, 2005), the regulations remain largely as published in 1991. However, relevant statutory provisions have changed; FDA has published additional policies so that the advisory content included in the regulations requires updating; and in other respects the rule warrants revisions to enhance clarity and efficiency. Accordingly, FDA is proposing to amend part 3 to: (1) Clarify the scope of the regulations; (2) streamline and clarify the appeals process; (3) align the regulations with more recent legislative and regulatory measures; (4) update advisory content; and (5) otherwise clarify the rule, including updating it to reflect Agency policies and practices.
The incremental quantified cost savings of the proposed rule accrue to both the Agency and industry from resources, such as time and paper, saved through eliminating the part 3 appeal to the Office of Combination Products (OCP). These annual social cost savings are estimated to be $28,000. Sponsors are expected to incur one-time costs to read and understand the regulation. Our primary estimate of the total cost to industry in the first year is approximately $131,000.
The Agency estimates the quantifiable net social effect of the proposed rule to be a cost of approximately $103,000 in the first year and a cost savings of approximately $28,000 each year starting in the second year. The net present discounted value of the quantifiable net effect over 10 years is approximately $114,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $76,000 at a 7 percent discount rate. The total annualized net effect of the proposed rule is estimated to produce an average net cost savings ranging from $13,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $11,000 at a 7 percent discount rate.
For the reasons presented in the following subsections, FDA proposes to amend its regulations on Product Jurisdiction codified at part 3 to: (1) Clarify the scope of the regulation; (2) streamline and clarify the appeals process; (3) align the regulations with more recent legislative and regulatory measures; (4) update advisory content; and (5) otherwise clarify the rule, including updating it to reflect Agency policies and practices.
This proposed rule, if finalized, would amend § 3.3—Scope, to clarify that the part 3 procedures apply to sponsors (also referred to as applicants, see § 3.2—Definitions) for products for which the classification as biological products, devices, drugs, or combination products, or the Agency component with primary jurisdiction, is unclear or in dispute. It would also make conforming revisions to other sections in part 3, including the definitions in § 3.2.
FDA published its product jurisdiction regulations codified at part 3 in 1991, in part to implement section 503(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 353(g)), which calls upon the Agency to assign products that are comprised of any combination of a drug and a device, a device and a biological product, a biological product and a drug, or a drug, a device and a biological product (“combination products”) to Agency components based on the primary mode of action (PMOA) of the combination product. The rulemaking also established that the same procedures would be used to assign biological products, devices, and drugs to Agency components when their assignment was unclear or in dispute.
Although part 3 did not expressly refer to classification of products as biological products, devices, drugs, or combination products, such
Therefore, the Agency has been accepting under part 3 sponsor requests for the Agency to make product classification as well as assignment determinations (see,
This proposed rule would revise § 3.3 to clarify that FDA's procedures in part 3 apply to classification of products as biological products, devices, drugs, or combination products as well as to assignment of these products to Agency components, and would make corresponding amendments to other sections in part 3, including §§ 3.1, 3.7(c)(3) (see proposed 3.5(b)), 3.8(b) (see proposed 3.6(b)), 3.9(b) (see proposed 3.7(b)), and the definitions in § 3.2 for “letter of designation,” “letter of request,” and “product jurisdiction officer,” to be consistent with this clarified statement of scope.
In addition, Agency experience over the 26 years since part 3 was codified has shown that sponsors sometimes are confused as to whether they must request a classification or assignment determination under part 3 as a prerequisite to making a premarket submission for their product, regardless of whether the classification or assignment for their product is unclear or in dispute. In addition, some entities who are not the sponsor for the product have attempted to obtain a product classification or assignment determination. To eliminate this confusion, this proposed rule would also revise § 3.3 to state that the part 3 procedures apply to sponsors if classification or assignment is unclear or in dispute for their product. If no such uncertainty exists, use of the procedures is unnecessary, and sponsors can engage directly with the appropriate Agency component. Further, clarifying that part 3 applies to sponsors is consistent with section 503(g) of the FD&C Act, as amended by the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) (Pub. L. 114-255), and with section 563 of the FD&C Act.
Section 3.8(c)—Requests for reconsideration. The proposed rule would remove, as confusing and inefficient, the process codified at § 3.8(c) for sponsors to request that the product jurisdiction officer reconsider determinations made under part 3.
Currently, a sponsor may make a request for reconsideration and if the sponsor disagrees with the decision upon reconsideration, the sponsor may make an additional, supervisory appeal in accordance with § 10.75 (21 CFR 10.75). Alternatively, the sponsor may directly submit such a supervisory appeal without first requesting reconsideration under § 3.8(c).
This current approach has proven confusing to sponsors and inefficient for sponsors and Agency staff. Determinations under part 3 are made through a robust process involving OCP's review of information, either provided by the sponsor or otherwise available to the Agency, in consultation with regulatory, legal, and scientific staff from other Agency components, as appropriate. Consistent with appeals under § 10.75, no new information may be presented in a request for reconsideration under § 3.8(c). Because determinations under part 3 are made through a robust process, further evaluation of the same data and information by OCP is unlikely to result in a change of decision. Requests for reconsideration have been inefficient for sponsors who have opted to utilize this mechanism, and inclusion of the request for reconsideration mechanism has led to confusion, with sponsors sometimes believing they must make a request for reconsideration before they may submit a § 10.75 supervisory appeal.
Accordingly, FDA has determined that the request for reconsideration process is unhelpful to retain.
In addition to the amendments made by section 416 of FDAMA regarding classification and assignment discussed in section I.A, two other statutory changes have been made relating to issues addressed in part 3 since FDA promulgated the part 3 regulations in 1991, and this rule proposes to amend part 3 to comport with these statutory changes as well.
FDA amended part 3 in 2005 to clarify the meaning of PMOA for assignment of combination products, and to codify at § 3.2 definitions for biological product, device, and drug “modes of action” based upon the statutory definitions of biological product, device, and drug. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (Subtitle A of Title VII of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148)) amended the definition for biological product at section 351(i) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262(i)) to address expressly and more precisely the classification of proteins as biological products. This proposed rule would amend the definition for “biological product mode of action” at § 3.2 to align with the current statutory definition for biological product.
In 2016, section 3038 of the Cures Act amended section 503(g) of the FD&C Act, to include additional provisions relating to intercenter consultation and coordination (see 21 U.S.C. 353(g)(8)(C)), reinforcing expectations that intercenter consultation and coordination occur as appropriate. Currently, § 3.4(c) states in part that the designation of a center (an “agency component” as defined in § 3.2) as having primary jurisdiction for a combination product does not preclude consultations by that component with other components. In keeping with section 503(g) of the FD&C Act as amended and Agency practice, the Agency is revising § 3.4(c) to make clear that consultations with other Agency components will occur as FDA deems appropriate. Agency practice is to conduct intercenter consultation and coordination routinely to ensure appropriate expertise is brought to bear
In addition, section 503(g) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 3038 of the Cures Act, states that combination products shall be reviewed under a single application whenever appropriate, and that sponsors may submit separate applications for the constituent parts of a combination product unless FDA determines a single application is necessary (see 21 U.S.C. 353(g)(1)(B) and (6)). Currently, § 3.4(c) states in part that the Agency can require in appropriate cases that constituent parts of a combination product be reviewed under separate applications. Accordingly, to avoid confusion that might arise from maintaining this different articulation of Agency authority on this topic, the proposed rule would remove this language at § 3.4(c). FDA intends to issue guidance regarding implementation of the new statutory provisions as needed given Agency experience with implementing them.
The rule uses the term “application,” and lists types of applications within the definition for “premarket review” at § 3.2. However, the types of premarket submissions for medical products have changed since publication of part 3, and this listing is now incomplete. To enhance clarity and completeness, the proposed rule would add a current, complete definition for “application,” and remove the existing, related language currently included in the definition for “premarket review” in § 3.2. In addition, for clarity and alignment with Agency practice, the proposed rule would revise § 3.2 to define premarket review to include examination of data and information “submitted by an applicant,” rather than “in an application,” since premarket review can include Agency review of information provided as part of “pre-submission” engagement with applicants.
In addition, the proposed rule would amend § 3.2—Definitions to include a cross-reference to the definition for “constituent part,” codified at 21 CFR 4.2 in the 2013 rulemaking regarding current good manufacturing practices for combination products, and which has also been referenced at 21 CFR 4.101 as part of the 2016 rule on postmarketing safety reporting for combination products (81 FR 92603). The meaning of the term is the same for purposes of part 3 as for purposes of part 4. Accordingly, cross-referencing the definition into part 3 would serve to ensure clarity and consistency.
Part 3 includes advisory language and addresses associated with Agency guidance in various locations. As a general matter, recommendations from FDA are provided in guidance documents published in accordance with good guidance practices (see 21 CFR 10.115). This approach not only enables the public to comment on proposed guidance, but also enables FDA to update guidance in a timely manner given stakeholder and Agency experience with the policy topic. FDA included advisory content in part 3 in light of the novelty of the regulatory topic at the time, to facilitate stakeholder understanding and indicate Agency thinking. However, Agency thinking has evolved since promulgation of part 3 and more complete, current guidance documents and other policy statements are now available. Accordingly, the proposed rule, if finalized, would remove the advisory content and discussion of guidance from part 3. Specifically, this proposed rule would remove the provisions at §§ 3.2, 3.5, and 3.7, as explained below.
Section 3.2 includes in the definition for “mode of action” a reference to constituent parts of combination products each providing one type of mode of action and notes that the mode of action of each constituent part is typically identifiable. The proposed rule would replace this potentially confusing language, with a simple statement that each constituent part contributes one mode of action (device, drug, or biological product). Modes of action of a combination product and how to address them in requests for assignment are more fully addressed in Agency guidance, including in “How to Write a Request for Designation (RFD).”
Section 3.5 addresses the relationship between part 3 and intercenter agreements on product assignment. The proposed rule would remove this section. These non-binding intercenter agreements adopted in 1991 address the assignment of biological products, devices, and drugs, as well as combination products. The Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act (MDUFMA) (Pub. L. 107-250) enacted in 2002 amended section 503(g) of the FD&C Act to require FDA to review each agreement, guidance, or practice addressing the assignment of combination products to Agency centers, for consistency with section 503(g) (see 21 U.S.C. 353(g)(8)(F)). In accordance with this mandate, FDA conducted a review, including of the intercenter agreements addressed in § 3.5, and published its assessment in 2006 (see “Jurisdictional Update: Intercenter Agreements”, at
Sections 3.7(a) and (b) include recommendations regarding who should file an RFD and when they should file them, respectively. The proposed rule, if finalized, would remove these provisions. These questions are addressed by the proposed amendments to § 3.3 discussed in section I.A, and current Agency guidance, including in “How to Write a Request for Designation (RFD)”, which provides more clear and complete recommendations regarding timing and other process considerations.
Section 3.2 defines mode of action, and what constitutes a biological product, device, and drug mode of action, for purposes of making combination product assignment determinations. To enhance clarity, the proposed rule would add an express statement that the mode of action definitions apply for purposes of making combination product assignment determinations, and would simplify the definition for device mode of action at § 3.2 by referring to the statutory definition of device provided in section 201(h) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h)) and removing redundant language.
Section 3.4(a)—Designated Agency component. The proposed rule would amend § 3.4(a) to clarify that the Agency component to which a combination product is assigned based on PMOA is the component that regulates the constituent part providing the PMOA. For example, some biological products are assigned to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and others are assigned to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). If a combination product has a biological product PMOA, it is assigned to either CBER or CDER based upon which of these two Centers regulate that type of biological product. This interpretation of the statutory provisions governing PMOA and combination product assignments is consistent with Agency practice and ensures that combination products are assigned to the Agency component most familiar with the constituent part that provides the PMOA.
Sections 3.2 and 3.6—Product jurisdiction officer. Section 3.2 includes a definition of “product jurisdiction officer” and section 3.6 specifies that OCP is the designated product jurisdiction officer. The proposed rule would revise the definition for “product jurisdiction officer” at § 3.2 to include information currently provided in § 3.6, and remove § 3.6, simplifying the rule by consolidating this related information. Specifically, the definition of “product jurisdiction officer” at § 3.2 would be revised to refer to OCP as the office responsible for classification and assignment of medical products. MDUFMA required FDA to establish an office to perform various regulatory functions relating to combination products, including their assignment to Agency components. Consistent with that mandate, FDA created OCP and delegated to specified staff within OCP the authority to classify products as biological products, devices, drugs, or combination products as well as to assign these products to an Agency component with primary jurisdiction for their premarket review and regulation.
Existing section 3.7(d) addresses where to file RFD communications and currently requires submission in hard copy with the option to submit electronically as well. FDA sees no reason to continue to require a hard copy submission and proposes to revise the provision (see proposed § 3.5(b)) and make corresponding revisions to the content of § 3.7(c) (see proposed 3.5(b)) to give sponsors the alternative of submitting solely electronically. In addition, to avoid the need to revise the rule given changes to OCP's mailing address or email address, this rule would amend § 3.7(d) (see proposed 3.5(b)) to direct sponsors to submit RFDs to the current mailing address or email address for OCP as published by FDA, currently on the Office of Combination Products web page (
Section 3.9(b) addresses grounds for changing a classification or assignment designation, including circumstances under which the Agency can do so without the consent of the sponsor. It currently provides that sponsors shall be given 30 days written notice (which can be via email) of proposed changes and that such changes require the concurrence of the Principal Associate Commissioner. Because positions and titles in the Agency change from time to time, to avoid the need to revise part 3 when such changes occur, this rule would revise § 3.9(b) (see proposed § 3.7(b)) to state that such changes of classification or assignment require the concurrence of the official in the Agency responsible for the oversight of OCP.
Other clarifying changes to part 3 include in § 3.2: In the definitions of “combination product” and “product,” changing “biologic” to “biological product” to provide for consistency in part 3 and with the term used in section 351 of the PHS Act; and in the definitions of “biological product” and “product,” changing “351(a)” to “351(i)” and “262(a)” to “262(i)” so that the correct provision in the PHS Act and the U.S. Code is cited (
The Agency derives its authority to issue the regulations found in part 3 from 21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 355, 360, 360c-360f, 360h-360j, 360gg-360ss, 360bbb-2, 371(a), 379e, 381, 394; 42 U.S.C. 216, 262, and 264. Congress expressly directed FDA to assign combination products to the appropriate Agency component for regulation based on the Agency's assessment of PMOA as set forth in section 503(g) of the FD&C Act. Congress also expressly directed FDA to determine the classification of a product as a drug, biological product, device, or combination product, or the component of the Agency that will regulate the product, as applicable, in response to a request submitted under section 563 of the FD&C Act. Under section 701 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371) and for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act, FDA has the authority to issue and amend the regulations found in part 3.
FDA tentatively concludes that this proposed rule contains no new collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required. Information collection under part 3 has already been approved under OMB control number 0910-0523.
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. We have determined that the proposed rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13175. We have tentatively determined that the rule does not contain policies that would have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on
We have examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13771, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all 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, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13771 requires that the costs associated with significant new regulations “shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.” We believe that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because this rule imposes no new burdens, we propose to certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $148 million, using the most current (2016) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This proposed rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.
The objective of this proposed rule is to amend the regulations concerning RFDs of the classification of products as biological products, devices, drugs, or combination products, or their assignment to Agency components for premarket review and regulation. The proposed rule is intended to clarify the scope of the regulations, streamline and clarify the appeals process, align the regulations with more recent legislative and regulatory measures, update advisory content, and otherwise to clarify part 3.
Many provisions of this proposed rule codify current practices and may not result in estimated costs, benefits, or savings. However, we expect a few provisions to lead to changes that may generate additional public health benefits and cost savings to society. A summary of the quantified costs and cost savings of the proposed rule are presented in table 1. The lower and upper estimates given in table 1 are at the 5 and 95 percent interval, respectively.
The estimated primary costs of the proposed rule include the additional one-time costs incurred by industry to read and understand the regulation. We expect only a subset of firms currently producing medical products will incur this cost. Our primary estimate of the total up-front cost to industry is approximately $131,000. Annualizing these costs over a 10-year period, we estimate total annualized costs to be $15,000 at a 3 percent discount rate, and $17,000 at a 7 percent discount rate. The present value of these costs over 10 years is $127,000 at a 3 percent discount rate, and $122,000 at a 7 percent discount rate.
The primary public health benefit from adoption of the proposed rule would be the value of the illnesses and deaths avoided as a result of finalizing the proposed rule. Current regulatory requirements may cause applicants to unnecessarily submit RFDs, or to make misguided judgments regarding the need to confirm product classification or assignment. The reduction in uncertainty about the RFD process will, thereby, potentially allow sponsors to make more informed decisions regarding product development and seeking marketing authorization, and potentially allow sponsors and FDA personnel to divert resources used under current regulations to other areas, such as to product development and marketing applications. We are not able to quantify or to identify specific ways by which the proposed rule would lead to avoided illnesses or deaths and therefore do not include public health benefits in our net estimates.
FDA is able to quantify the resource savings to both the Agency and industry from the proposed rule associated with streamlining and clarifying the appeals process for product classification and assignments. Our primary estimate of total cost savings to industry and FDA is approximately $28,000 annually. The present value of these savings over 10 years is $241,000 at a 3 percent discount rate, and $198,000 at a 7 percent discount rate. Potential resource savings to FDA and industry from the optional electronic submission of RFDs are not included in this estimate because of the uncertainty in the number of sponsors who would choose to submit electronically.
Our best estimate of the quantifiable net social effect of the proposed rule, using a 10-year time horizon, is a cost of approximately $103,000 in the first year and a cost savings of approximately $28,000 each year starting in the second year. The net present discounted value of the quantifiable cost savings over 10 years is approximately $114,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and approximately $76,000 at a 7 percent discount rate. The total annualized net effect of the proposed rule is estimated to produce an average net cost savings ranging from $13,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $11,000 at a 7 percent discount rate.
Executive Order 13771 requires that the costs associated with significant
The present value of our primary net cost savings estimate of the proposed rule, using an infinite time horizon, is approximately $281,000, discounted at 7 percent, with a lower bound of approximately $165,000 and an upper bound of approximately $1.2 million. The annualized net cost savings of the proposed rule are approximately $20,000, discounted at 7 percent on an infinite time horizon, with a lower bound of approximately $12,000 and an upper bound of approximately $83,000. Discounted at 3 percent, the present value of our primary net cost savings of the proposed rule is approximately $814,000, with a lower bound of approximately $634,000 and an upper bound of approximately $2.9 million. The annualized net cost of the proposed rule is approximately −$20,000, discounted at 3 percent on an infinite time horizon, with a lower bound of approximately −$12,000 and an upper bound of approximately −$83,000. The estimated net costs using a 7 percent discount rate under Executive Order 13771 are summarized in table 2.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis if a proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (including small businesses, small non-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). FDA has examined the economic implications of the proposed rule as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule, if finalized, will not impose any new burdens on small entities, and thus will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The full preliminary analysis of economic impacts is available in the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 1) and at
FDA is proposing that any final rule based on this proposed rule become effective 30 days after the date of its publication in the
The following reference is on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see
Administrative practice and procedure, Biological products, Combination products, Drugs, Medical devices, Authority delegations.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, and authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR part 3 be amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 355, 360, 360c-360f, 360h-360j, 360gg-360ss, 360bbb-2, 371(a), 379e, 381, 394; 42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 264.
The purpose of this subpart is to provide procedures for determining whether a product is a biological product, device, drug, or combination product, and which component within FDA will have primary jurisdiction for a biological product, device, drug, or combination product, where product classification or assignment is unclear or in dispute. By doing so, this subpart implements section 503(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Nothing in this subpart prevents FDA from using any agency resources it deems necessary to ensure adequate review of the safety and effectiveness of any product, or the substantial equivalence of any device to a predicate device.
For the purpose of this part:
(1) A product comprised of two or more regulated components,
(2) Two or more separate products packaged together in a single package or as a unit and comprised of drug and device products, device and biological products, or biological and drug products;
(3) A drug, device, or biological product packaged separately that according to its investigational plan or proposed labeling is intended for use only with an approved individually specified drug, device, or biological product where both are required to achieve the intended use, indication, or effect and where upon approval of the proposed product the labeling of the approved product would need to be changed,
(4) Any investigational drug, device, or biological product packaged separately that according to its proposed labeling is for use only with another individually specified investigational drug, device, or biological product where both are required to achieve the intended use, indication, or effect.
(1) A constituent part has a biological product mode of action if it acts by means of a virus, therapeutic serum, toxin, antitoxin, vaccine, blood, blood component or derivative, allergenic product, protein (except any chemically synthesized polypeptide), or analogous product, or arsphenamine or derivate of arsphenamine (or any other trivalent organic arsenic compound), applicable to the prevention, treatment, or cure of a disease or condition of human beings, as described in section 351(i) of the Public Health Service Act.
(2) A constituent part has a device mode of action if it meets the definition of device contained in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and it does not have a biological product mode of action.
(3) A constituent part has a drug mode of action if it meets the definition of drug contained in section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and it does not have a biological product or device mode of action.
This subpart applies to sponsors for products for which classification as a drug, device, biological product, or combination product, or the agency component with primary jurisdiction, is unclear or in dispute.
(a) To designate the agency component with primary jurisdiction for the premarket review and regulation of a combination product, the agency shall determine the primary mode of action of the product. Where the primary mode of action is that of:
(1) A drug (other than a biological product), the agency component charged with premarket review of such drugs shall have primary jurisdiction;
(2) A device, the agency component charged with premarket review of such devices shall have primary jurisdiction;
(3) A biological product, the agency component charged with premarket review of such biological products shall have primary jurisdiction.
(b) In some situations, it is not possible to determine, with reasonable certainty, which one mode of action will provide a greater contribution than any other mode of action to the overall therapeutic effects of the combination product. In such a case, the agency will assign the combination product to the agency component that regulates other combination products that present similar questions of safety and effectiveness with regard to the combination product as a whole. When there are no other combination products that present similar questions of safety and effectiveness with regard to the combination product as a whole, the agency will assign the combination product to the agency component with the most expertise related to the most significant safety and effectiveness questions presented by the combination product.
(c) The agency component with primary jurisdiction for the premarket review and regulation of a product will
(a) What to file: A request for designation may be submitted only by the sponsor and must be filed in accordance with this section. The request for designation must not exceed 15 pages, including attachments, and must set forth:
(1) The identity of the sponsor, including company name and address, establishment registration number, company contact person, email address, and telephone number.
(2) A description of the product, including:
(i) Classification, name of the product and all component products, if applicable;
(ii) Common, generic, or usual name of the product and all component products;
(iii) Proprietary name of the product;
(iv) Identification of any component of the product that already has received premarket approval, is marketed as not being subject to premarket approval, or has received an investigational exemption, the identity of the sponsors, and the status of any discussions or agreements between the sponsors regarding the use of this product as a component of a new combination product.
(v) Chemical, physical, or biological composition;
(vi) Status and brief reports of the results of developmental work, including animal testing;
(vii) Description of the manufacturing processes, including the sources of all components;
(viii) Proposed use or indications;
(ix) Description of all known modes of action, the sponsor's identification of the single mode of action that provides the most important therapeutic action of the product, and the basis for that determination;
(x) Schedule and duration of use;
(xi) Dose and route of administration of drug or biological product;
(xii) Description of related products, including the regulatory status of those related products; and
(xiii) Any other relevant information.
(3) The sponsor's recommendation as to the classification of the product as a drug, device, biological product, or combination product, or as to which agency component should have primary jurisdiction. For combination products, the recommendation for primary jurisdiction must be based on the primary mode of action unless the sponsor cannot determine with reasonable certainty which mode of action provides the most important therapeutic action of the combination product, in which case the sponsor's recommendation must be based on the assignment algorithm set forth in § 3.4(b) and an assessment of the assignment of other combination products the sponsor wishes FDA to consider during the assignment of its combination product.
(b) How and where to file: All communications pursuant to this subpart shall be addressed to the attention of the product jurisdiction officer and plainly marked “Request for Designation.” Such communications shall be submitted either in hard copy (an original and two copies) or in an electronic format that FDA can process, review, and archive, to the current mailing address or email address, respectively, for the Office of Combination Products as published by FDA.
(a) Each request for designation will be reviewed for completeness within 5 working days of receipt. Any request for designation determined to be incomplete will be returned to the applicant with a request for the missing information. The sponsor of an accepted request for designation will be notified of the filing date.
(b) Within 60 days of the filing date of a request for designation, the product jurisdiction officer will issue a letter of designation to the sponsor, with copies to the agency components, specifying the classification of the product at issue or the agency component designated to have primary jurisdiction for the premarket review and regulation of the product at issue, and any consulting agency components. The product jurisdiction officer may request a meeting with the sponsor during the review period to discuss the request for designation. If the product jurisdiction officer has not issued a letter of designation within 60 days of the filing date of a request for designation, the sponsor's recommendation of the classification of the product or the center with primary jurisdiction, in accordance with § 3.5(a)(3), shall become the designated product classification or agency component.
(a) The letter of designation constitutes an agency determination that is subject to change only as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The product jurisdiction officer may change the designated product classification or agency component with the written consent of the sponsor, or without its consent to protect the public health or for other compelling reasons. A sponsor shall be given 30 days written notice of any proposed such change in designated product classification or agency component. The sponsor may request an additional 30 days to submit written objections, not to exceed 15 pages, to the proposed change, and shall be granted, upon request, a timely meeting with the product jurisdiction officer and appropriate center officials. Within 30 days of receipt of the sponsor's written objections, the product jurisdiction officer shall issue to the sponsor, with copies to appropriate agency component officials, a written determination setting forth a statement of reasons for the proposed change in designated product classification or agency component. Such a change in the designated product classification or agency component requires the concurrence of the official in the agency responsible for overseeing the Office of Combination Products.
Any filing with or review by the product jurisdiction officer stays the review clock or other established time periods for agency action for an application during the pendency of the review by the product jurisdiction officer.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Delaware. This revision pertains to the infrastructure requirement for interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 2012 fine
Written comments must be received on or before June 14, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0152 at
Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814-2021, or by email at
On December 14, 2015, the State of Delaware, through the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) submitted a SIP revision addressing the infrastructure requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2012 PM
Particle pollution is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets in the air. When inhaled, these particles can reach the deepest regions of the lungs. Exposure to particle pollution is linked to a variety of significant health problems. Particle pollution also is the main cause of visibility impairment in the nation's cities and national parks. PM
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit a SIP revision to address the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS—such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances of each NAAQS and what is in each state's existing SIP. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP revision for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The content of such SIP submission may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.
Specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a state's SIP to address any emissions activity in one state that contributes significantly to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any downwind state. The EPA sometimes refers to these requirements as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance), or jointly as the “good neighbor” provision of the CAA. On March 17, 2016, EPA issued a memorandum providing information on the development and review of SIPs that address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2012 PM
Delaware's December 14, 2015 SIP submittal asserted that the State's SIP presently contains adequate provisions prohibiting sources from emitting air pollutants in amounts which will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM
EPA used the information in the 2016 PM
EPA is proposing to approve the December 14, 2015 Delaware SIP revision addressing the interstate transport requirements for the 2012 PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
On March 14, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a rule titled, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Leather Finishing Operations Residual Risk and Technology Review.” The EPA is reopening the comment period on the proposed rule that closed on April 30, 2018. The EPA is taking this action because the supporting document—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Leather Finishing Operations—was inadvertently not included in the docket for this proposed rule. As this analysis is now available to the public, the EPA has reopened the comment period for an additional 30 days.
The public comment period for the proposed rule published in the
•
•
•
•
Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. If you need to include CBI as part of your comment, please visit
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
For questions about this proposed action, contact Mr. Bill Schrock, Natural Resources Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5032; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email address:
To allow for additional time for stakeholders to provide comments, the EPA has decided to reopen the public comment period until June 14, 2018.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions; correction.
EPA issued a notice in the
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P); email address:
The Agency included in the March 21, 2018, (83 FR 12311) (FRL-9974-76) proposed rule a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0006, is available at
This document corrects a typographical error of an incorrect Docket number.
FR Doc. 2018-05639 published in the
On page 12312, third column, under the heading
21 U.S.C. 346a.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions; correction.
EPA issued a proposed rule in the
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P); email address:
The Agency included in the March 21, 2018, (83 FR 12311) (FRL-9974-76) proposed rule a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0006, is available at
This document corrects the Company name and address.
FR Doc. 2018-05639 published in the
1. On page 12312, second column, under the heading
21 U.S.C. 346a.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Port of Long Beach, California, grantee of FTZ 50, requesting subzone status for the facilities of VF Outdoor, LLC (VF), located in Ontario, Santa Fe Springs and Corona, California. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on May 9, 2018.
The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites:
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is June 25, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to July 9, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Completion of Panel Review in the matter of 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination (Secretariat File Number: USA-CDA-2018-1904-01).
The NAFTA Secretariat has received motions filed on behalf of Bombardier, Inc. and C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership, the government of Canada, Export Development Canada,
Given all the participants have filed motions requesting termination and pursuant to Rule 71(2) of the
As a result, and in accordance with Rule 78(a), notice is hereby given that panel review of the NAFTA Civil Aircraft CVD dispute has been completed effective May 7, 2018.
Paul E. Morris, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
Chapter 19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the government of the United States, the government of Canada, and the government of Mexico. There are established
United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
Notice of Completion of Panel Review in the matter of 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value (Secretariat File Number: USA-CDA-2018-1904-02).
The NAFTA Secretariat has received motions filed on behalf of Bombardier, Inc. and C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership, the government of Canada, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and The Boeing Company, requesting the termination of panel review in the 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada: Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value (Civil Aircraft AD) dispute.
Given all the participants have filed motions requesting termination and pursuant to Rule 71(2) of the
As a result, and in accordance with Rule 78(a), notice is hereby given that panel review of the NAFTA Civil Aircraft AD dispute has been completed applicable May 2, 2018.
Paul E. Morris, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
Chapter 19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the government of the United States, the government of Canada, and the government of Mexico. There are established
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received an application from Orsted (U.S.) LLC/Bay State Wind LLC (Bay State Wind) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to high-resolution geophysical (HRG) survey investigations associated with marine site characterization activities off the coast of Massachusetts in the area of the Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0500) (the Lease Area). Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to Bay State Wind to incidentally take, by Level A and Level B harassment, small numbers of marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than June 14, 2018.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Dale Youngkin, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to evaluate the issuance of wind energy leases covering the entirety of the Massachusetts Wind Energy Area (including the OCS-A 0500 Lease Area), and the approval of site assessment activities within those leases (BOEM, 2014). NMFS previously adopted BOEM's EA and issued a Finding of No Significant Effect (FONSI) for similar work in 2016 (81 FR 56589, August 22, 2016).
NMFS has reviewed the BOEM EA and our previous FONSI and has preliminarily determined that this action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.
On October 20, 2017 NMFS received an application from Bay State Wind for the taking of marine mammals incidental to HRG and geotechnical survey investigations off the coast of Massachusetts in the OCS-A 0500 Lease Area, designated and offered by the BOEM, to support the development of an offshore wind project. Bay State Wind's request is for take, by Level A and Level B harassment, of a small number of 10 species or stocks of marine mammals. Neither the applicant nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously issued an IHA to Bay State Wind (then operating under DONG Energy) for similar work (FR 81 56589, August 22, 2016). Bay State Wind complied with all the requirements (
Bay State Wind proposes to conduct HRG surveys in the Lease Area to support the characterization of the existing seabed and subsurface geological conditions in the Lease Area. This information is necessary to support the final siting, design, and installation of offshore project facilities, turbines and subsea cables within the project area as well as to collect the data necessary to support the review requirements associated with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Underwater sound resulting from Bay State Wind's proposed site characterization surveys has the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals. This take of marine mammals is anticipated to be in the form of harassment and no serious injury or mortality is anticipated, nor is any authorized in this IHA.
HRG surveys of the wind turbine generator (WTG) and offshore substation (OSS) areas are anticipated to commence no earlier than June 1, 2018 and will last for approximately 60 days, including estimated weather down time. Likewise, the Export Cable Route HRG surveys are anticipated to commence no earlier than June 1, 2018 and will last approximately 40 days (including estimated weather down time). Offshore and near coastal shallow water regions of the HRG survey will occur within the same 40-day timeframe. Surveys are anticipated to commence upon issuance of the requested IHA, if appropriate.
Bay State Wind's survey activities will occur in the approximately 187,532-acre Lease Area designated and offered by BOEM, located approximately 14 miles (mi) south of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts at its closest point, as well as within 2 potential export cable routes to Somerset, MA and to Falmouth, MA (see Figure 1-1 of the IHA application). The Lease Area falls within the Massachusetts Wind Energy Area (MA WEA).
Marine site characterization surveys will include the following HRG survey activities:
• Depth sounding (multibeam depth sounder) to determine water depths and general bottom topography;
• Magnetic intensity measurements for detecting local variations in regional magnetic field from geological strata and potential ferrous objects on and below the bottom;
• Seafloor imaging (sidescan sonar survey) for seabed sediment classification purposes, to identify natural and man-made acoustic targets resting on the bottom as well as any anomalous features;
• Shallow penetration sub-bottom profiler (pinger/chirp) to map the near surface stratigraphy (top 0-5 meter (m) soils below seabed); and
• Medium penetration sub-bottom profiler (sparker) to map deeper subsurface stratigraphy as needed (soils down to 75-100 m below seabed).
Table 1 identifies the representative survey equipment that is being considered in support of the HRG survey activities. The make and model of the listed HRG equipment will vary depending on availability, but will be finalized as part of the survey preparations and contract negotiations with the survey contractor, and therefore the final selection of the survey equipment will be confirmed prior to the start of the HRG survey program. Only the make and model of the HRG equipment may change, not the types of equipment or the addition of equipment with characteristics that might have effects beyond (
The deployment of HRG survey equipment, including the use of intermittent, impulsive sound-producing equipment operating below 200 kilohertz (kHz), has the potential to cause acoustic harassment to marine mammals. Based on the frequency ranges of the equipment to be used in support of the HRG survey activities (Table 1) and the hearing ranges of the marine mammals that have the potential to occur in the Lease Area during survey activities (Table 2), the noise produced by the ultra short baseline (USBL) and global acoustic positioning system (GAPS) transceiver systems; sub-bottom profilers; sparkers; and boomers fall within the established marine mammal hearing ranges and have the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals.
The equipment positioning systems use vessel-based underwater acoustic positioning to track equipment in very shallow to very deep water. Using pulsed acoustic signals, the systems calculate the position of a subsea target by measuring the range (distance) and bearing from a vessel-mounted transceiver to a small acoustic transponder (the acoustic beacon, or pinger) fitted to the target. Equipment
Given the size of the Lease Area (187,532 acres), to minimize cost, the duration of survey activities, and the period of potential impact on marine species, Bay State Wind has proposed conducting survey operations 24 hours per day in the offshore areas. Based on 24-hour operations, the estimated duration of the survey activities would be approximately 60 days (including estimated weather down time). For the nearshore/landfall area, a small vessel with a draft sufficient to survey shallow waters will be needed. Only daylight operations will be used to survey the nearshore/landfall, and will require an estimated 40 days to complete (including estimated weather down time). Offshore and near coastal shallow water regions of the HRG survey will occur within the same 40-day timeframe.
The survey area consists of several sections (Lots) as described below:
• Export Cable Route to Somerset, MA—This export cable route will be split into two Lots reflecting the boundary between State and Federal waters, which also coincides with the 3 nautical mile maritime boundary:
○ Lot 1 consists of a 1,640-ft (500 m) wide survey corridor from the 3-nautical mile maritime boundary near coastal shallow water, at which point the corridor splits into three extensions toward potential landfall locations (Extensions 1a, 1b, and 1c; see Figure 1-1 inset in the application). Each extension is 820 ft (250 m) wide. The total estimated trackline miles are approximately 350 mile (mi) (563 km); and
○ Lot 2 consists of a 3,281-ft (1,000 m) wide survey corridor in the offshore region of the export cable route. The total estimated trackline miles are approximately 678 mi (1,091 km);
• Phase I Development Area—This area comprises Lot 3, which consists of the locations for the WTG and OSS as well as inter-array cable segments. The trackline is estimated to be approximately 1,768 mi (2,845 km) and would be comprised of:
○ 656-ft (200 m) radius around the planned locations for OSS;
○ 492-ft (150 m) radius around the planned locations for WTGs;
○ 246-ft (75 m) radius around planned locations for inter-array cable segments; and
• Export Cable Route to Falmouth, MA—This area will be split into two Lots reflecting the boundary between State and Federal waters and coinciding with the 3-nautical mile boundary:
○ Lot 4 consists of a 3,281-ft (1,000 m) wide survey corridor in the offshore region of the cable route. The estimated trackline would be approximately 1,400 mi (2.253 km);
○ Lot 5 consists of a 1,640-ft (500 m) wide survey corridor in the near coastal shallow water region of the cable route. The total estimated trackline would be approximately 67 mi (108 km).
Multiple vessels will be utilized to conduct site characterization survey activities in the locations of the WTG and OSS, two offshore segments of the export cable route, and nearshore/cable landfall area. For the near coastal shallow water regions of the Export Cable Routes (Lots 1 and 5; Refer to Figure 1 and Pages 3-4 of the application for description of Lots), up to two small vessels with a draft sufficient to survey shallow waters (up to 72 feet (ft) (22 m)) are planned to be used. For the WTG and OSS and offshore regions of the two Export Cable Routes (Lots 3, 2, and 4, respectively), up to three large vessels (approximately 170 ft (52 m) in length) will conduct survey operations. In Lots 3 and 4 (WTG and OSS locations and offshore portion of the Export Cable Route to Falmouth), one large vessel will serve as a “mother vessel” to a smaller (41 ft (12.5 m)) autonomous surface vessel (ASV) that may be used to `force multiply' survey production. Additionally, the ASV will also capture data in water depths shallower than 26 ft (8 m)), increasing the shallow end reach of the larger vessel. The ASV can be used for nearshore operations and shallow work (20 ft (6 m) and less) in a “manned” configuration.
The ASV and mother vessel will acquire survey data in tandem and the ASV will be kept within sight of the mother vessel at all times. The ASV will operate autonomously along a parallel track to, and slightly ahead of, the mother vessel at a distance set to prevent crossed signaling of survey equipment (within 2,625 ft (800 m)). During data acquisition surveyors have full control of the data being acquired and have the ability to make changes to settings such as power, gain, range scale etc. in real time. Surveyors will also be able to monitor the data as it is acquired by the ASV utilizing a real time IP radio link. For each 12 hour shift, an ASV technician will be assigned to manage the vessel during his or her shift to ensure the vehicle is operating properly and to take over control of the vehicle should the need arise. The ASV is outfitted with an array of cameras, radars, thermal equipment and AIS, all of which is monitored in real time by the ASV technician. This includes a forward-facing dual thermal/HD camera installed on the mother vessel to provide a field of view ahead of the vessel and around the ASV, forward-facing thermal camera on the ASV itself with a real-time monitor display installed on the mother vessel bridge, and use of night-vision goggles with thermal clip-ons for monitoring around the mother vessel and ASV. Additionally, there will be 2 survey technicians per shift assigned to acquire the ASV survey data.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see “Proposed Mitigation” and “Proposed Monitoring and Reporting”).
Sections 3 and 4 of Bay State Wind's IHA application summarize available information regarding the status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
Table 2 lists all marine mammal species with expected occurrence in the Northwest Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) as well as potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow the Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprise that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Atlantic Ocean SARs (
There are 38 species of marine mammals that potentially occur in the Northwest Atlantic OCS region (BOEM, 2014) (Table 2). The majority of these species are pelagic and/or more northern species, or are so rarely sighted that their presence in the Lease Area is unlikely. Five marine mammal species are listed under the ESA and are known to be present, at least seasonally, in the waters of Southern New England: Blue whale, fin whale, right whale, sei whale, and sperm whale. These species are highly migratory and do not spend extended periods of time in a localized area; the waters of Southern New England (including the Lease Area) are primarily used as a stopover point for these species during seasonal movements north or south between important feeding and breeding grounds. While the fin and right whales have the potential to occur within the Lease Area, the sperm, blue, and sei whales are more pelagic and/or northern species, and though their presence within the Lease Area is possible, they are considered less common with regards to sightings. Because the potential for blue whales and sei whales to occur within the Lease Area during the marine survey period is unlikely, these species will not be described further in this analysis. Sperm whales are known to occur occasionally in the region, but their sightings are considered rare and thus their presence in the Lease Area at the time of the proposed activities is considered unlikely. However, based on a recent increase in sightings, they are included in the discussion below.
The following species are both common in the waters of the OCS south of Massachusetts and have the highest likelihood of occurring, at least seasonally, in the Lease Area: Humpback whale (
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
• Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hertz (Hz) and 35 kHz;
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked whales, and most delphinids): generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
• High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data and genetic data): generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz;
• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information. Eleven marine mammal species (nine cetacean and two pinniped (both phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean species that may be present, five are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact
Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air or water, and is generally characterized by several variables. Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is measured in Hz or kHz, while sound level describes the sound's intensity and is measured in dB. Sound level increases or decreases exponentially with each dB of change. The logarithmic nature of the scale means that each 10-dB increase is a 10-fold increase in acoustic power (and a 20-dB increase is then a 100-fold increase in power). A 10-fold increase in acoustic power does not mean that the sound is perceived as being 10 times louder, however. Sound levels are compared to a reference sound pressure (micro-Pascal) to identify the medium. For air and water, these reference pressures are “re: 20 micro pascals (µPa)” and “re: 1 µPa,” respectively. Root mean square (RMS) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. RMS is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1975). RMS accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels. This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units rather than by peak pressures.
HRG survey equipment use during the geophysical surveys may temporarily impact marine mammals in the area due to elevated in-water sound levels. Marine mammals are continually exposed to many sources of sound. Naturally occurring sounds such as lightning, rain, sub-sea earthquakes, and biological sounds (
When sound travels (propagates) from its source, its loudness decreases as the distance traveled by the sound increases. Thus, the loudness of a sound at its source is higher than the loudness of that same sound a kilometer away. Acousticians often refer to the loudness of a sound at its source (typically referenced to one meter from the source) as the source level and the loudness of sound elsewhere as the received level (
As sound travels from a source, its propagation in water is influenced by various physical characteristics, including water temperature, depth, salinity, and surface and bottom properties that cause refraction, reflection, absorption, and scattering of sound waves. Oceans are not homogeneous and the contribution of each of these individual factors is extremely complex and interrelated. The physical characteristics that determine the sound's speed through the water will change with depth, season, geographic location, and with time of day (as a result, in actual active sonar operations, crews will measure oceanic conditions, such as sea water temperature and depth, to calibrate models that determine the path the sonar signal will take as it travels through the ocean and how strong the sound signal will be at a given range along a particular transmission path). As sound travels through the ocean, the intensity associated with the wavefront diminishes, or attenuates. This decrease in intensity is referred to as propagation loss, also commonly called transmission loss.
Marine mammals may experience temporary or permanent hearing impairment when exposed to loud sounds. Hearing impairment is classified by temporary threshold shift (TTS) and permanent threshold shift (PTS). There are no empirical data for onset of PTS in any marine mammal; therefore, PTS-onset must be estimated from TTS-onset measurements and from the rate of TTS growth with increasing exposure levels above the level eliciting TTS-onset. PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall
TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a loud sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound must be stronger in order to be heard. At least in terrestrial mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days, can be limited to a particular frequency range, and can occur to varying degrees (
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics and in interpretation of
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise) and three species of pinnipeds (northern elephant seal, harbor seal, and California sea lion) exposed to a limited number of sound sources (
Scientific literature highlights the inherent complexity of predicting TTS onset in marine mammals, as well as the importance of considering exposure duration when assessing potential impacts (Mooney
Marine mammals in the Lease Area during the HRG survey are unlikely to incur TTS hearing impairment due to the characteristics of the sound sources, which include low source levels (208 to 221 dB re 1 µPa-m) and generally very short pulses and duration of the sound. Even for high-frequency cetacean species (
Masking is the obscuring of sounds of interest to an animal by other sounds, typically at similar frequencies. Marine mammals are highly dependent on sound, and their ability to recognize sound signals amid other sound is important in communication and detection of both predators and prey (Tyack, 2000). Background ambient sound may interfere with or mask the ability of an animal to detect a sound signal even when that signal is above its absolute hearing threshold. Even in the absence of anthropogenic sound, the marine environment is often loud. Natural ambient sound includes contributions from wind, waves, precipitation, other animals, and (at frequencies above 30 kHz) thermal sound resulting from molecular agitation (Richardson
Background sound may also include anthropogenic sound, and masking of natural sounds can result when human activities produce high levels of background sound. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound is high (
Although masking is a phenomenon which may occur naturally, the introduction of loud anthropogenic sounds into the marine environment at frequencies important to marine mammals increases the severity and frequency of occurrence of masking. For example, if a baleen whale is exposed to continuous low-frequency sound from an industrial source, this would reduce the size of the area around that whale within which it can hear the calls of another whale. The components of background noise that are similar in frequency to the signal in question primarily determine the degree of masking of that signal. In general, little is known about the degree to which marine mammals rely upon detection of sounds from conspecifics, predators, prey, or other natural sources. In the absence of specific information about the importance of detecting these natural sounds, it is not possible to predict the impact of masking on marine mammals (Richardson
Marine mammal communications would not likely be masked appreciably by the sub-profiler or pingers' signals given the directionality of the signal and the brief period when an individual mammal is likely to be within its beam.
Classic stress responses begin when an animal's central nervous system perceives a potential threat to its homeostasis. That perception triggers stress responses regardless of whether a stimulus actually threatens the animal; the mere perception of a threat is sufficient to trigger a stress response (Moberg, 2000; Seyle, 1950). Once an animal's central nervous system perceives a threat, it mounts a biological response or defense that consists of a combination of the four general biological defense responses: Behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses.
In the case of many stressors, an animal's first and sometimes most economical (in terms of biotic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential stressor or avoidance of continued exposure to a stressor. An animal's second line of defense to stressors involves the sympathetic part of the autonomic nervous system and the classical “fight or flight” response which includes the cardiovascular system, the gastrointestinal system, the exocrine glands, and the adrenal medulla to produce changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal activity that humans commonly associate with “stress.” These responses have a relatively short duration and may or may not have significant long-term effect on an animal's welfare.
An animal's third line of defense to stressors involves its neuroendocrine systems; the system that has received the most study has been the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system (also known as the HPA axis in mammals or the hypothalamus-pituitary-interrenal axis in fish and some reptiles). Unlike stress responses associated with the autonomic nervous system, virtually all neuro-endocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction (Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 1995), altered metabolism (Elasser
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and distress is the biotic cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose a risk to the animal's welfare. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other biotic function, which impairs those functions that experience the diversion. For example, when mounting a stress response diverts energy away from growth in young animals, those animals may experience stunted growth. When mounting a stress response diverts energy from a fetus, an animal's reproductive success and its fitness will suffer. In these cases, the animals will have entered a pre-pathological or pathological state which is called “distress” (Seyle, 1950) or “allostatic loading” (McEwen and Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state will last until the animal replenishes its biotic reserves sufficient to restore normal function. Note that these examples involved a long-term (days or weeks) stress response exposure to stimuli.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses have also been documented fairly well through controlled experiments; because this physiology exists in every vertebrate that has been studied, it is not surprising that stress responses and their costs have been documented in both laboratory and free-living animals (for examples see, Holberton
Studies of other marine animals and terrestrial animals would also lead us to expect some marine mammals to experience physiological stress responses and, perhaps, physiological responses that would be classified as “distress” upon exposure to high frequency, mid-frequency and low-frequency sounds. For example, Jansen (1998) reported on the relationship between acoustic exposures and physiological responses that are indicative of stress responses in humans (for example, elevated respiration and increased heart rates). Jones (1998) reported on reductions in human performance when faced with acute, repetitive exposures to acoustic disturbance. Trimper
Hearing is one of the primary senses marine mammals use to gather information about their environment and to communicate with conspecifics. Although empirical information on the relationship between sensory impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic masking) on marine mammals remains limited, it seems reasonable to assume that reducing an animal's ability to gather information about its environment and to communicate with other members of its species would be stressful for animals that use hearing as their primary sensory mechanism. Therefore, we assume that acoustic exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS or TTS would be accompanied by physiological stress responses because terrestrial animals exhibit those responses under similar conditions (NRC, 2003). More importantly, marine mammals might experience stress responses at received levels lower than those necessary to trigger onset TTS. Based on empirical studies of the time required to recover from stress responses (Moberg, 2000), we also assume that stress responses are likely to persist beyond the time interval required for animals to recover from TTS and might result in pathological and pre-pathological states that would be as significant as behavioral responses to TTS.
In general, there are few data on the potential for strong, anthropogenic underwater sounds to cause non-auditory physical effects in marine mammals. Such effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be limited to short distances and to activities that extend over a prolonged period. The available data do not allow identification of a specific exposure level above which non-auditory effects can be expected (Southall
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific. An animal's perception of and response to (in both nature and magnitude) an acoustic event can be influenced by prior experience, perceived proximity, bearing of the sound, familiarity of the sound, etc. (Southall
Southall
For purposes of analyzing responses of marine mammals to anthropogenic sound and developing criteria, NMFS (2016) differentiates between pulse (impulsive) sounds (single and multiple) and non-pulse sounds. For purposes of evaluating the potential for take of marine mammals resulting from underwater noise due to the conduct of the proposed HRG surveys (operation of USBL positioning system and the sub-bottom profilers), the criteria for Level A harassment (PTS onset) from impulsive noise was used as prescribed in NMFS (2016) and the threshold level for Level B harassment (160 dB
Studies that address responses of low-frequency cetaceans to sounds include data gathered in the field and related to several types of sound sources, including: vessel noise, drilling and machinery playback, low-frequency M-sequences (sine wave with multiple phase reversals) playback, tactical low-frequency active sonar playback, drill ships, and non-pulse playbacks. These studies generally indicate no (or very limited) responses to received levels in the 90 to 120 dB re: 1 μPa range and an increasing likelihood of avoidance and other behavioral effects in the 120 to 160 dB range. As mentioned earlier, though, contextual variables play a very important role in the reported responses and the severity of effects do not increase linearly with received levels. Also, few of the laboratory or field datasets had common conditions, behavioral contexts, or sound sources, so it is not surprising that responses differ.
The studies that address responses of mid-frequency cetaceans to sounds include data gathered both in the field and the laboratory and related to several different sound sources, including: Pingers, drilling playbacks, ship and ice-breaking noise, vessel noise, Acoustic harassment devices (AHDs), Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs), mid-frequency active sonar, and non-pulse bands and tones. Southall
The studies that address responses of high-frequency cetaceans to sounds include data gathered both in the field and the laboratory and related to several different sound sources, including: pingers, AHDs, and various laboratory non-pulse sounds. All of these data were collected from harbor porpoises.
The studies that address the responses of pinnipeds in water to sounds include data gathered both in the field and the laboratory and related to several different sound sources, including: AHDs, various non-pulse sounds used in underwater data communication, underwater drilling, and construction noise. Few studies exist with enough information to include them in the analysis. The limited data suggest that exposures to non-pulse sounds between 90 and 140 dB generally do not result in strong behavioral responses of pinnipeds in water, but no data exist at higher received levels (Southall
Marine mammals are likely to avoid the HRG survey activity, especially harbor porpoises, while the harbor seals might be attracted to them out of curiosity. However, because the sub-bottom profilers and other HRG survey equipment operate from a moving vessel, and the field-verified distance to the 160 dB
We have also considered the potential for severe behavioral responses such as stranding and associated indirect injury or mortality from Bay State Wind's use of HRG survey equipment, on the basis of a 2008 mass stranding of approximately one hundred melon-headed whales in a Madagascar lagoon system. An investigation of the event indicated that use of a high-frequency mapping system (12-kHz multibeam echosounder) was the most plausible and likely initial behavioral trigger of the event, while providing the caveat that there is no unequivocal and easily identifiable single cause (Southall
The report also notes that prior use of a similar system in the general area may have sensitized the animals and also concluded that, for odontocete cetaceans that hear well in higher frequency ranges where ambient noise is typically quite low, high-power active sonars operating in this range may be more easily audible and have potential effects over larger areas than low frequency systems that have more typically been considered in terms of anthropogenic noise impacts. It is, however, important to note that the relatively lower output frequency, higher output power, and complex nature of the system implicated in this event, in context of the other factors noted here, likely produced a fairly unusual set of circumstances that indicate that such events would likely remain rare and are not necessarily relevant to use of lower-power, higher-frequency systems more commonly used for HRG survey applications. The risk of similar events recurring may be very low, given the extensive use of active acoustic systems used for scientific and navigational purposes worldwide on a daily basis and the lack of direct evidence of such responses previously reported.
Numerous studies have shown that underwater sounds from industrial activities are often readily detectable by marine mammals in the water at distances of many kms. However, other studies have shown that marine mammals at distances more than a few kilometers away often show no apparent response to industrial activities of various types (Miller
Ship strikes of marine mammals can cause major wounds, which may lead to the death of the animal. An animal at the surface could be struck directly by a vessel, a surfacing animal could hit
The most vulnerable marine mammals are those that spend extended periods of time at the surface in order to restore oxygen levels within their tissues after deep dives (
An examination of all known ship strikes from all shipping sources (civilian and military) indicates vessel speed is a principal factor in whether a vessel strike results in death (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist
There are no feeding areas, rookeries, or mating grounds known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the proposed project area. There is also no designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine mammals. NMFS' regulations at 50 CFR part 224 designated the nearshore waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight as the Mid-Atlantic U.S. Seasonal Management Area (SMA) for right whales in 2008. Mandatory vessel speed restrictions are in place in that SMA from November 1 through April 30 to reduce the threat of collisions between ships and right whales around their migratory route and calving grounds.
Because of the temporary nature of the disturbance, the availability of similar habitat and resources (
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of “small numbers” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of the HRG equipment (
Project activities that have the potential to harass marine mammals, as defined by the MMPA, include underwater noise from operation of the HRG survey sub-bottom profilers, boomers, sparkers, and equipment positioning systems. Harassment could take the form of temporary threshold shift, avoidance, or other changes in marine mammal behavior. NMFS anticipates that impacts to marine mammals would be mainly in the form of behavioral harassment (Level B harassment), but we have evaluated a small number of PTS takes (Level A harassment) for high frequency species (harbor porpoise) to be precautionary. No take by serious injury, or mortality is proposed. NMFS does not anticipate take resulting from the movement of vessels associated with construction because there will be a limited number of vessels moving at slow speeds and the BOEM lease agreement requires measures to ensure vessel strike avoidance.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by estimating: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. Below we describe these components in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
These thresholds are provided in Table 4 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds.
When NMFS' Acoustic Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component of the new thresholds, NMFS developed an optional User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For mobile sources such as the HRG survey equipment proposed for use in Bay State Wind's activity, the User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which a stationary animal would not incur PTS if the sound source traveled by the animal in a straight line at a constant speed. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths for the various HRG equipment types are reported in Appendix A of Bay State Wind's IHA application, and distances to the acoustic exposure criteria discussed above are shown in Tables 5 and 6.
Bay State Wind completed an underwater noise monitoring program for field verification at the project site prior to commencement of the HRG survey that took place in 2016. One of the main objectives of this program was to determine the apparent sound source levels of HRG activities. Results from field verification studies during previously authorized activities were used where applicable and manufacturer source levels were adjusted to reflect the field verified levels. However, not all equipment proposed for use in the 2018 season was used in the 2016 activities. As no field data currently exists for the Innomar sub-bottom profiler or Applied Acoustics boomer, acoustic modeling was completed using a version of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory's Range-dependent Acoustic Model (RAM) and BELLHOP Gaussian beam ray-trace propagation model (Porter and Liu 1994). Calculations of the ensonified area are conservative due to the directionality of the sound sources. For the various HRG transducers Bay State Wind proposes to use for these activities, the beamwidth varies from 200° (almost omnidirectional) to 1°. The modeled directional sound levels were then used as the input for the acoustic propagation models, which do not take the directionality of the source into account. Therefore, the volume of area affected would be much lower than modeled in cases with narrow beamwidths such as the Innomar SES-2000 sub-bottom profiler, which has a 1° beamwidth.
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations.
The data used as the basis for estimating species density (“D”) for the Lease Area are derived from data provided by Duke University's Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab and the Marine Life Data and Analysis Team. This data set is a compilation of the best available marine mammal data (1994-2014) and was prepared in a collaboration between Duke University, Northeast Regional Planning Body, University of Carolina, the Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center, and NOAA (Roberts
Northeast Navy Operations Area (OPAREA) Density Estimates (DoN, 2007) were used in support for estimating take for seals, which represents the only available comprehensive data for seal abundance. NODEs utilized vessel-based and aerial survey data collected by NMFS from 1998-2005 during broad-scale abundance studies. Modeling methodology is detailed in DoN (2007). Therefore, for the purposes of the take calculations, NODEs Density Estimates (DoN, 2007) as reported for the summer and fall seasons were used to estimate harbor seal and gray seal densities.
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate. In order to estimate the number of marine mammals predicted to be exposed to sound levels that would result in harassment, radial distances to predicted isopleths corresponding to harassment thresholds are calculated, as described above. Those distances are then used to calculate the area(s) around the HRG survey equipment predicted to be ensonified to sound levels that exceed harassment thresholds. The area estimated to be ensonified to relevant thresholds in a single day of the survey is then calculated, based on areas predicted to be ensonified around the HRG survey equipment and the estimated trackline distance traveled per day by the survey vessel.
The estimated distance of the daily vessel trackline was determined using the estimated average speed of the vessel and the 24-hour or daylight-only operational period within each of the corresponding survey segments. All noise producing survey equipment are assumed to be operating concurrently. Using the distance of 400 m (1,312 ft) to the Level B isopleth and 75 m (246.1 ft) for the Level A isopleth (for harbor
As noted in Table 8, requested take estimates were adjusted to account for typical group size for sperm whales, bottlenose dolphins, and Atlantic white-sided dolphins. Requested take numbers were also adjusted to account for recent sightings data (Smultea Environmental Sciences, 2016; Gardline, 2016) for minke whales and short-beaked common dolphins. In addition, requested Level A take numbers for harbor porpoise were adjusted to account for the fact that a Level A shutdown zone encompassing the Level A harassment zone will be implemented to avoid Level A takes of this species. Finally, requested take numbers were adjusted for north Atlantic right whales due to the implementation of a 500 m shutdown zone, which is greater than the 400 m Level B behavioral harassment zone, to avoid Level B takes of this species.
Bay State Wind's calculations do not take into account whether a single animal is harassed multiple times or whether each exposure is a different animal. Therefore, the numbers in Tables 6 are the maximum number of animals that may be harassed during the HRG surveys (
NMFS proposes to authorize a small number of Level A takes of harbor porpoises even though NMFS has also proposed a 75 m shut down zone to avoid Level A take of this species. This is warranted due to the small size of the species in combination with some higher sea states and weather conditions that could make harbor porpoises more cryptic and difficult to observe at the 75 m shut down zone. For reasons discussed above (short pulse duration and highly directional sound pulse transmission of these mobile sources), PTS (Level A take) is unlikely to occur even if harbor porpoises were within the 75 m isopleth. However, out of an abundance of caution, NMFS proposes to authorize Level A take of harbor porpoises.
No take of north Atlantic right whale is requested, nor is any take proposed for authorization. The modeled Level B behavioral harassment (400 m) is well within the 500 m mitigation shut down for this species and, based on the described monitoring measures, information from previous monitoring reports, and in consideration of the size of this species, it is reasonable to expect that north Atlantic right whales will be able to be observed such that shut down would occur well beyond the threshold for potential behavioral harassment.
Finally, as stated above, calculation of the ensonified area does not take directionality of the sound source into account and results in a conservative estimate for the ZOI. The equipment with the largest radial distance to Level A (for harbor porpoise) and Level B harassment thresholds was used to calculate the ZOI under the assumption that this equipment would be in use for the entirety of the survey activities. The Innomar SES-2000 sub-bottom profiler resulted in the largest isopleth for Level A harassment for HF cetaceans (harbor porpoise), so the ZOI was calculated based on this 75 m isopleth. However, as also described above, this equipment has a 1° beamwidth, so the actual ensonified volume would be much less than the calculated area. Similarly, the Applied Acoustics S-Boom triple plate boomer resulted in the largest isopleth for Level B harassment, so the ZOI was calculated using this 400 m isopleth and, as described above, this equipment has a beamwidth of 25°—35° and is also not omnidirectional so the actual ensonified volume would be less than the calculated area. Therefore, the resulting number of calculated marine mammal incidental takes are very conservative due to the assumption that the equipment with the largest isopleths are in use for the duration of activities and the calculated ZOIs do not take directionality of these sound sources into account. Further, the calculated takes are conservative because these HRG sound sources have very short pulse durations that are also not taken into account in calculations of take, but would lessen the potential for marine mammals to be exposed to the sound source for long enough periods to result in the potential for take as described above.
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) and the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
With NMFS' input during the application process, Bay State Wind is proposing the following mitigation measures during site characterization surveys utilizing HRG survey equipment. The mitigation measures outlined in this section are based on protocols and procedures that have been successfully implemented and resulted in no observed take of marine mammals for similar offshore projects and previously approved by NMFS (DONG Energy, 2016, ESS, 2013; Dominion, 2013 and 2014), as well as results of sound source verification (SSV) studies implemented by Bay State Wind during past activities in the proposed project area.
Protected species observers (PSOs) will monitor the following exclusion/monitoring zones for the presence of marine mammals:
• A 1,640 ft (500-m) exclusion zone for North Atlantic right whales, which encompasses the largest Level B harassment isopleth of 400 m for the Applied Acoustics S-Boom Triple Plate Boomer;
• A 328 ft (100-m) exclusion zone for non-delphinoid large cetacean and ESA-listed marine mammals, which is consistent with vessel strike avoidance measures stipulated in the BOEM lease;
• A 1,312 ft (400-m) Level B monitoring zone for all marine mammals except for North Atlantic right whales, which is the extent of the largest Level B harassment isopleth for the Applied Acoustics S-Boom Triple Plate Boomer; and
• A 246 ft (75-m) exclusion zone for harbor porpoise, which is the extent of the largest Level A harassment isopleth for the Innomar SES-2000 medium sub-bottom profiler.
The distances from the sound sources for these exclusion/monitoring zones are based on distances to NMFS harassment criteria or requirements of the BOEM lease stipulations for vessel strike avoidance (discussed below). The representative area ensonified to the MMPA Level B threshold for each of the pieces of HRG survey equipment represents the zone within which take
Visual monitoring of the established exclusion zone(s) for the HRG surveys will be performed by qualified and NMFS-approved PSOs, the resumes of whom will be provided to NMFS for review and approval prior to the start of survey activities. Observer qualifications will include direct field experience on a marine mammal observation vessel and/or aerial surveys in the Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of Mexico. An observer team comprising a minimum of four NMFS-approved PSOs and two certified Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) operators (PAM operators will not function as PSOs), operating in shifts, will be stationed aboard either the survey vessel or a dedicated PSO-vessel. PSOs and PAM operators will work in shifts such that no one monitor will work more than 4 consecutive hours without a 2-hour break or longer than 12 hours during any 24-hour period. During daylight hours the PSOs will rotate in shifts of 1 on and 3 off, while during nighttime operations PSOs will work in pairs. The PAM operators will also be on call as necessary during daytime operations should visual observations become impaired. Each PSO will monitor 360 degrees of the field of vision.
PSOs will be responsible for visually monitoring and identifying marine mammals approaching or within the established exclusion zone(s) during survey activities. It will be the responsibility of the Lead PSO on duty to communicate the presence of marine mammals as well as to communicate and ensure the action(s) that are necessary to ensure mitigation and monitoring requirements are implemented as appropriate. PAM operators will communicate detected vocalizations to the Lead PSO on duty, who will then be responsible for implementing the necessary mitigation procedures. A mitigation and monitoring communications flow diagram has been included as Appendix A in the IHA application.
PSOs will be equipped with binoculars and have the ability to estimate distances to marine mammals located in proximity to the vessel and/or exclusion zone using range finders. Reticulated binoculars will also be available to PSOs for use as appropriate based on conditions and visibility to support the sighting and monitoring of marine species. Digital single-lens reflex camera equipment will be used to record sightings and verify species identification. During night operations, PAM (see
For monitoring around the ASV, a dual thermal/HD camera will be installed on the mother vessel, facing forward, angled in a direction so as to provide a field of view ahead of the vessel and around the ASV. The ASV will be kept in sight of the mother vessel at all times (within 2,625 ft (800 m)). PSOs will be able to monitor the real time output of the camera on hand-held iPads. Images from the cameras can be captured for review and to assist in verifying species identification. A monitor will also be installed on the bridge displaying the real-time picture from the thermal/HD camera installed on the front of the ASV itself, providing a further forward field of view of the craft. In addition, night-vision goggles with thermal clip-ons, as mentioned above, and a hand-held spotlight will be provided such that PSOs can focus observations in any direction, around the mother vessel and/or the ASV. PSOs will also be able to monitor the data as it is acquired by the ASV utilizing a real time IP radio link. For each 12 hour shift, an ASV technician will be assigned to manage the vessel and monitor the array of cameras, radars, and thermal equipment during their shift to ensure the vehicle is operating properly and to take over control of the vessel should the need arise. Additionally, there will be 2 survey technicians per shift assigned to acquire the ASV survey data.
The PSOs will begin observation of the exclusion zone(s) at least 60 minutes prior to ramp-up of HRG survey equipment. Use of noise-producing equipment will not begin until the exclusion zone is clear of all marine mammals for at least 60 minutes, as per the requirements of the BOEM Lease.
If a marine mammal is detected approaching or entering the exclusion zones during the HRG survey, the vessel operator would adhere to the shutdown procedures described below to minimize noise impacts on the animals.
At all times, the vessel operator will maintain a separation distance of 500 m from any sighted North Atlantic right whale as stipulated in the
The Applicant will ensure that vessel operators and crew maintain a vigilant watch for cetaceans and pinnipeds and slow down or stop their vessels to avoid striking these species. Survey vessel crew members responsible for navigation duties will receive site-specific training on marine mammal and sea turtle sighting/reporting and vessel strike avoidance measures. Vessel strike avoidance measures will include the following, except under extraordinary circumstances when complying with these requirements would put the safety of the vessel or crew at risk:
• All vessel operators will comply with 10 knot (<18.5 km per hour (km/h)) speed restrictions in any Dynamic Management Area (DMA). In addition, all vessels operating from November 1 through July 31 will operate at speeds of 10 knots (<18.5 km/h) or less;
• All vessel operators will reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less when mother/calf pairs, pods, or larger assemblages of non-delphinoid cetaceans are observed near an underway vessel;
• All survey vessels will maintain a separation distance of 1,640 ft (500 m) or greater from any sighted North Atlantic right whale;
• If underway, vessels must steer a course away from any sighted North Atlantic right whale at 10 knots (<18.5 km/h) or less until the 1,640 ft (500 m) minimum separation distance has been established. If a North Atlantic right whale is sighted in a vessel's path, or within 330 ft (100 m) to an underway vessel, the underway vessel must reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral. Engines will not be engaged until the North Atlantic right whale has moved outside of the vessel's path and beyond 330 ft (100 m). If stationary, the vessel must not engage engines until the North Atlantic right whale has moved beyond 330 ft (100 m);
• All vessels will maintain a separation distance of 330 ft (100 m) or greater from any sighted non-delphinoid (
• All underway vessels will avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in direction to avoid injury to any sighted delphinoid cetacean or pinniped; and
• All vessels will maintain a separation distance of 164 ft (50 m) or greater from any sighted pinniped.
The training program will be provided to NMFS for review and approval prior to the start of surveys. Confirmation of the training and understanding of the requirements will be documented on a training course log sheet. Signing the log sheet will certify that the crew members understand and will comply with the necessary requirements throughout the survey event.
Between watch shifts, members of the monitoring team will consult the NMFS North Atlantic right whale reporting systems for the presence of North Atlantic right whales throughout survey operations. However, the proposed survey activities will occur outside of the seasonal management area (SMA) located off the coast of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The proposed survey activities will occur in June through September, which is outside of the seasonal mandatory speed restriction period for this SMA (November 1 through April 30).
Throughout all survey operations, the Applicant will monitor the NMFS North Atlantic right whale reporting systems for the establishment of a DMA. If NMFS should establish a DMA in the Lease Area under survey, within 24 hours of the establishment of the DMA the Applicant will work with NMFS to shut down and/or alter the survey activities to avoid the DMA.
As per the BOEM Lease, alternative monitoring technologies (
Given the range of species that could occur in the Lease Area, the PAM system will consist of an array of hydrophones with both broadband (sampling mid-range frequencies of 2 kHz to 200 kHz) and at least one low-frequency hydrophone (sampling range frequencies of 10 Hz to 30 kHz). Monitoring of the PAM system will be conducted from a customized processing station aboard the HRG survey vessel. The on-board processing station provides the interface between the PAM system and the operator. The PAM operator(s) will monitor the hydrophone signals in real time both aurally (using headphones) and visually (via the monitor screen displays). Bay State Wind proposes the use of PAMGuard software for `target motion analysis' to support localization in relation to the identified exclusion zone. PAMGuard is an open source software/hardware interface to enable flexibility in the configuration of in-sea equipment (number of hydrophones, sensitivities, spacing, and geometry). PAM operators will immediately communicate detections/vocalizations to the Lead PSO on duty who will ensure the implementation of the appropriate mitigation measure (
As per the BOEM Lease, a ramp-up procedure will be used for HRG survey equipment capable of adjusting energy levels at the start or re-start of HRG survey activities. A ramp-up procedure will be used at the beginning of HRG survey activities in order to provide additional protection to marine mammals near the Lease Area by allowing them to vacate the area prior to the commencement of survey equipment use. The ramp-up procedure will not be initiated during daytime, night time, or periods of inclement weather if the exclusion zone cannot be adequately monitored by the PSOs using the appropriate visual technology (
The exclusion zone(s) around the noise-producing activities HRG survey equipment will be monitored, as previously described, by PSOs and at night by PAM operators for the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after any noise-producing activity. The vessel operator must comply immediately with any call for shutdown by the Lead PSO. Any disagreement should be discussed only after shutdown.
As per the BOEM Lease, if a non-delphinoid (
If the HRG sound source (including the sub-bottom profiler) shuts down for reasons other than encroachment into the exclusion zone by a marine mammal including but not limited to a mechanical or electronic failure, resulting in in the cessation of sound source for a period greater than 20 minutes, a restart for the HRG survey equipment (including the sub-bottom profiler) is required using the full ramp-up procedures and clearance of the exclusion zone of all cetaceans and pinnipeds for 60 minutes. If the pause is less than 20 minutes, the equipment may be restarted as soon as practicable at its operational level as long as visual surveys were continued diligently throughout the silent period and the exclusion zone remained clear of cetaceans and pinnipeds. If the visual surveys were not continued diligently during the pause of 20 minutes or less, a restart of the HRG survey equipment (including the sub-bottom profiler) is required using the full ramp-up procedures and clearance of the
The proposed mitigation measures are designed to avoid the already low potential for injury (Level A harassment) in addition to some Level B harassment, and to minimize the potential for vessel strikes. There are no known marine mammal rookeries or mating grounds in the survey area that would otherwise potentially warrant increased mitigation measures for marine mammals or their habitat (or both). The proposed survey would occur in an area that has been identified as a biologically important area (BIA) for migration for North Atlantic right whales. However, given the small spatial extent of the survey area relative to the substantially larger spatial extent of the right whale migratory area, the survey is not expected to appreciably reduce migratory habitat nor to negatively impact the migration of North Atlantic right whales. In addition, the timing of importance for migration in this biologically important area BIA is March-April and November-December, and Bay State Wind's proposed activities are anticipated to occur outside of the timing of importance. Thus, mitigation to address the proposed survey's occurrence in North Atlantic right whale migratory habitat is not warranted. The proposed survey area would partially overlap spatially with a biologically important feeding area for fin whales. However, the fin whale feeding area is sufficiently large (2,933 km
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Bay State Wind submitted a marine mammal monitoring and reporting plan as part of the IHA application. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period.
The PSOs will begin observation of the monitoring zone during all HRG survey activities and all geotechnical operations where DP thrusters are employed. Observations of the monitoring zone will continue throughout the survey activity. PSOs will be responsible for visually monitoring and identifying marine mammals approaching or entering the established monitoring zone during survey activities.
Observations will take place from the highest available vantage point on the survey vessel. General 360-degree scanning will occur during the monitoring periods, and target scanning by the PSO will occur when alerted of a marine mammal presence.
Data on all PSO observations will be recorded based on standard PSO collection requirements. This will include dates and locations of construction operations; time of observation, location and weather; details of the sightings (
The Applicant will provide the following reports as necessary during survey activities:
• The Applicant will contact NMFS and BOEM within 24 hours of the commencement of survey activities and again within 24 hours of the completion of the activity.
• As per the BOEM Lease: Any observed significant behavioral reactions (
In the unanticipated event that the specified HRG and geotechnical activities lead to an unauthorized injury of a marine mammal (Level A harassment) or mortality (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the event. NMFS would work with Bay State Wind to minimize reoccurrence of such an event in the future. Bay State Wind would not resume activities until notified by NMFS.
In the event that Bay State Wind discovers an injured or dead marine mammal and determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that Bay State Wind discovers an injured or dead marine mammal and determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
Within 90 days after completion of the marine site characterization survey activities, a technical report will be provided to NMFS and BOEM that fully documents the methods and monitoring protocols, summarizes the data recorded during monitoring, estimates the number of marine mammals that may have been taken during survey activities, and provides an interpretation of the results and effectiveness of all monitoring tasks. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final report prior to acceptance by NMFS.
In addition to the Applicant's reporting requirements outlined above, the Applicant will provide an assessment report of the effectiveness of the various mitigation techniques,
Negligible impact is an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
As discussed in the “Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat” section, PTS, masking, non-auditory physical effects, and vessel strike are not expected to occur. However, a small number of PTS takes of harbor porpoise are analyzed here out of an abundance of caution even though the potential is low. There is also some potential for limited TTS. Animals in the area would likely incur no more than brief hearing impairment (
Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed previously in this document (see the “Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and their Habitat” section). Marine mammal habitat may be impacted by elevated sound levels and some sediment disturbance, but these impacts would be temporary and relatively short term. Feeding behavior is not likely to be significantly impacted, as marine mammals appear to be less likely to exhibit behavioral reactions or avoidance responses while engaged in feeding activities (Richardson
Examination of the minimum number alive population index calculated from the individual sightings database for the years 1990-2010 suggested a positive and slowly accelerating trend in North Atlantic right whale population size (Waring
The proposed mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or severity of takes by giving animals the opportunity to move away from the sound source before HRG survey equipment reaches full energy and preventing animals from being exposed to sound levels reaching 180 dB during HRG survey activities. Additional vessel strike avoidance requirements will further mitigate potential impacts to marine mammals during vessel transit to and within the Study Area.
Bay State Wind did not request, and NMFS is not proposing, take of marine mammals by serious injury, or mortality. NMFS expects that most takes would primarily be in the form of short-term Level B behavioral harassment in the form of brief startling reaction and/or temporary vacating of the area, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring)—reactions that are considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological consequences (
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality or serious is anticipated or authorized;
• Take is anticipated to be primarily Level B behavioral harassment consisting of brief startling reactions and/or temporary avoidance of the survey area due to the intermittent and short term nature of the activities as well as the directionality of the sound sources;
• While the survey area is within areas noted as biologically important for north Atlantic right whale migration, the activities will take place outside of the timeframe of noted importance for migration, and would occur in such a comparatively small area such that any avoidance of the survey area due to activities would not affect migration. In addition, mitigation measures to shut down at 500 m to avoid potential for Level B behavioral harassment due to animals that may occur inside that isopleth (400 m) will avoid any take of the species. Similarly, due to the small footprint of the survey activities in relation to the size of a biologically important area for fin whales foraging, the survey activities would not affect foraging behavior of this species.
• For most species, the percentage of stocks affected are less than 3 percent of the stock. This represents the total number of exposures and does not consider that there are likely repeat exposures of the same individuals. In addition, these takes are anticipated to be mainly Level B behavioral takes in the form of short-term startle or avoidance reactions that would not affect the species or stock.
NMFS concludes that exposures to marine mammal species and stocks due to Bay State Wind's HRG survey activities would result in only short-term (temporary and short in duration) and relatively infrequent effects to individuals exposed, and not of the type or severity that would be expected to be additive for the very small portion of the stocks and species likely to be exposed. NMFS does not anticipate the proposed take estimates to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival. Animals may temporarily avoid the immediate area, but are not expected to permanently abandon the area. Major shifts in habitat use, distribution, or foraging success, are not expected.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from Bay State Wind's proposed HRG survey activities will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
The requested takes proposed to be authorized for the HRG represent 2.18 percent of the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whale (West Indies Distinct Population Segment); 1.98 percent of the WNA stock of fin whale; 0.77 percent of the Canadian East Coast stock of minke whale; 0.22 percent of the North Atlantic stock of sperm whales; 8.66 percent of the Western North Atlantic stock of bottlenose dolphins; 2.85 percent of the WNA stock of short-beaked common dolphin, 1.02 percent of the WNA stock of Atlantic white-sided dolphin, 0.95 percent of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoise, 2.18 percent of the WNA stock of harbor seal, and 0.56 percent of the North Atlantic stock of gray seal. These take estimates represent the percentage of each species or stock that could be taken and for most stocks are small numbers (less than 3 percent for most
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Within the project area, fin, humpback, and North Atlantic right whale are listed as endangered under the ESA. Under section 7 of the ESA, BOEM consulted with NMFS on commercial wind lease issuance and site assessment activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey Wind Energy Areas. NOAA's GARFO issued a Biological Opinion concluding that these activities may adversely affect but are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of fin whale or North Atlantic right whale. NMFS is also consulting internally on the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity and the existing Biological Opinion may be amended to include an incidental take exemption for these marine mammal species, as appropriate.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to Bay State Wind for HRG survey activities during geophysical survey activities from April 2018 through March 2019, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is provided next.
This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
Orsted/US Wind Power/Bay State Wind (Bay State Wind) (One International Place, 100 Oliver Street, Suite 2610, Boston, MA 02110) is hereby authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) and 50 CFR 216.107, to harass marine mammals incidental to high-resolution geophysical (HRG) and geotechnical survey investigations associated with marine site characterization activities off the coast of Massachusetts in the area of the Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0500) (the Lease Area).
1. This incidental harassment authorization (IHA) is valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance.
2. This IHA is valid only for marine site characterization survey activity, as specified in the IHA application, in the Atlantic Ocean.
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of Bay State Wind, the vessel operator and other relevant personnel, the lead protected species observer (PSO), and any other relevant designees of Bay State Wind operating under the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking are listed in Table 7. The taking, by harassment only, is limited to the species and numbers listed in Table 7. Any taking of species not listed in Table 7, or exceeding the authorized amounts listed in Table 7, is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(c) The taking by serious injury or death of any species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(d) Bay State Wind shall ensure that the vessel operator and other relevant vessel personnel are briefed on all responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocols, operational procedures, and IHA requirements prior to the start of survey activity, and when relevant new personnel join the survey operations.
4. Mitigation Requirements—the holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation measures:
(a) Bay State Wind shall use at least four (4) NMFS-approved PSOs during HRG surveys. The PSOs must have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, record observational data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation requirements.
(b) Visual monitoring must begin no less than 30 minutes prior to initiation of survey equipment and must continue until 30 minutes after use of survey equipment ceases.
(c) Exclusion Zones and Watch Zone—PSOs shall establish and monitor marine mammal Exclusion Zones and Watch Zones. The Watch Zone shall represent the extent of the maximum Level B harassment zone (1,166 m) or, as far as possible if the extent of the Zone is not fully visible. The Exclusion Zones are as follows:
(i) a 75 m Exclusion Zone for harbor porpoises;
(ii) a 100 m Exclusion Zone for large whales including sperm whales and mysticetes (except North Atlantic right whales);
(iii) a 500 m Exclusion Zone for North Atlantic right whales;
(iv) a 400 m Level B harassment monitoring zone for all marine mammals.
(d) Shutdown requirements—If a marine mammal is observed within, entering, or approaching the relevant Exclusion Zones as described under 4(c) while geophysical survey equipment is operational, the geophysical survey equipment must be immediately shut down.
(i) Any PSO on duty has the authority to call for shutdown of survey equipment. When there is certainty regarding the need for mitigation action on the basis of visual detection, the relevant PSO(s) must call for such action immediately.
(ii) When a shutdown is called for by a PSO, the shutdown must occur and any dispute resolved only following shutdown.
(iii) Shutdown of HRG survey equipment is also required upon confirmed passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) detection of a North Atlantic right whale at night, except in instances when the PAM detection of a North Atlantic right whale can be localized and the whale is confirmed as being beyond the 500 m EZ for right whales. The PAM operator on duty has the authority to call for shutdown of survey equipment based on confirmed acoustic detection of a North Atlantic right whale at night even in the absence of visual confirmation. When shutdown occurs based on confirmed PAM detection of a North Atlantic right whale at night, survey equipment may be re-started no sooner than 30 minutes after the last confirmed acoustic detection.
(iv) Upon implementation of a shutdown, survey equipment may be reactivated when all marine mammals have been confirmed by visual observation to have exited the relevant Exclusion Zone or an additional time period has elapsed with no further sighting of the animal that triggered the
(v) If geophysical equipment shuts down for reasons other than mitigation (
(e) Pre-clearance observation—30 minutes of pre-clearance observation shall be conducted prior to initiation of geophysical survey equipment. Geophysical survey equipment shall not be initiated if marine mammals are observed within or approaching the relevant Exclusion Zones as described under 4(c) during the pre-clearance period. If a marine mammal is observed within or approaching the relevant Exclusion Zone during the pre-clearance period, geophysical survey equipment shall not be initiated until the animal(s) is confirmed by visual observation to have exited the relevant Exclusion Zone or until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sighting of the animal (15 minutes for small delphinoid cetaceans and pinnipeds and 30 minutes for all other species).
(f) Ramp-up—when technically feasible, survey equipment shall be ramped up at the start or re-start of survey activities. Ramp-up will begin with the power of the smallest acoustic equipment at its lowest practical power output appropriate for the survey. When technically feasible the power will then be gradually turned up and other acoustic sources added in a way such that the source level would increase gradually.
(g) Vessel Strike Avoidance—Vessel operator and crew must maintain a vigilant watch for all marine mammals and slow down or stop the vessel or alter course, as appropriate, to avoid striking any marine mammal, unless such action represents a human safety concern. Survey vessel crew members responsible for navigation duties shall receive site-specific training on marine mammal sighting/reporting and vessel strike avoidance measures. Vessel strike avoidance measures shall include the following, except under circumstances when complying with these requirements would put the safety of the vessel or crew at risk:
(i) The vessel operator and crew shall maintain vigilant watch for cetaceans and pinnipeds, and slow down or stop the vessel to avoid striking marine mammals;
(ii) The vessel operator will reduce vessel speed to 10 knots (18.5 km/hr) or less when any large whale, any mother/calf pairs, whale or dolphin pods, or larger assemblages of non-delphinoid cetaceans are observed near (within 100 m (330 ft)) an underway vessel;
(iii) The survey vessel will maintain a separation distance of 500 m (1640 ft) or greater from any sighted North Atlantic right whale;
(iv) If underway, the vessel must steer a course away from any sighted North Atlantic right whale at 10 knots (18.5 km/hr) or less until the 500 m (1640 ft) minimum separation distance has been established. If a North Atlantic right whale is sighted in a vessel's path, or within 500 m (330 ft) to an underway vessel, the underway vessel must reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral. Engines will not be engaged until the North Atlantic right whale has moved outside of the vessel's path and beyond 500 m. If stationary, the vessel must not engage engines until the North Atlantic right whale has moved beyond 500 m;
(v) The vessel will maintain a separation distance of 100 m (330 ft) or greater from any sighted non-delphinoid cetacean. If sighted, the vessel underway must reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral, and must not engage the engines until the non-delphinoid cetacean has moved outside of the vessel's path and beyond 100 m. If a survey vessel is stationary, the vessel will not engage engines until the non-delphinoid cetacean has moved out of the vessel's path and beyond 100 m;
(vi) The vessel will maintain a separation distance of 50 m (164 ft) or greater from any sighted delphinoid cetacean. Any vessel underway shall remain parallel to a sighted delphinoid cetacean's course whenever possible, and avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in direction. Any vessel underway shall reduce vessel speed to 10 knots (18.5 km/hr) or less when pods (including mother/calf pairs) or large assemblages of delphinoid cetaceans are observed. Vessels may not adjust course and speed until the delphinoid cetaceans have moved beyond 50 m and/or the abeam of the underway vessel;
(vii) All vessels underway will not divert or alter course in order to approach any whale, delphinoid cetacean, or pinniped. Any vessel underway will avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in direction to avoid injury to the sighted cetacean or pinniped; and
(viii) All vessels will maintain a separation distance of 50 m (164 ft) or greater from any sighted pinniped.
(ix) The vessel operator will comply with 10 knot (18.5 km/hr) or less speed restrictions in any Seasonal Management Area per NMFS guidance.
(x) If NMFS should establish a Dynamic Management Area (DMA) in the area of the survey, within 24 hours of the establishment of the DMA Bay State Wind shall work with NMFS to shut down and/or alter survey activities to avoid the DMA as appropriate.
5. Monitoring Requirements—The Holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine mammal visual monitoring and PAM during geophysical survey activity. Monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the following requirements:
(a) A minimum of four NMFS-approved PSOs and a minimum of two certified PAM operator(s), operating in shifts, shall be employed by Bay State Wind during geophysical surveys.
(b) Observations shall take place from the highest available vantage point on the survey vessel. General 360-degree scanning shall occur during the monitoring periods, and target scanning by PSOs shall occur when alerted of a marine mammal presence.
(c) For monitoring around the autonomous surface vessel (ASV), a dual thermal/HD camera shall be installed on the mother vessel facing forward and angled in a direction so as to provide a field of view ahead of the vessel and around the ASV. PSOs shall be able to monitor the real-time output of the camera on hand-held computer tablets. Images from the cameras shall be able to be captured and reviewed to assist in verifying species identification. A monitor shall also be installed in the bridge displaying the real-time images from the thermal/HD camera installed on the front of the ASV itself, providing a further forward view of the craft. In addition, night-vision goggles with thermal clip-ons and a hand-held spotlight shall be provided and used such that PSOs can focus observations in any direction around the mother vessel and/or the ASV.
(d) PSOs shall be equipped with binoculars and have the ability to estimate distances to marine mammals located in proximity to the vessel and/or Exclusion Zones using range finders.
(e) PAM shall be used during nighttime geophysical survey operations. The PAM system shall consist of an array of hydrophones with both broadband (sampling mid-range frequencies of 2 kHz to 200 kHz) and at least one low-frequency hydrophone (sampling range frequencies of 75 Hz to 30 kHz). PAM operators shall communicate detections or vocalizations to the Lead PSO on duty who shall ensure the implementation of the appropriate mitigation measure.
(f) During night surveys, night-vision equipment and infrared technology (as described in 5 (c) above) shall be used in addition to PAM.
(g) PSOs and PAM operators shall work in shifts such that no one monitor will work more than 4 consecutive hours without a 2 hour break or longer than 12 hours during any 24-hour period. During daylight hours the PSOs shall rotate in shifts of 1 on and 3 off, and during nighttime operations PSOs shall work in pairs.
(h) PAM operators shall also be on call as necessary during daytime operations should visual observations become impaired.
(i) Position data shall be recorded using hand-held or vessel global positioning system (GPS) units for each sighting.
(j) A briefing shall be conducted between survey supervisors and crews, PSOs, and Bay State Wind to establish responsibilities of each party, define chains of command, discuss communication procedures, provide an overview of monitoring purposes, and review operational procedures.
(k) PSO qualifications shall include direct field experience on a marine mammal observation vessel and/or aerial surveys.
(l) Data on all PAM/PSO observations shall be recorded based on standard PSO collection requirements. PSOs must use standardized data forms, whether hard copy or electronic. The following information shall be reported:
(i) PSO names and affiliations.
(ii) Dates of departures and returns to port with port name.
(iii) Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey effort and times corresponding with PSO effort.
(iv) Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort begins and ends; vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts.
(v) Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts and upon any line change.
(vi) Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, Beaufort wind force, swell height, weather conditions, cloud cover, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon.
(vii) Factors that may be contributing to impaired observations during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions change (
(viii) Survey activity information, such as type of survey equipment in operation, acoustic source power output while in operation, and any other notes of significance (
(ix) If a marine mammal is sighted, the following information should be recorded:
(A) Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform);
(B) PSO who sighted the animal;
(C) Time of sighting;
(D) Vessel location at time of sighting;
(E) Water depth;
(F) Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);
(G) Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel;
(H) Pace of the animal;
(I) Estimated distance to the animal and its heading relative to vessel at initial sighting;
(J) Identification of the animal (
(K) Estimated number of animals (high/low/best);
(L) Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, calves, group composition, etc.);
(M) Description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars or markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow characteristics);
(N) Detailed behavior observations (
(O) Animal's closest point of approach and/or closest distance from the center point of the acoustic source;
(P) Platform activity at time of sighting (
(Q) Description of any actions implemented in response to the sighting (
6. Reporting—a technical report shall be provided to NMFS within 90 days after completion of survey activities that fully documents the methods and monitoring protocols, summarizes the data recorded during monitoring, estimates the number of marine mammals that may have been taken during survey activities, describes the effectiveness of the various mitigation techniques (
(a) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
(i) In the event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not authorized by this IHA, such as serious injury or mortality, Bay State Wind shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources ((301) 427-8400) and the NMFS Northeast Stranding Coordinator ((866) 755-6622). The report must include the following information:
(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(B) Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
(C) Description of the incident;
(D) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(E) Water depth;
(F) Environmental conditions (
(G) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(H) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(I) Fate of the animal(s); and
(J) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with Bay State Wind to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of
(ii) In the event that Bay State Wind discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(iii) In the event that Bay State Wind discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the specified activities (
7. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
We request comment on our analyses, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed marine site characterization surveys. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-year renewal IHA without additional notice when (1) another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section is planned, or (2) the activities would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and renewal would allow completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section, provided all of the following conditions are met:
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to expiration of the current IHA.
• The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed activities or include changes so minor (
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized;
• Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate, and the original findings remain valid.
Office for Coastal Management (OCM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of Intent to Evaluate State Coastal Management Program.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management will hold a public meeting to solicit comments on the performance evaluation of the California Coastal Commission, part of the California Coastal Management Program.
For specific dates, times, and locations of the public meetings, see
You may submit comments on the program or reserve NOAA intends to evaluate by any of the following methods:
Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or
Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved state and territorial coastal programs. The process includes one or more public meetings, consideration of written public comments and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state has met the national objectives, adhered to the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the
Specific information on the periodic evaluation of the state and territorial coastal program that is the subject of this notice is detailed below as follows:
You may participate or submit oral comments at the public meeting scheduled as follows:
Written public comments must be received on or before June 22, 2018.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and its advisory committees.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will meet in June, in Kodiak, AK.
The meetings will be held June 4 through June 11, 2018. See
The Council meeting will be held at the Kodiak Harbor Convention Center, 236 Rezanof Drive, Kodiak, AK 99615. The SSC will meet at the Kodiak Best Western, 236 Rezanof Drive, Kodiak, AK 99615. The AP will meet at the Elks Lodge, 102 W Marine Way, Kodiak, AK 99615.
Diana Evans, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
Council will begin its plenary session at 8 a.m. in the Pavilion Room, Kodiak Convention Center on Wednesday, June 6, continuing through Monday, June 11, 2018. The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will begin at 8 a.m. in the Harbor Room, Kodiak Best Western on Monday, June 4 and continue through Wednesday, June 6, 2018. The Council's Advisory Panel (AP) will begin at 8 a.m. at the Elks Lodge on Tuesday, June 5, and continue through Friday, June 8, 2018. The Ecosystem Committee will meet in the Stellar Room, Kodiak Convention Center on Tuesday, June 5, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Enforcement Committee will meet in the Katurwik Room, Kodiak Convention Center on Tuesday, June 5, 2018, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. The IFQ Outreach Meeting will be held in the Pavilion Room, Kodiak Convention Center on Tuesday, June 5, 2018, from 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Council Plenary Session: The agenda for the Council's plenary session will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified.
The Advisory Panel will address most of the same agenda issues as the Council except B reports.
The SSC agenda will include the following issues:
In addition to providing ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, the SSC functions as the Councils primary peer review panel for scientific information as described by the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(e), and the National Standard 2 guidelines (78 FR 43066). The peer review process is also deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Information Quality Act, including the OMB Peer Review Bulletin guidelines.
The Ecosystem Committee agenda will include the following issues:
The Enforcement Committee agenda will include the following issues:
The IFQ Outreach meeting agenda will include the following 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 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.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice and request for comments.
EIA invites public comment on the proposed collection of information, Form EIA-871
EIA must receive all comments on this proposed information collection no later than July 16, 2018. If you anticipate any difficulties in submitting your comments by the deadline, contact the person listed in the
Send your comments to
If you need additional information or copies of the information collection instrument, send your request to
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
CBECS has been conducted periodically since 1979; the most recent data collection cycles were in 2007 and 2012. The 2018 data collection cycle will be the 11th iteration for this survey.
The CBECS is integral to EIA's mandate to collect and publish energy end-use consumption data. The collected data constitute the only national-level data available on energy consumption in commercial buildings that are both comprehensive in nature and statistically rigorous. As such, CBECS data constitute the only data series that allows policy makers and program implementers in both the public and private sectors to keep track of national trends in energy consumption for the commercial sector and commercial buildings. CBECS is comprised of the following schedules:
• EIA-871A
• EIA-871C
• EIA-871D
• EIA-871E
• EIA-871F
• EIA-871I
• EIA-871J
(4a)
• The following associated schedules are deleted and will not be used: EIA-871B
•
•
•
• Online data collection is added as a mode of collection. Respondents will have the option to complete CBECS using a self-administered online questionnaire. Interviewer debriefing following the 2012 CBECS indicated that some respondents preferred a web mode for responding to CBECS. EIA estimates that 40% of respondents will choose web as their response mode.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• The
• Questions 1 through 5 on the second page of EIA-871C
•
•
•
• EIA will not ask the building respondents to provide monthly energy data, as these records are more easily accessed through energy suppliers. The Energy Suppliers Survey (Forms EIA-871C-F, as applicable to each building depending on which energy source or sources are used in the building) will be used for almost all buildings, instead of the previous methodology where only those buildings where the building respondent was not able to provide valid data were included in the supplier data collection. The building and establishment respondents reporting on Forms EIA-871A and EIA-871J will still be asked to provide annual energy data because EIA has found that there are situations where those respondents are better suited to provide data that corresponds correctly to the sampled CBECS structure. This reporting structure should provide the highest quality data while allocating the burden appropriately across survey respondents.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-275, codified as 15 U.S.C. 772(b) and the DOE Organization Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-91, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7101
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:
On April 29, 2016, FirstLight Hydro Generating Company, licensee for the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project, filed an Application for a New License pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder. The Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project is located on the Connecticut River in Franklin County, Massachusetts; Windham County, Vermont; and Cheshire County, New Hampshire.
The license for Project No. 2485 was issued for a period ending April 30, 2018. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2485 is issued to the licensee for a period effective May 1, 2018 through April 30, 2019 or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before April 30, 2019, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that the licensee, FirstLight Hydro Generating Company, is authorized to continue operation of the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project, until such time as the Commission acts on its application for a subsequent license.
On April 29, 2016, FirstLight Hydro Generating Company, licensee for the Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project, filed an Application for a New License pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder. The Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project is located on the Connecticut River in Franklin County, Massachusetts; Windham County, Vermont; and Cheshire County, New Hampshire.
The license for Project No.1889 was issued for a period ending April 30, 2018. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 1889 is issued to the licensee for a period effective May 1, 2018 through April 30, 2019 or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before April 30, 2019, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that the licensee, FirstLight Hydro Generating Company, is authorized to continue operation of the Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project, until such time as the Commission acts on its application for a subsequent license.
Take notice that on April 26, 2018, El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. (EPNG), PO Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 80944, filed in Docket No. CP18-332-000 an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations for authorization to construct, own, and operate the South Mainline Expansion Project comprising: (i) About 17 miles of 30-inch-diameter loop line of EPNG's existing Line Nos. 1100 and 1103 located in Hudspeth and El Paso Counties, Texas; (ii) a new 13,220 horsepower (hp), turbine-driven Red Mountain Compressor Station located in Luna County, New Mexico; and (iii) a new 13,220 hp turbine-driven Dragoon Compressor Station located in Cochise County, Arizona. EPNG states that the proposed facilities will result in an increase of 321,000 dekatherms per day of contracted capacity and estimates the cost of the South Mainline
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Francisco Tarin, Director, Regulatory, El Paso Natural Gas Pipeline L.L.C.; PO Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 80944 at (719) 667-7517 or by fax at (719) 520-4697; or David Dewey, Assistant General Counsel, El Paso Natural Gas Pipeline, L.L.C.; PO Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 80944 at (719) 520-4227 or by fax at (719) 520-4898.
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 final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or 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 FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
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 commentors 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 commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Seguro Energy Partners, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 29, 2018.
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-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic 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
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on May 4, 2018, pursuant to Rule 204 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.204, Targa Crude Pipeline LLC filed a petition seeking waiver of the Interstate Commerce Acts sections 6 and 20 and the Commission's implementing regulations at 18 CFR parts 341 and 357 with respect to certain crude petroleum gathering and pipeline facilities (the Waiver Facilities) being constructed and leased in Loving County, Texas, all as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 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 “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
May 17, 2018, 10:00 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
Open.
Agenda: * Note—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400.
For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's website at
A free webcast of this event is available through
Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Manifold Energy Inc.`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 29, 2018.
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-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic 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
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: Compliance filing: OATT Order No. 842 Compliance to be effective 5/15/2018.
Description: Compliance filing: Amendment of Southern's Tariff Vol. 4 in Compliance with Docket ER10-2881, et al to be effective 5/4/2018.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendments to Co-Tenancy and Shared Use Agreement to be effective 5/10/2018.
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
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the availability of two final documents titled,
The REA and PA will be made available on or about May 9, 2018.
These documents will be available primarily via the internet at
Dr. Nicole Hagan, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (Mail Code C504-06), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919-541-3153; fax number: 919-541-5315; email:
Two sections of the Clean Air Act govern the establishment and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C. 7408) directs the Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then to issue air quality criteria for those pollutants. The Administrator is to list those air pollutants that in his “judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”; “the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources”; and “for which . . . [the Administrator] plans to issue air quality criteria . . .” (42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(1)(A)(C)). Air quality criteria are intended to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air . . .” (42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(2)). Under section 109 (42 U.S.C. 7409), the EPA establishes primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for pollutants for which air quality criteria are issued. Section 109(d) requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also required to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised criteria. Section 109(d)(2) requires that an independent scientific review committee “shall complete a review of the criteria . . . and the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards . . . and shall recommend to the Administrator any new . . . standards and revisions of the existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate . . . .” Since the early 1980s, this independent review function has been performed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).
The current periodic review of the air quality criteria and primary NAAQS for SO
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), ”Clean Air Act Tribal Authority” (EPA ICR No. 1676.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0306) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2018. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it
Comments must be submitted on or before July 16, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0093, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Pat Childers, Office of Air and Radiation, Immediate Office, (6101A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-1082; fax number: 202-564-0394; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The program regulation provides for Indian tribes, if they choose, to assume responsibility for the development and implementation of CAA programs. The regulation Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Management (Tribal Authority Rule [TAR] 40 CFR parts 9, 35, 49, 50, and 81) sets forth how tribes may seek authority to implement their own air quality planning and management programs. This rule establishes: (1) Which CAA provisions Indian tribes may seek authority to implement; (2) What requirements the tribes must meet when seeking such authorization; and (3) What federal financial assistance may be available to help tribes establish and manage their air quality programs. The TAR provides tribes the authority to administer air quality programs over all air resources, including non-Indian owned fee lands, whining the exterior boundaries of a reservation and other areas over which the tribe can demonstrate jurisdiction. An Indian tribe that takes responsibility for a CAA program would essentially be treated in the same way as a state would be treated for that program.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; extension of comment period.
EPA issued a notice in the
Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0141, must be received on or before July 23, 2018.
Follow the detailed instructions provided under
Tracy Perry, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-0128; email address:
This document extends the public comment period established in the
To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under
7 U.S.C. 136
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 16, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Order the Commission adopted on May 19, 2005, sets forth rules requiring providers of VoIP services that interconnect with the nation's existing public switched telephone network (interconnected VoIP services) to supply E911 capabilities to their customers.
To ensure E911 functionality for customers of VoIP service providers the Commission requires the following information collections:
The following item has been deleted from the list of items scheduled for consideration at the Thursday, May 10, 2018, Open Meeting and previously listed in the Commission's Notice of May 3, 2018.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before June 14, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page <
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection.
Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The information collected through the carriers' tariffs is used by the Commission and state commissions to determine whether services offered are just and reasonable as the Act requires. The tariffs and any supporting documentation are examined in order to determine if the services are offered in a just and reasonable manner.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 14, 2018.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
The Commission also amended rules to allow non-public emergency services to receive the CPN of all incoming calls from blocked numbers requesting assistance. The Commission believes amending its rules to allow non-public emergency services access to blocked Caller ID promotes the public interest by ensuring timely provision of emergency services without undermining any countervailing privacy interests. Carriers now have a recordkeeping requirement in order to provide emergency serve providers with the information they need to assist callers.
83 FR 19558.
Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
This meeting was continued on Thursday, May 10, 2018.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (ASC).
Notice and request for comment.
The ASC, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public, and State and Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a new proposed information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The ASC is soliciting comment concerning its information collection titled “Reporting information for the AMC Registry.”
Comments must be received by June 14, 2018.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by the Federal eRulemaking Portal or email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments to the ASC Desk Officer, 3139-NEW, by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by Email to
In general, the ASC will enter all comments received on the Federal eRulemaking (
You may review comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
James R. Park, Executive Director, at (202) 595-7575, or Alice M. Ritter, General Counsel, at (202) 595-7577, Appraisal Subcommittee, 1401 H Street NW, Suite 760, Washington, DC 20005.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, the ASC has submitted the following proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance.
Section 1473 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act)
The Dodd-Frank Act requires the ASC to maintain the AMC Registry of those AMCs that are either: (1) Registered with and subject to supervision by a State that has elected to register and supervise AMCs; or (2) are Federally regulated AMCs. In order for a State that elects to register and supervise AMCs to enter an AMC on the AMC Registry, the following items are proposed to be required entries by the State via extranet application on the AMC Registry:
States listing AMCs on the AMC Registry will enter the above information for each AMC for the initial entry only. After the initial entry, the information is retained on the AMC Registry, and will only need to be amended if necessary by the State.
In the
The estimate for burden assumes that 50 States will elect to supervise and register AMCs, and that the average number of AMCs in a State will be 150. This estimate is based on information currently available, and will be high for some States, and low for other States. The initial entry by a State on a single AMC is estimated to take 15 minutes. Subsequent entries to amend information on an AMC, annually or periodically, are estimated to be negligible.
Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the 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 collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
By the Appraisal Subcommittee,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Quarterly Report of Assets and Liabilities of Large Foreign Offices of U.S. Banks (FR 2502q; OMB No. 7100-0079).
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC, 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Quarterly Report of Interest Rates on Selected Direct Consumer Installment Loans and the Quarterly Report of Credit Card Plans (FR 2835; FR 2835a; OMB No. 7100-0085).
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension for three years, without revision, of the following report:
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Senior Financial Officer Survey (FR 2023; OMB No. 7100-0223).
Comments must be submitted on or before July 16, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by FR 2023, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's website at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Federal Reserve should modify the proposal prior to giving final approval.
The questions asked on each survey will vary, so the ability of the Board to maintain the confidentiality of information collected must be determined on a case by case basis. It is likely that much of the information collected would constitute confidential financial information obtained from a person and would thus be protected from disclosure under exemption 4 to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Exemption 8 to FOIA, which protects information related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared for the use of an agency supervising financial institutions, may also occasionally apply (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)).
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Reports of Deposits (FR 2900; OMB No. 7100-0087). The revisions are applicable as of September 2018.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices (FR 2018; OMB No. 7100-0058).
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension for three years, without revision, of the following report:
ACF cannot reasonably comply with the normal clearance procedures because the use of normal clearance procedures is reasonably likely to prevent the collection of needed information in a timely manner. Complying with the normal clearance procedures would delay or disrupt ORR's ability to expand the background checks in order to more comprehensively evaluate the suitability of potential sponsors of unaccompanied alien children, and to ensure safe and appropriate placement of children. The information collection is essential to the mission of the agency.
Additional Information:
ACF is requesting that OMB grant approval for this information collection under procedures for emergency processing through October 31, 2018, the expiration date for the already approved information collection. ACF requests approval of the expanded information collection by May 11, 2018. Although ACF is seeking immediate approval of the specific aspects of the information collection described above, ACF is also soliciting public comment on these aspects of the information collection and on the information collection more generally.
Copies of the proposed collection of information for emergency processing and public comment can be obtained at
The Department specifically requests comments 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; (c) 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing a public meeting and an opportunity for public comment on “Patient-Focused Drug Development for Chronic Pain.” The public meeting will provide patients (including adult and pediatric patients) with an opportunity to present to FDA their perspectives on the impacts of chronic pain, views on treatment approaches for chronic pain, and challenges or barriers to accessing treatments. FDA is particularly interested in hearing from patients who experience chronic pain that is managed with analgesic medications such as opioids, acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antidepressants; other medications; and non-pharmacologic interventions or therapies.
The public meeting will be held on July 9, 2018, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public workshop by September 10, 2018. See the
The public meeting will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before September 10, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Meghana Chalasani, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1146, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-6525, Fax: 301-847-8443,
This meeting will provide FDA the opportunity to better understand patients' perspectives on the impacts of chronic pain, patient views on treatment approaches for chronic pain, and challenges or barriers to accessing treatments. Chronic pain is defined as either pain that persists for more than 3 months or pain that lasts more than 1 month beyond the normal healing time. Chronic pain is diverse and can include primary pain, cancer pain, postsurgical and posttraumatic pain, neuropathic pain, headache and orofacial pain, visceral pain, and musculoskeletal pain. There are a number of therapeutic approaches for the treatment of chronic pain, including prescription and non-prescription medications, invasive and non-invasive medical devices, and behavioral and physical therapies. FDA is particularly interested in patients' (including adult and pediatric patients) perspectives on types of chronic pain that are managed with analgesic medications such as opioids, acetaminophen, NSAIDs, antidepressants; other medications; and non-pharmacologic interventions or therapies.
At the meeting, patients and patient representatives will provide patient perspectives on the symptoms and daily impacts of chronic pain and on treatment approaches for chronic pain. The questions that will be asked of patients and patient representatives at the meeting are listed in the following section and organized by topic. For each topic, a brief initial patient panel discussion will begin the dialogue. This will be followed by a facilitated discussion inviting comments from other patient and patient representative participants. In addition to input generated through this public meeting, FDA is interested in receiving patient and patient representative input addressing these questions through written comments, which can be submitted to the public docket (see
FDA will post the agenda and other meeting materials approximately 5 days before the meeting at:
1. How would you describe your chronic pain? (Characteristics could include location, radiation, intensity, duration, constancy or intermittency, triggers etc.)
2. What are the most significant symptoms that you experience resulting from your condition? (Examples may include restricted range of motion, muscle spasms, changes in sensation, etc.)
3. Are there specific activities that are important to you but that you cannot do at all or as fully as you would like because of your chronic pain? (Examples of activities may include work or school activities, sleeping
4. How has your chronic pain changed over time? (Considerations include severity and frequency of your chronic pain and the effects of chronic pain on your daily activities.)
1. What are you currently doing to help treat your chronic pain? (Examples may include prescription medicines, over-the-counter products, and non-drug therapies.)
a. How has your treatment regimen changed over time, and why? (Examples may include change in your condition, change in dose, or treatment side effects.)
b. What factors do you take into account when making decisions about selecting a course of treatment?
2. How well does your current treatment regimen manage your chronic pain? (Considerations include severity and frequency of your chronic pain and the effects of chronic pain on your daily activities.)
3. What are the most significant downsides to your current treatments, and how do they affect your daily life?
4. What challenges or barriers to accessing or using medical treatments for chronic pain have you or do you encounter?
5. What specific things would you look for in an ideal treatment for your chronic pain?
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public meeting must register by July 2, 2018. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. Registrants will receive confirmation once they have been accepted. If time and space permit, onsite registration on the day of the public meeting will be provided beginning at 9 a.m. If you need special accommodations because of a disability, please contact Meghana Chalasani (see
If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by July 16, 2018.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before July 16, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Form FDA 3913, User Fee Payment Refund Request, is designed to provide the minimum necessary information for FDA to review and process a user fee payment refund. The information collected includes the organization, contact, and payment information. The information is used to determine the reason for the refund, the refund amount, and who to contact if there are any questions regarding the refund request. A submission of the User Fee Payment Refund Request form does not guarantee that a refund will be issued. FDA estimates an average of 0.40 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete and review the collection of information. The estimated hours are based on past FDA experience with user fee payment refund requests.
In fiscal year 2017, approximately 1,657 user fee refunds were processed for cover sheets and invoices including 12 for Animal Drug User Fee Act, 2 for Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act, 13 for Biosimilar Drug User Fee Act, 68 for Export Certificate Program, 14 for Freedom of Information Act requests, 227 for Generic Drug User Fee Amendments, 1,021 for Medical Device User Fee Amendments, 227 for mammography inspection fees, 67 for Prescription Drug User Fee Act, and 6 for tobacco product fees.
Form FDA 3914, User Fee Payment Transfer Request, is designed to provide the minimum information necessary for FDA to review and process a user fee payment transfer request. The information collected includes payment and organization information. The information is used to determine the reason for the transfer, how the transfer should be performed, and who to contact if there are any questions regarding the transfer request. A submission of the User Fee Payment Transfer Request form does not guarantee that a transfer will be performed. FDA estimates an average of 0.25 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete and review the collection of information. FDA estimated hours are
In fiscal year 2017, approximately 871 user fee payment transfers were processed for cover sheets and invoices including 8 for Animal Drug User Fee Act, 1 for Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act, 1 for Biosimilar Drug User Fee Act, 163 for Generic Drug User Fee Amendments, 692 for Medical Device User Fee Amendments, and 6 for Prescription Drug User Fee Act.
Respondents for the electronic request forms include domestic and foreign firms (including pharmaceutical, medical device, etc.). Specifically, refund request forms target respondents who submitted a duplicate payment or overpayment for a user fee cover sheet or invoice. Respondents may also include firms that withdrew an application or submission. Transfer request forms target respondents who submitted payment for a user fee cover sheet or invoice and need that payment to be reapplied to another cover sheet or invoice (transfer of funds).
The electronic user fee payment request forms will streamline the refund and transfer processes, facilitate processing, and improve the tracking of requests. The burden for this collection of information is the same for all customers (small and large organizations). The information being requested or required has been held to the absolute minimum required for the intended use of the data. Customers will be able to request a user fee payment refund and transfer online at
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We have adjusted our burden estimate, which has resulted in a decrease to the currently approved burden. New information technology applications have more accurately calculated the number of registrants of drug facilities/food facilities/medical device facilities/medicated feed facilities, and we have therefore revised the number of respondents to the information collection.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of information collections that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Pediatric Oncology Subcommittee of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on June 20, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2018-N-1577. The docket will close on June 19, 2018. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by June 19, 2018. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before June 19, 2018. The
Comments received on or before June 5, 2018, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA.
You may submit comments 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.” FDA 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
Lauren D. Tesh, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, email:
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Lauren D. Tesh (see
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
Findings of research misconduct have been made on the part of Gareth John, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (ISMMS).
Wanda K. Jones, Dr.P.H., Interim Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8200.
Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:
ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by knowingly and intentionally falsifying data reported in
In addition to making an admission, Respondent cooperated fully with ISMMS and ORI and has expressed remorse for his actions.
Specifically, ORI found that Respondent:
• used the p-GSK3α/β double bands in Figure S3B of
• used the densitometry readings from the falsified actin bands in Figure S3B of
• falsified the bands representing Myelin basic protein (Mbp) in Figure 3C of
As a result of this admission, Respondent has notified
Dr. John entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement and voluntarily agreed, beginning on April 26, 2018:
(1) To have his research supervised for a period of one (1) year; Respondent agreed that prior to submission of an application for U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) support for a research project on which the Respondent's participation is proposed and prior to Respondent's participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, Respondent shall ensure that a plan for supervision of Respondent's duties is submitted to ORI for approval; the supervision plan must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of Respondent's research contribution; Respondent agreed that he shall not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervision plan is submitted to and approved by ORI; Respondent agreed to maintain responsibility for compliance with the agreed upon supervision plan;
(2) that for one (1) year, any institution employing him shall submit, in conjunction with each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS-supported research in which Respondent is involved, a certification to ORI that the data provided by Respondent are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported in the application, report, manuscript, or abstract;
(3) if no supervisory plan is provided to ORI, to provide certification to ORI at the conclusion of the supervision period that he has not engaged in, applied for, or had his name included on any application, proposal, or other request for PHS funds without prior notification to ORI;
(4) to exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant for a period of one (1) year; and
(5) to follow up with the journal editor regarding his previous request to correct the following paper to ensure that the corrections are made:
•
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS Initial Review Group Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research Committee.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the meeting of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the next meeting of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC). The BSC, a federally chartered, external advisory group composed of scientists from the public and private sectors, will review and provide advice on programmatic activities. The meeting is open to the public and registration is requested for both attendance and oral comment and required to access the webcast. Information about the meeting and registration are available at
Registration to view the meeting via the webcast is required.
Dr. Mary Wolfe, Designated Federal Official for the BSC, Office of Liaison, Policy and Review, Division of NTP, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, K2-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Phone: 984-287-3209, Fax: 301-451-5759, Email:
The public may attend the meeting in person or view the webcast. Registration is required to view the webcast; the URL for the webcast will be provided in the email confirming registration. Individuals who plan to provide oral comments (see below) are encouraged to register online at the BSC meeting website (
The deadline for submission of written comments is June 12, 2018. Written public comments should be submitted through the meeting website. Persons submitting written comments should include name, affiliation, mailing address, phone, email, and sponsoring organization (if any). Written comments received in response to this notice will be posted on the NTP website, and the submitter will be identified by name, affiliation, and sponsoring organization (if any).
If possible, oral public commenters should send a copy of their slides and/or statement or talking points to Robbin Guy by email:
The BSC is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, June 11, 2018, 01:00 p.m. to June 11, 2018, 03:00 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, 7W618, Rockville, MD 20850 which was published in the
This meeting notice is amended to change the meeting date from June 11, 2018 to June 13, 2018. The meeting time has changed from 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. to 10:30 a.m.-12:30 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 meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Cancer Institute, an institute of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an Exclusive Patent License to practice the inventions embodied in the Patents and Patent Applications listed in the Supplementary Information section of this notice to Morphiex Biotherapeutics (“Morphiex”) located in Boston, MA.
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the National Cancer Institute's Technology Transfer Center on or before May 30, 2018 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, and comments relating to the contemplated an Exclusive Patent License should be directed to: Jaime M. Greene, Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, NCI Technology Transfer Center, 9609 Medical Center Drive, RM 1E530 MSC 9702, Bethesda, MD 20892-9702 (for business mail), Rockville, MD 20850-9702 Telephone: (240) 276-5530; Facsimile: (240)-276-5504 Email:
1. U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/850,132, filed October 6, 2006, now abandoned (HHS Ref. No. E-227-2006/0-US-01);
2. U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/864,153, filed November 02, 2006, now abandoned (HHS Ref. No. E-227-2006/1-US-01);
3. U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/888,754, filed February 07, 2007, now abandoned (HHS Ref. No. E-227-2006/2-US-01);
4. U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/910,549, filed April 06, 2007, now abandoned (HHS Ref. No. E-227-2006/3-US-01);
5. U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/956,375, filed August 16, 2007, now abandoned (HHS Ref. No. E-227-2006/4-US-01);
6. PCT Patent Application No. PCT/2007/080647, filed October 5, 2007, now abandoned (HHS Ref. No. E-227-2006/5-PCT-01);
7. U.S. Patent No. 8,236,313, filed April 3, 2009, Issued August 7, 2012 (HHS Ref. No. E-227-2006/5-US-02);
8. Canadian Patent Application No. 2,665,287, October 5, 2007 (HHS Ref. No. E-227-2006/5-CA-03);
9. Australian Patent No. 2007319576, filed October 5, 2007, Issued May 1, 2014 (HHS Ref. No. E-227-2006/5-AU-04);
10. European Patent Application No. 07868382.8, filed March 27, 2009 (HHS Ref. No. E-227-2006/5-EP-05);
11. U.S. Patent Application No. 13/546,931, filed July 11, 2012 (HHS Ref. No. E-227-2006/5-US-06);
12. U.S. Patent Number 8,557,788, filed July 11, 2012, Issued October 15, 2013 (HHS Ref. No. E-227-2006/5-US-07);
13. European Patent Application No. 13180563.2, filed October 5, 2007 (HHS Ref. No. E-227-2006/5-EP-08);
14. Australian Patent No. 2014201936, filed October 5, 2007, Issued October 20, 2016 (HHS Ref. No. E-227-2006/5-AU-09);
15. U.S. Patent Application No. 14/500,861, filed September 29, 2014 (HHS Ref. No. E-227-2006/5-US-10);
16. Australian Patent No. 2016238894, filed October 6, 2016, Issued February 22, 2018 (HHS Ref. No. E-227-2006/5-AU-11);
17. Australian Patent Application No. 2018200921, filed February 8, 2018 (HHS Ref. No. E-227-2006/5-AU-12).
The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned and/or exclusively licensed to the government of the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to “the use of the CD47 phosphorodiamidate morpholino oligomers (PMO, morpholino, Sequence: 5′-CGTCACAGGCAGGACCCACTGCCCA-3′) for the treatment, prevention, and diagnosis of hematological cancers (
This technology concerns CD47, originally named integrin-associated protein, which is a receptor for thrombospondin-1(TSP-1), a major component of platelet α-granules from which it is secreted on platelet activation. A number of important roles for CD47 have been defined in regulating the migration, proliferation, and survival of vascular cells, and in regulation of innate and adaptive immunity. Nitric Oxide (NO) plays an important role as a major intrinsic vasodilator, and increases blood flow to tissues and organs. Disruption of this process leads to peripheral vascular disease, ischemic heart disease, stroke, diabetes and many more significant diseases. The inventors have discovered that TSP1 blocks the beneficial effects of NO, and prevents it from dilating blood vessels and increasing blood flow to organs and tissues. Additionally, they discovered that this regulation requires TSP1 interaction with its cell receptor, CD47. These inventors have also found that blocking TSP1-CD47 interaction through the use of antisense morpholino oligonucleotides, peptides, or antibodies has several therapeutic benefits including the treatment of cancer.
This notice is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing, and the prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the National Cancer Institute receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
In response to this Notice, the public may file comments or objections. Comments and objections, other than those in the form of a license application, will not be treated confidentially, and may be made publicly available.
License applications submitted in response to this Notice will be presumed to contain business confidential information and any release of information in these license applications will be made only as required and upon a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The 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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the meeting of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Division of Intramural Research Board of Scientific Counselors.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, May 31, 2018, 08:00 p.m. to June 01, 2018, 12:00 p.m., Canopy Washington DC Bethesda North, 940 Rose Avenue, North Bethesda, MD 20852 which was published in the
This meeting notice is amended to change the meeting start time from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on May 31, 2018. 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 the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0068, State Access to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for removal costs under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before June 14, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2018-0135] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-0135], and must be received by June 14, 2018.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (83 FR 9012, March 2, 2018) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/EIR) that evaluates the effects of issuing a 50-year incidental take permit (ITP or Permit) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, for 28 species covered under the final South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP, or Plan). The final EIS/EIR and the final SSHCP documents reflect changes resulting from comments received during a 90-day public review of the draft EIS/EIR and the draft SSHCP. This notice provides an opportunity for the public to review the responses to comments and review the final documents.
A Record of Decision on the ITP application will be signed no sooner than 30 days after the Environmental Protection Agency's notice in the
You may obtain the final documents by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
○ Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento CA 95825.
○ County of Sacramento, 827 7th Street, Room 225, Sacramento, CA 95814.
○ Sacramento Public Library, Central Library, 828 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
You may submit written comments on the final documents by one of the following methods:
•
•
(1) Contact Nina Bicknese, Endangered Species Division, or Jan C. Knight, Deputy Field Supervisor, at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office address shown above, or at (916) 414-6700 (telephone) for information on the SSHCP EIS/EIR. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, please call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339, or (2) contact Marianne Biner, Senior Planner, at the County of Sacramento address shown above, or at (916) 874-6141 for information on the final SSHCP EIS/EIR.; or (3) Kim Hudson, Senior Planner, at the County of Sacramento address shown above, or at (916) 874-5849 for information on the final SSHCP and associated documents.
This notice announces the availability of the final SSHCP, prepared by the Permit Applicants in compliance with section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; ESA). This notice also announces the availability of the final EIS/EIR for the SSHCP (final EIS/EIR or final SSHCP EIS/EIR), prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, the Service may issue permits to authorize “incidental take” of listed animal species, which the ESA defines as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of otherwise lawful activities. Take of listed fish and wildlife is defined under the ESA as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1538). Harm includes significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed wildlife species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).
In addition to meeting other criteria, activities covered by an incidental take permit must not jeopardize the continued existence in the wild of federally listed wildlife or plants. Although take of listed plant species is not prohibited under the ESA, plant species may be included on an incidental take permit in recognition of the conservation benefits provided to them by a habitat conservation plan. All species included on an incidental take permit would receive assurances under the Service's “No Surprises” regulation [50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)]. For more about the Federal HCP program, go to
We propose to issue a 50-year permit for the incidental take of 28 covered species caused by future urban development, transportation, and infrastructure projects described in the General Plans of Sacramento County, the City of Rancho Cordova, and City of Galt, and would be permitted or authorized by the County of Sacramento, the City of Galt, the City of Rancho Cordova, the Sacramento County Water Agency, or the Capital SouthEast Connector Joint Powers Authority (together, the Permit Applicants. The Permit Applicants are also forming a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to be named the South Sacramento Conservation Agency, which would implement the SSHCP after it is approved and permitted. Following the formation of the South Sacramento Conservation Agency JPA, we anticipate that the Permit Applicants will submit an application to the Service to add the JPA to the incidental take permit.
The proposed SSHCP is a regional strategy that would assure the permanent conservation of 28 covered species and their habitats within a 317,656-acre Plan Area, and would provide a comprehensive approach to the protection and long-term management of the relatively undisturbed vernal pool ecosystems that remain in the Plan Area. The SSHCP covered species include the federally endangered vernal pool tadpole shrimp (
The proposed SSHCP would also provide a more streamlined and a more predictable process for Federal and State permitting of urban development and infrastructure covered activities within the SSHCP Plan Area. All SSHCP
We published an initial notice of intent (NOI) to prepare a draft SSHCP EIS/EIR in the
The final SSHCP EIS/EIR studies three alternatives: The
Copies of the final EIS/EIR and the final SSHCP documents are available (see
We will evaluate the incidental take permit application, the associated documents, and any public comments submitted during the final EIS/EIR review period to determine whether the permit application meets all requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA. The Service will then prepare a concise public record of our decision (the Record of Decision). Our permit decision will be made no sooner than 30 days after the publication of the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of this final EIS/EIR in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to file plats of survey 30 calendar days from the date of this publication in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM by June 14, 2018.
You may submit written protests to the Wyoming State Director at WY957, Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.
Sonja Sparks, BLM Wyoming Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor at 307-775-6225 or
The lands surveyed are: The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the west boundary of the Winnebago Indian Reservation, the subdivisional lines and the subdivision of section lines, and the survey of the subdivision of certain sections, Township 26 North, Range 5 East, Sixth Principal Meridian, Nebraska, Group No. 186, was accepted January 25, 2018.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the east and north boundaries, portions of the subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of certain sections, Township 51 North, Range 66 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 934, was accepted January 25, 2018.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and the survey of the subdivision of section 26, Township 18 North, Range 84 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 965, was accepted January 25, 2018.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the subdivisional lines and the survey of the subdivision of sections 23 and 27, Township 42 North, Range 83 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 966, was accepted January 25, 2018.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and the subdivision of Section 26, and the metes-and-bounds survey of Parcels A and B, section 26, Township 20 North, Range 94 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 968, was accepted January 25, 2018.
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication with the Wyoming State Director at the above address. Any notice of protest received after the scheduled date of official filing will be untimely and will
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Copies of the preceding described plats and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $4.20 per plat and $.13 per page of field notes.
National Park Service, Interior.
Request for nominations.
The National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior is requesting nominations for qualified persons to serve as members of the Commission.
Nominations must be received by June 14, 2018.
Nominations should be sent to Christine Lucero, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, P.O. Box 210, Yorktown, Virginia 23690; or email
Christine Lucero, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, P.O. Box 210, Yorktown, Virginia 23690, or via email at
The 400 Years of African-American History Commission was established by section 3 of Public Law 115-102. The purpose of the Commission is to develop and carry out activities throughout the United States to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans to the English colonies at Point Comfort, Virginia, in 1619, at what is now Fort Monroe National Monument.
The Commission shall be composed of 15 members, of whom (A) 3 members shall be appointed by the Secretary after considering recommendations of Governors, including the Governor of Virginia; (B) 6 members shall be appointed by the Secretary after considering recommendations of civil rights organizations and historical organizations; (C) 1 member shall be an employee of the National Park Service having experience relative to the historical and cultural resources related to the commemoration, to be appointed by the Secretary; (D) 2 members shall be appointed by the Secretary after considering the recommendations of the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution; and (E) 3 members shall be individuals who have an interest in, support for, and expertise appropriate to the commemoration, appointed by the Secretary after considering the recommendations of Members of Congress.
We are currently seeking members to represent all categories. The Commission will elect the chairperson. In addition to the primary members, alternates may be appointed to the Commission.
Nominations should be typed and should include a resume providing an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, including information that would enable the Department of the Interior to make an informed decision regarding meeting the membership requirements of the Commission and permit the Department to contact a potential member. All documentation, including letters of recommendation, must be compiled and submitted in one complete package.
Members of the Commission will serve as special Government employees and be required on an annual basis to complete ethics training and file a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report. Members of the Commission serve without compensation. However, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission as approved by the NPS, members may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in Government service are allowed such expenses under section 5703 of title 5 of the United States Code.
Public Law 115-102.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
List of Restricted Joint Bidders.
Pursuant to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) regulatory restrictions on joint bidding, the Director of the BOEM is publishing a List of Restricted Joint Bidders. Each entity within one of the following groups is restricted from bidding with any entity in any of the other following groups at Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease sales to be held during the bidding period May 1, 2018, through October 31, 2018.
This List of Restricted Joint Bidders will cover the period May 1, 2018, through October 31, 2018, and replace the prior list published on November 14, 2017 (82 FR 52743), which covered the period of November 1, 2017, through April 30, 2018.
30 CFR 556.511-556.515.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection for requirements for Grants to States and Tribes.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 14, 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 John Trelease 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 provides the requested data in the desired format.
A Federal Register notice with a 60-day public comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6049). No comments were received.
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of OSMRE; (2) is the estimate of burden accurate; (3) how might OSMRE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) how might OSMRE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
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
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we,
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 14, 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 John Trelease 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 provides the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of OSMRE; (2) is the estimate of burden accurate; (3) how might OSMRE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) how might OSMRE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
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
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on April 9, 2018, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Syneron Medical Ltd. of Israel; Candela Corporation of Wayland, Massachusetts; and Massachusetts General Hospital of Boston, Massachusetts. A supplement was filed on April 27, 2018. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain radio frequency micro-needle dermatological treatment devices and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,510,899 (“the '899 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,095,357 (“the '357 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, as supplemented, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the
Katherine Hiner, Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2017).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain radio frequency micro-needle dermatological treatment devices and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 2, 4, 9-11, 15, 20, and 21 of the '899 patent and claims 1, 2, 4, 9-12, 17, and 18 of the '357 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before July 16, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on April 5, 2017, Patheon API Manufacturing, Inc., 309 Delaware Street, Building 1106, Greenville, South Carolina 29605 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the above-listed controlled substances as Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) for supply to its customers.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before June 14, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before June 14, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on April 18, 2018, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 3711 Collins Ferry Road, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in finished dosage form (FDF) from foreign sources for analytical testing and clinical trials in which the foreign FDF will be compared to the company's own domestically-manufactured FDF.
This analysis is required to allow the company to export domestically-manufactured FDF to foreign markets.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before June 14, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before June 14, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417, (January 25, 2007).
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on April 6, 2018, Rhodes Technologies, 498 Washington Street, Coventry, Rhode Island 02816 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import opium, raw (9600) and poppy straw concentrate (9670) in order to bulk manufacture controlled substances in Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) form. The company distributes the manufactured APIs in bulk to its customers.
The company plans to import the other listed controlled substances for internal reference standards use only. The comparisons of foreign reference standards to the company's domestically manufactured API will allow the company to export domestically manufactured API to foreign markets.
On October 31, 2017, the Acting Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, issued an Order to Show Cause to Donald Kenneth Shreves, D.V.M. (Respondent), of Pottstown, Pennsylvania. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's Certificate of Registration on the ground that he does “not have authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Pennsylvania, the [S]tate in which [he is] registered with the” Agency. Show Cause Order, at 1.
With respect to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent is registered “as a practitioner in [s]chedules II-V under . . . registration number BS5342934,” at the location of “1361C Farmington Ave., Pottstown, Pennsylvania.”
As the substantive ground for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that on September 28, 2017, the Pennsylvania Board of Veterinary Medicine “issued an Order of Temporary Suspension” of his veterinary medicine license.
The Show Cause Order notified Respondent of his right to request a hearing or to submit a written statement while waiving his right to a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence of failing to elect either option.
On November 8, 2017, Respondent was personally served with the Show Cause Order, and on December 8, 2018, Respondent requested a hearing. Resp. Hrng. Req. at 1. The matter was placed on the docket of the Office of Administrative Law Judges and assigned to ALJ Charles Wm. Dorman, who, on December 11, 2017, issued an order setting the briefing schedule.
On January 4, 2018, the Government submitted a Motion for Summary Disposition; as support for its motion, the Government attached a copy of the Board's Suspension Order and a Declaration of a DEA Task Force Office that Respondent's Veterinary License remained suspended as of January 2, 2017, when she queried the Board's website. Mot. for Summ. Disp., Attachments 3; 5; 6, at 2. On January 10, 2018, Respondent filed his reply and admitted that he was currently without authority to handle controlled substances in Pennsylvania. Resp.'s Reply to Govt. Mot. for Summ. Disp., at 1.
On January 11, 2018, the ALJ issued his Recommended Decision (R.D.). Therein, the ALJ found that there was no dispute over the material fact that Respondent lacks authority to dispense controlled substances in Pennsylvania.
Neither party filed exceptions to the Recommended Decision. On February 6, 2018, the ALJ forwarded the record to my Office.
Having reviewed the record, I hold that this proceeding is now moot. The evidence in the record establishes that Respondent's registration was due to expire on February 28, 2018, and according to the Agency's registration record for Respondent of which I take official notice,
DEA has long held that “ `if a registrant has not submitted a timely renewal application prior to the expiration date, then the registration expires and there is nothing to revoke.' ”
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that the Order to Show Cause issued to Donald K. Shreves, D.V.M., be, and it hereby is, dismissed. This Order is effective immediately.
Notice of registration.
Registrants listed below have applied for and been granted registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as bulk manufacturers of various classes of schedule I and II controlled substances.
The companies listed below applied to be registered as bulk manufacturers of various basic classes of controlled substances. Information on previously published notices is listed in the table below. No comments or objections were submitted for these notices.
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of these registrants to manufacture the applicable basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated each of the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing each company's physical security systems, verifying each company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing each company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the DEA has granted a registration as a bulk manufacturer to the above listed companies.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk importers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before June 14, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before June 14, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417, (January 25, 2007)
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on April 11, 2018, Xcelience, 4901 West Grace Street, Tampa, FL 33607 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance in finished dosage form for clinical trials, research and analytical purposes.
The import of this class of controlled substance will be granted only for analytical testing, research and clinical trials. This authorization does not extend to the import of a finished FDA approved or non-approved dosage form for commercial sale.
Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 16, 2018.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gerry Lynn Brovey, Supervisory Information Liaison Specialist, FBI, CJIS, Resources Management Section, Administrative Unit, Module C-2, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia, 26306 (facsimile: 304-625-5093) or email
This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed revision of the “The Consumer Expenditure Surveys: The Quarterly Interview and the Diary.” A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the Addresses section of this notice on or before July 16, 2018.
Send comments to Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20212. Written comments also may be transmitted by fax to 202-691-5111 (this is not a toll free number).
Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, at 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number). (See
The Consumer Expenditure (CE) Surveys collect data on consumer expenditures, demographic information, and related data needed by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and other public and private data users. The continuing surveys provide a constant measurement of changes in consumer expenditure patterns for economic analysis and to obtain data for future CPI revisions. The CE Surveys have been ongoing since 1979.
The data from the CE Surveys are used (1) for CPI revisions, (2) to provide a continuous flow of data on income and expenditure patterns for use in economic analysis and policy formulation, and (3) to provide a flexible consumer survey vehicle that is available for use by other Federal government agencies. Public and private users of price statistics, including Congress and the economic policymaking agencies of the Executive branch, rely on data collected in the CPI in their day-to-day activities. Hence, data users and policymakers widely accept the need to improve the process used for revising the CPI. If the CE Surveys were not conducted on a continuing basis, current information necessary for more timely, as well as more accurate, updating of the CPI would not be available. In addition, data would not be available to respond to the continuing demand from the public and private sectors for current information on consumer spending.
In the Quarterly Interview Survey, each consumer unit (CU) in the sample is interviewed every three months over four calendar quarters. The sample for each quarter is divided into three panels, with CUs being interviewed every three months in the same panel of every quarter. The Quarterly Interview Survey is designed to collect data on the types of expenditures that respondents can be expected to recall for a period of three months or longer. In general the expenses reported in the Interview Survey are either relatively large, such as property, automobiles, or major appliances, or are expenses which occur on a fairly regular basis, such as rent, utility bills, or insurance premiums.
The Diary (or recordkeeping) Survey is completed at home by the respondent family for two consecutive one-week periods. The primary objective of the Diary Survey is to obtain expenditure data on small, frequently purchased items which normally are difficult to recall over longer periods of time.
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the proposed revision of the Consumer Expenditure Surveys: The Quarterly Interview and the Diary.
As part of an ongoing effort to improve data quality, maintain or increase response rates, and reduce data collection costs, CE is seeking clearance to make the changes outlined below. In Interview (CEQ), several questions will be modified including collapsing the items codes for attachable campers and unattached campers into a single item code; regrouping the clothing sections for easier understanding by the respondent such as adding a swimwear category, regrouping items previously collected in the “Swimwear, swim cover-ups, or swimwear accessories” category, and renaming the outerwear section to “Coats and Jackets”; replacing questions on prepaid long distance calling cards with a question on prepaid cellular cards; deleting the “Miscellaneous expenses/souvenirs” question in the trip section as this has led to duplicate reports. Additionally, an extended recall section will be added on the point of purchase of items for consumer units (CUs) based on 1) the PSU in which the consumer unit resides (population group) and 2) whether the item was not reported by the consumer unit in the current reference period. Only consumer units that did not report an expenditure for the item and reside in the PSU in which the extended recall section is being asked will receive these additional questions. In the Diary survey (CED) a question will be added on the veteran status of each member of the consumer unit who is 17 and over. Additionally the pick-up window, or the time an FR is allowed to pick up the completed Diary will be extended to 10 days from 7 days. Finally, an additional column will be added to the Diary form for the respondent to record the point of purchase for the expenditure the respondent has recorded.
A full list of the proposed changes to the Quarterly Interview Survey are available upon request.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand the scope of recognition for MET Laboratories, Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). In addition, OSHA announces the addition of one test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on May 15, 2018.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of MET Laboratories, Inc. (MET), as a NRTL. MET's expansion covers the addition of two test standards to its scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification of the products.
The Agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
MET submitted an application, dated July 27, 2016, (OSHA-2006-0028-0042) to expand its recognition to include two additional test standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing MET's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to MET's application, go to
OSHA staff examined MET's expansion application, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that MET meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the specified limitation and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant MET's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of MET's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards listed, below in Table 1.
In this notice, OSHA also announces the addition of a new test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. Table 2, below, lists the test standard that is new to the NRTL Program. OSHA has determined that this test standard is an appropriate test standard and will include it in the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, the use of the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation may occur. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, MET must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. MET must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. MET must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA
3. MET must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on MET's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of MET, subject to the limitation and conditions specified above.
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of FM Approvals, LLC, for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant the application. Additionally, OSHA proposes to add four test standards to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before May 30, 2018.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA is providing notice that FM Approvals, LLC, (FM), is applying for expansion of its current recognition as a NRTL. FM requests the addition of 28 test standards to its NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
FM currently has two facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at: FM Approvals, LLC, 1151
FM submitted an application, dated July 15, 2016 (OSHA-2007-0041-0008), to expand its recognition to include 28 additional test standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application. In reviewing the application, OSHA determined that three of the requested standards had been withdrawn by a standards development organization; therefore, OSHA is not proposing to add those three standards to FM's NRTL scope of recognition.
Table 1 lists the appropriate test standards found in FM's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
Periodically, OSHA will propose to add new test standards to the NRTL List of Appropriate Test Standards following an evaluation of the test standard document. To qualify as an appropriate test standard, the Agency evaluates the document to (1) verify it represents a product category for which OSHA requires certification by a NRTL, (2) verify the document represents an end product and not a component, and (3) verify the document defines safety test specifications (not installation or operational performance specifications).
In this notice, OSHA proposes to add four new test standards to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. Table 2, lists the test standards that are new to the NRTL Program. OSHA preliminarily determined that these test standards are appropriate test standards and proposes to include them in the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. OSHA seeks public comment on this preliminary determination.
FM submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and pertinent documentation, indicate that FM can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of these 25 test standards for NRTL testing and certification listed above, including 4 standards that will be added to OSHA's list of Appropriate Test Standards. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of FM's application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether FM meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as a NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Room N-3653, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These materials also are available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health regarding the application for recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.
Notice of rescissions proposed pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Pursuant to section 1014(d) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, enclosed for publication in the
The rescissions proposal package is available on-line on the OMB home page at:
Jessica Andreasen, 6001 New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, email address:
In accordance with section 1012 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 683), I herewith report 38 rescissions of budget authority, totaling $15.4 billion.
The proposed rescissions affect programs of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, and the Treasury, as well as of the Corporation for National and Community Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Railroad Retirement Board, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
May 8, 2018.
Submitted for your consideration are proposals for rescission under section 1012 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) (2 U.S.C. 683) for the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, and the Treasury, as well as for the Corporation for National and Community Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Railroad Retirement Board, Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
As demonstrated in your first two Budgets, the Administration is committed to ensuring the Federal Government spends precious taxpayer dollars in the most efficient, effective manner possible. Given the long-term fiscal constraints facing our Nation, we must use all available means to put our fiscal house back in order.
To that end, the Administration is utilizing the authorities granted to the President under the ICA to propose rescissions to enacted appropriations. The proposals included in this package would make it the largest single ICA rescissions package ever proposed.
The attached rescission proposals include unobligated balances from prior-year appropriations and reductions to budget authority for mandatory programs. These proposals include rescissions of funding that is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was appropriated by the Congress; in many cases, these funds have been left unspent by agencies for years. These proposals also include rescissions of low priority and unnecessary Federal spending. We look forward to working with the Congress to identify additional opportunities to reduce
This special message is transmitting your proposals to rescind $15.4 billion in budget authority. If enacted, these rescissions would decrease Federal outlays in the affected accounts by an estimated $3.0 billion; this would have a commensurate effect on the Federal budget deficit and the national economy, and would result in less borrowing from the Federal Treasury.
I join the heads of the affected departments and agencies in recommending you transmit the proposals to the Congress.
This proposal would rescind $148 million in no-year unobligated balances from prior years, of which there were $393 million available on October 1, 2017. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service carryover balances are from animal and plant health programs, including funds for disease outbreak response for incidents that are now resolved. These funds are in excess of amounts needed to carry out the programs in FY 2018. Enacting the rescission would have limited programmatic impact.
This proposal would rescind $356 million in unobligated balances of conservation programs that were not extended in the Agricultural Act of 2014, and $144 million in unobligated balances of the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) from FY 2014 through FY 2017. There were a total of $1.5 billion in balances available in these programs on October 1, 2017. EQIP provides farmers and ranchers with financial cost-share and technical assistance to implement conservation practices on working agricultural land. These funds are from unobligated balances of expired programs or from prior years and are in excess of amounts needed to carry out the programs in FY 2018. Enacting the rescission would have limited programmatic impact.
This proposal would rescind a total $157 million in prior year balances, of which $378 million were available on October 1, 2017.
Of these amounts, $50 million would be rescinded from the Department of Agriculture's Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program. This program conducts surveys and investigations, engineering operations, works of improvement, and changes in use of land. These funds are in excess of amounts needed to carry out the program in FY 2018. Enacting the rescission would have a minimal impact on the program as it is fully funded through the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Enacting the rescission would have limited programmatic impact.
In addition, this proposal would rescind $107 million in unobligated balances appropriated in FY 2013 for the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program. The EWP Program is an emergency recovery program that helps local communities recover after a natural disaster. The program offers technical and financial assistance to help local communities relieve imminent threats to life and property caused by floods, fires, windstorms, and other natural disasters that impair a watershed. These funds were initially provided as part of the Federal Government's response to aid in recovery efforts following Hurricane Sandy; however, a large balance of emergency funding remains unobligated in part due to the inability of project sponsors to generate the funding necessary for their portion of the project expenses. Enacting the proposal would rescind the balance of funding provided in response to Hurricane Sandy that has yet to be obligated.
This proposal would rescind $40 million in carryover balances from the rental assistance program, of which there were $40 million available on October 1, 2017. The rental assistance program provides project-based rent on behalf of low and very-low income rural residents in Department of Agriculture financed multifamily housing projects. The FY 2018 appropriations fully funded the program, and these balances are not needed to fully renew all the rental assistance contracts in FY 2018.
Of the unobligated balances available under this heading from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-31) and prior Acts, $2,000,000 are rescinded.
This proposal would rescind $3 million in carryover balances from the community facilities program account, of which $10 million were available on October 1, 2017. The community facilities grants provide assistance to low income rural communities for essential community facilities such as police stations and medical clinics. The FY 2018 appropriations fully funded the
This proposal would rescind $15 million in FY 2018 carryover balances from the value-added agricultural product market development grants, of which $24 million were available on October 1, 2017. The Value-Added Product Grant program provides grants to companies to market their agricultural products. These funds have been used for marketing things like chocolate-covered peanuts, which is wasteful given other Federal subsidies through the Farm Bill. Enacting the rescission would eliminate carryover funding for these unnecessary grants.
This proposal would rescind $36 million in unobligated balances of which $92 million were available on October 1, 2017. The Biorefinery Assistance Program, operated by the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, encourages the production of biofuels, renewable chemicals, and bioproducts. These funds are in excess of amounts needed to carry out the program in FY 2018.
This proposal would rescind $13 million in carryover balances for the High Cost Energy Grants, of which $13 million were available on October 1, 2017. These grants are for communities to improve energy generation, transmission, or distribution at facilities in communities where the average residential cost for home energy exceeds 275 percent of the national average. The FY 2018 appropriations fully funded the program, and these balances are not needed to carry out the program in FY 2018.
This proposal would rescind $40 million in carryover balances from the Water and Wastewater program account, of which there were $40 million available on October 1, 2017. The Water and Wastewater program provides a grant/loan combination to low income communities of 10,000 or less for clean drinking water and wastewater facilities in rural America. The FY 2018 appropriations fully funded the program, and these balances are not needed to carry out the program in FY 2018.
This proposal would rescind $17 million in prior year balances for the Forest Service for acquisition of additional land, of which there were $19 million available on October 1, 2017. The Forest Service Land Acquisition program funds the acquisition of lands, waters, and related interests within the National Forest System to further Agency land management objectives for landscape restoration, outdoor recreation and public access, conservation of wildlife habitat, and protection of water quality. The proposed rescission would reduce unobligated budget authority that is inconsistent with the President's policies. Enacting the rescission would eliminate land purchase projects in national forests, while projects to increase open public access for hunting, fishing, and other recreational uses would continue to be funded from the amounts available.
This proposal would rescind $30 million in prior year balances of which there were nearly $44 million available on October 1, 2017. The Economic Development Administration (EDA)'s Economic Development Assistance Programs (EDAP) provide competitive economic development grants to economically distressed communities. The authorization for this program expired in 2008 and the Government Accountability Office has identified EDA programs as duplicative of several other economic development programs. Since 2015, the Congress has enacted rescissions of EDAP balances from prior year appropriations. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115-141) rescinded $10 million of unobligated balances from prior year appropriations. This proposal increases that rescission by an additional $30 million, consistent with the larger rescission proposed in the FY 2018 Budget. Enacting the rescission would not impact EDA's ability to obligate funds appropriated in FY 2018, but would reduce the total funds available for award by the amount of the enacted rescission.
This proposal would rescind $4 billion in unobligated balances, of which there were $4 billion available on October 1, 2017, from amounts appropriated in FY 2009 for the cost of direct loans under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program. The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program provides loans to automobile and automobile part manufacturers for the cost of re-equipping,
This proposal would rescind $161 million in unobligated subsidy amounts appropriated in FY 2011 for the Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, of which there were $161 million available on October 1, 2017. The Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program encourages early commercial use of new or significantly improved technologies in energy projects. This proposed rescission would eliminate subsidy amounts that are inconsistent with the President's policies. Enacting the rescission would support the elimination of the program. Only three loan guarantees have been closed through this program since its inception, all related to a single project. The proposed rescission would have no effect on outlays.
This proposal would rescind $523 million in unobligated credit subsidy amounts appropriated in FY 2009 for the Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, of which there were $523 million available on May 1, 2018. Appropriated by the Obama stimulus package, the program encourages early commercial use of new or significantly improved technologies in energy projects. This proposed rescission would eliminate subsidy amounts that are inconsistent with the President's policies. Enacting the rescission would support the elimination of the program. The proposed rescission would have no effect on outlays.
This proposal would rescind $5.1 billion in amounts made available by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 to supplement the 2017 national allotments to States, including $3.1 billion in unobligated balances available on October 1, 2017, and $2 billion in recoveries as of May 7, 2018. The 2017 one-time appropriation was made available in addition to the annual Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) appropriation to reimburse states for eligible CHIP expenses. Authority to obligate these funds to States expired on September 30, 2017, and the remaining funding is no longer needed. Enacting the rescission would have no programmatic impact. The proposed rescission would have no effect on outlays.
This proposal would rescind $800 million in amounts made available under Public Law 111-148 for FYs 2011 to 2019 for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (the Innovation Center) of which there were $3.5 billion available on October 1, 2017. The Innovation Center was created to test innovative payment and service delivery models to reduce program expenditures under Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP while preserving or enhancing quality of care. These funds are in excess of amounts needed to carry out the Innovation Center's planned activities in FYs 2018 and 2019, and the Innovation Center will receive a new mandatory appropriation in FY 2020. Enacting the rescission would allow the Innovation Center to continue its current activity, initiate new activity, and continue to pay for its administrative costs.
This proposal would rescind $1.9 billion in amounts available for the Children's Health Insurance Program Contingency Fund, of which there were $2.4 billion available as of March 23, 2018. The Contingency Fund provides payments to States that experience funding shortfalls due to higher than expected enrollment. At this time, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services does not expect that any State would require a Contingency Fund payment in FY 2018; therefore, this funding is not needed. Enacting this rescission would have no programmatic impact. The proposed rescission would have no effect on outlays.
This proposal would rescind $220 million in unobligated balances made available under Public Law 110-161, of which there were $510 million available on October 1, 2017. The Nonrecurring Expenses Fund (NEF) is a no-year account that receives transfers of expired unobligated balances from discretionary accounts prior to cancellation. The NEF is used for capital acquisition, including facilities infrastructure and information technology. This proposal would rescind available unobligated balances. The Department of Health and Human Services could continue to fund high
This proposal would rescind $1 million in prior year balances of which there were $2 million available on October 1, 2017. The Capital Fund largely provides formula modernization grants to public housing authorities to address the capital repair needs in about one million units of public housing, in addition to set-asides for resident self-sufficiency programs and other programmatic needs. The proposed rescission would reduce budget authority that is inconsistent with the President's policies. Enacting the rescission would reduce prior year balances available for capital repair needs, emergency repairs including safety and security measures, physical inspections, administrative and judicial receiverships, and Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) grants. Amounts appropriated in FY 2018 for the Public Housing Capital Fund could be used for some of these activities.
This proposal would rescind $5 million in prior year balances of which there were $6 million available on October 1, 2017. The Capital Fund largely provides formula modernization grants to public housing authorities to address the capital repair needs in about one million units of public housing, in addition to set-asides for resident self-sufficiency programs and other programmatic needs. The proposed rescission would reduce budget authority that is inconsistent with the President's policies. Enacting the rescission would reduce prior year balances available for capital repair needs, emergency repairs including safety and security measures, physical inspections, administrative and judicial receiverships, and competitive Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) and Jobs-Plus grants. Amounts appropriated in FY 2018 for the Public Housing Capital Fund could be used for some of these activities.
This proposal would rescind $34 million in prior year balances of which there were $118 million available on October 1, 2017. The Capital Fund largely provides formula modernization grants to public housing authorities to address the capital repair needs in about one million units of public housing, in addition to set-asides for resident self-sufficiency programs and other programmatic needs. The proposed rescission would reduce budget authority that is inconsistent with the President's policies. Enacting the rescission would reduce prior year balances available for capital repair needs, emergency repairs including safety and security measures, physical inspections, administrative and judicial receiverships, Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) grants, and eliminate the FY 2017 competitive Jobs-Plus grants. Competitive grants to reduce lead-based paint hazards in public housing would continue to be funded from amounts available. Amounts appropriated in FY 2018 for the Public Housing Capital Fund could be used for some of these activities.
This proposal would rescind $1 million in prior year balances of which there were $8 million available on October 1, 2017. The Capital Fund largely provides formula modernization grants to public housing authorities to address the capital repair needs in about one million units of public housing, in addition to set-asides for resident self-sufficiency programs and other programmatic needs. The proposed rescission would reduce budget authority that is inconsistent with the President's policies. Enacting the rescission would reduce prior year balances available for capital repair needs, and technical assistance. Amounts appropriated in FY 2018 for the Public Housing Capital Fund could be used for some of these activities.
This proposal would rescind $106 million in prior year balances of which there were $1.3 billion available on October 1, 2017. The Assets Forfeiture Fund receives the proceeds of forfeitures pursuant to any law enforced or administered by the Department of Justice. These resources are used to cover the costs associated with such forfeitures, including equitable sharing payments to participating State and local law enforcement, payments to victims and other innocent third party claimants, forfeiture-related investigative and litigation expenses, and asset management and disposition expenses. The funds proposed for rescission are in excess of amounts needed to carry out the program in FY 2018. Enacting the rescission would not impact program operations.
This proposal would rescind $23 million in remaining balances for National Emergency Grants (NEGs) authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. These NEGs were authorized to help States implement the Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC) for Trade Adjustment Assistance recipients, both helping States establish the systems and procedures needed to make healthcare benefits available and providing assistance and support services to eligible individuals waiting to receive payments through the HCTC. The initial HCTC authorization expired on January 1, 2014, but was reinstated in 2015. Since the HCTC program was reinstated, the Department of Labor has only distributed $1.4 million in Health NEGs. Enacting this rescission would be unlikely to have a programmatic impact since the Department does not have plans for the remaining funds. This funding is currently allocated to a child
This proposal would rescind $30 million in prior year balances from the Complex Crises Fund (CCF), of which $53 million were available on October 1, 2017. The CCF was designed to support rapid response programs to address emerging and unforeseen crises in order to de-escalate them. To date, the account has largely been used to support activities that are similar to longer-term development work and could be carried out within the resources and authorities of the Economic Support Fund. Since other resources and authorities are available to carry out these activities, funding in this account is unnecessary and is not a priority for the Administration. Enacting the rescission would eliminate all remaining unobligated and unplanned balances for the account.
This proposal would rescind $52 million in unobligated balances, of which there were at least $52 million available on October 1, 2017. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is an independent agency with no year funds authority that provides grants to developing countries to reduce poverty through economic growth. These unobligated balances proposed for rescission are not needed to carry out the program in FY 2018. The Indonesia compact has reached the grant closeout period and funding is anticipated to be returned to MCC. In addition, funding provided for the MCC in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 was more than requested in the FY 2018 Budget. As such, enacting the rescission would have limited impact on MCC's planned programs.
This proposal would rescind $252 million in prior year balances of emergency funding appropriated in FY 2015 for the Ebola response, of which there were $470 million in emergency balances available for the Ebola response on October 1, 2017. The Congress provided these for countries affected by, or at risk of being affected by, the Ebola virus disease outbreak in 2015. These funds remain from the initial outbreak in 2015 and are no longer needed because the Ebola response has largely concluded. Enacting the rescission would therefore not impact the Ebola response.
This proposal would rescind $86 million in prior year balances, of which there were $90 million available on October 1, 2017. The 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act and prior Acts provided funding to carry out earmarked highway projects, many of which are less than $1 million, and are not regionally or nationally significant projects justifying direct appropriations. Many of these earmarks would be eligible for regular Federal Aid Highway formula funding, and if these balances are rescinded, States could direct their Federal Aid formula grant funds towards these projects, if they so choose.
This proposal would rescind $45 million in prior year balances, of which there were $46 million available on October 1, 2017. The Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) program was authorized to provide grant funding for projects involving construction of, and improvements to, ADHS highway corridors. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, Public Law 112-141) eliminated the standalone ADHS program, as the vast majority of the system had been built out. However, States can continue to use their other Federal Aid Highway funds to support continued improvement of these corridors. The broader Federal Aid Highway eligibility, combined with the fact that the ADHS system is largely built-out, results in limited impact from rescinding these legacy balances.
This proposal would rescind $48 million in prior year balances, of which there were $53 million available on October 1, 2017. These balances are derived from the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, related to miscellaneous highway projects. Given the age of the balances, there will be little to no programmatic impact in rescinding these funds.
This proposal would rescind $53 million in prior year balances, of which there were nearly $56 million available on October 1, 2017. The High Speed Rail program provided capital grants to States to invest and improve intercity passenger rail service, including the development of new high-speed capacity. Approximately $47 million of these funds were awarded in 2011, but not obligated, for the Chicago to Iowa City rail corridor project. The obligation of these funds is contingent upon work done to construct improvements necessary to restart passenger rail service between the two regions, which is long stalled and still in the design phase. No new funding has been provided to the High Speed Rail program since FY 2010, when these balances were appropriated. Rescinding these funds will not have a significant impact on high speed passenger rail projects.
This proposal would rescind $47 million in prior year balances, of which there were nearly $48 million available on October 1, 2017. This General Fund program provided formula grant funding to transit agencies in FY 2005 and earlier. Formula funding for transit agencies is now carried out exclusively by the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), and these balances are the residual balances remaining from funds provided in FY 2005 and earlier. Enacting this rescission would have a negligible impact on overall transit investments, as the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, provided $9.7 billion for Transit Formula Grants within the HTF.
This proposal would rescind $53 million in prior year balances, of which there were $669 million available on October 1, 2017. The Treasury Forfeiture Fund receives the proceeds of non-tax forfeitures made pursuant to laws enforced or administered by participating bureaus of the Departments of the Treasury and Homeland Security. These resources are used to cover the costs associated with such forfeitures, including equitable sharing payments to participating State and local law enforcement; payments to victims and other innocent third party claimants; forfeiture-related investigative and litigation expenses; and asset management and disposition expenses. The funds proposed for rescission are in excess of amounts needed to carry out the program in FY 2018. Enacting the rescission would not impact core program operations.
This proposal would rescind $23 million in funds appropriated in FY 2017 for the Department of the Treasury's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program of which $23 million were available on October 1, 2017. These funds, which have yet to be disbursed, would be used for awards to FDIC-insured depository institutions that support Community Development Financial Institutions. This proposed rescission would reduce budget authority that is inconsistent with the President's policies.
This proposal would rescind $151 million in amounts made available under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-289) for FY 2018, of which $151 million was available on May 1, 2018. The Capital Magnet Fund (CMF) is a competitive grant program that funds housing nonprofits and Community Development Financial Institutions to finance affordable housing activities, as well as related economic development activities and community service facilities. This proposed rescission of CMF balances, which were derived from assessments on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under permanent law, would reduce budget authority that is inconsistent with the President's policies, recognizing that State and local governments and the private sector have a greater role to play in addressing affordable housing needs. Enacting the rescission would reduce the funds available for grants under this program.
This proposal would rescind $10 million in prior year balances, of which there were $208 million available on October 1, 2017. This is EPA's primary account that funds salaries, travel, contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements for pollution abatement, compliance, and administrative activities of the operating programs. The funds proposed for rescission are targeted for competitive water quality research and support grants, which are duplicative with other Federal programs. Enacting the rescission would reduce funding for water quality research and support grants.
This proposal would rescind $150 million in prior year balances from the National Service Trust, of which there were $205 million available on October 1, 2017. The National Service Trust provides funds for educational awards to eligible AmeriCorps volunteers who have completed their terms of service. The available balances in the Trust are in excess of amounts needed to cover educational awards in FY 2018. This rescission would not impact the agency's operations. This rescission would have no effect on outlays.
This proposal would rescind $133 million in prior year balances of which there were slightly more than $133 million available on October 1, 2017. These funds were enacted to pay extended unemployment insurance benefits to railroad workers. The program expired on December 31, 2012 and the remaining funding is no longer needed. Enacting the rescission would not have any programmatic impact on the program. The proposed rescission would have no effect on outlays.
The Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, 29 May 2018, from 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Wednesday, 30 May 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; and Thursday, 31 May 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The Commission and the Committee also will meet in executive session on Tuesday, 29 May 2018, from 8:30 to 10:00 a.m.
Courtyard Ballroom, Renaissance Seattle Hotel, 515 Madison Street, Seattle, Washington.
The executive session will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b) and applicable regulations. The session will be limited to discussions of internal agency practices and personnel. All other portions of the meeting will be open to the public. Public participation will be allowed as time permits and as determined to be desirable by the Chairman.
The Commission and Committee will meet in public session to discuss a broad range of marine mammal science and conservation issues, with a particular focus on issues related to the Pacific Northwest and the West Coast. A draft agenda for the meeting is posted on the Commission's website at
The Marine Mammal Commission, 4340 East-West Highway, Room 700, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-0087; email:
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of proposed collection; comment request.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), 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 is 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 is properly assessed. Currently, the NEA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection for applications from students for Agency Initiatives Poetry Out Loud or the Musical Theater Songwriting Challenge for High School Students. A copy of the current information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the address section below within 60 days from the date of this publication 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
• Can help the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the electronic submission of responses.
Email comments to Jillian Miller, Director, Office of Guidelines and Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, at:
Jillian Miller, Director of Guidelines and Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Construction permit and record of decision; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is providing notice of the issuance of Construction Permit No. CPMIF-002 to Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) and record of decision (ROD).
The construction permit was issued, and is immediately effective, May 9, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0235 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Michael Balazik, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2856; email:
Under section 2.106 of title 10 of the
The NRC prepared a safety evaluation report and a final environmental impact statement that document the information reviewed and the NRC's conclusions. The Commission also issued its Memorandum and Order (CLI-18-06), documenting its final decision on the mandatory hearing held on January 23, 2018, which serves as the ROD in this proceeding. The Commission's final decision authorized the issuance of the construction permit for the NWMI medical radioisotope production facility, contingent upon the inclusion of a revised safety permit condition. The NRC also prepared a document summarizing the ROD to accompany its action on the construction permit application that incorporates by reference materials contained in the final environmental impact statement. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure,” details with respect to this action, including the safety evaluation report, final environmental impact statement, summary ROD, and accompanying documentation included in the construction permit package, as well as the Commission's hearing decision and ROD, are available online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Export license amendment and renewal application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuing an export license amendment and renewal of License No. XW008/05 requested by Diversified Scientific Services, Inc. (DSSI). On February 9, 2018, DSSI submitted a revised application with the NRC to amend and renew License No. XW008/04. The request seeks the NRC's approval for renewal and amendment of an existing license authorizing the export of radioactive waste to Canada. The NRC is providing notice of the opportunity to request a hearing on DSSI's revised application.
Submit comments by June 14, 2018. Requests for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by June 14, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Andrea R. Jones, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9072, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0080 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-2018-0080 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.
In accordance with section 110.70(b) of title 10 of the
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed with the
The information concerning this application for an export license amendment and renewal follows:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Revision to policy statement.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing a revision to its Enforcement Policy (Enforcement Policy or Policy) to address the requirements of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Improvements Act). The 2015 Improvements Act amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act (FCPIAA) of 1990, and now requires Federal agencies to adjust their maximum civil monetary penalty annually for inflation.
This action was effective on January 12, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0082 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Gerry Gulla, Office of Enforcement, telephone: 301-287-9143, email:
In 1990, Congress passed the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, to provide for regular adjustment for inflation of civil monetary penalties (CMPs). As amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, the FCPIAA required that the head of each Federal agency review, and if necessary, adjust by regulation the CMPs assessed under statutes enforced by the agency at least once every four years.
On November 2, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the 2015 Improvements Act, which further amended the FCPIAA and requires Federal agencies to adjust their CMPs annually for inflation no later than January 15 of each year. These requirements apply to the NRC's maximum CMP amounts for (1) a violation of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, or any regulation or order issued under the AEA, codified in section 2.205(j) of title 10 of the
Pursuant to the 2015 Improvements Act, the NRC codified on January 12,
Accordingly, the NRC has revised its Policy to read as follows:
This policy statement does not contain any new or amended collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This action is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
2:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 6, 2018.
Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC.
Hearing OPEN to the Public at 2:00 p.m.
Public Hearing in conjunction with each meeting of OPIC's Board of Directors, to afford an opportunity for any person to present views regarding the activities of the Corporation.
Individuals wishing to address the hearing orally must provide advance notice to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no later than 5 p.m. Wednesday, May 30, 2018. The notice must include the individual's name, title, organization, address, and telephone number, and a concise summary of the subject matter to be presented.
Oral presentations may not exceed ten (10) minutes. The time for individual presentations may be reduced proportionately, if necessary, to afford all participants who have submitted a timely request an opportunity to be heard.
Participants wishing to submit a written statement for the record must submit a copy of such statement to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no later than 5 p.m. Wednesday, May 30, 2018. Such statement must be typewritten, double spaced, and may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages.
Upon receipt of the required notice, OPIC will prepare an agenda, which will be available at the hearing, that identifies speakers, the subject on which each participant will speak, and the time allotted for each presentation.
A written summary of the hearing will be compiled, and such summary will be made available, upon written request to OPIC's Corporate Secretary, at the cost of reproduction.
Written summaries of the projects to be presented at the June 14, 2018, Board meeting will be posted on OPIC's website.
Information on the hearing may be obtained from Catherine F.I. Andrade at (202) 336-8768, via facsimile at (202) 408-0297, or via email at
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective May 1, 2018. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule effective May 1, 2018. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to offer an additional incentive for Market Makers to post liquidity in the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (“SPY”).
Currently, Market Makers receive a $0.28 per contract credit for executions against Market Maker posted liquidity in Penny Pilot Issues and Lead Market Makers (“LMMs”) may receive an additional $.04 per contract credit (for a total of $0.32 per contract credit) for posted liquidity in Penny Pilot Issues that are in the LMM's appointment.
The Exchange also offers an incentive to encourage Market Makers to post interest in SPY. A Market Maker that has posted interest of at least 0.20% of TCADV in SPY during a calendar month receives a per contract credit of $0.45
As is the case today, a Market Maker that qualifies for more than one available credit will always receive the highest rebate applicable to a transaction. For example, a Market Maker that is eligible to receive both the $0.41 per contract credit via the Market Maker Incentive For Penny Pilot Issues as well as the proposed $0.36 per contract credit via the Market Maker Incentive for SPY would receive the former (higher) credit.
The Exchange is not proposing any other changes to the Fee Schedule at this time.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act, in particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
The Exchange believes that providing an intermediate incentive for executions against posted liquidity in SPY is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because, among other things, it may encourage greater participation in SPY—which is consistently the most active options issue nationally. The proposed SPY incentive would also provide an additional means for Market Makers to qualify for credits for posting volume on the Exchange. By encouraging activity in SPY, the Exchange believes that opportunities to qualify for other rebates are increased, which benefits all participants through increased Market Maker activity. The Exchange also believes that encouraging a higher level of trading volume in SPY should increase opportunities for OTP Holders and OTP Firms (“OTPs”) to achieve credits available through existing incentive programs, such as the MM Tiers, which provides OTPs the ability to achieve per contract credit for electronic executions of posted Market Maker interest in SPY and other Penny Pilot names by combining the volume of the OTP with volume of their affiliates or Appointed Market Maker. To the extent that order flow, which adds liquidity, is increased by the proposal, OTPs will be encouraged to compete for the opportunity to trade on the Exchange, including by sending additional order flow to the Exchange to achieve higher tiers or enhanced rebates. The resulting increased volume and liquidity would benefit all Exchange participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
The Exchange also believes the proposed SPY incentive is not unfairly discriminatory to non-Market Markers (
The Exchange also notes that the proposed credit for posting in SPY is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory as it is consistent with credits offered to Market Makers by other options exchanges.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to reorganize and amend The Nasdaq Options Market LLC (“NOM”) Chapter XV, Section 3, entitled “Nasdaq Options Market—Ports and Other Services.”
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 reorganize and amend Chapter XV, Section 3, entitled “Nasdaq Options Market—Ports and Other Services.” The Exchange offers various services across its 6 affiliated options markets, NOM, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq Phlx LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“Nasdaq Affiliated Markets”).
The Exchange proposes to define a port within Section 3 to provide additional clarity to the fee schedule as “a logical connection or session that enables a market participant to send inbound messages and/or receive outbound messages from the Exchange using various communication protocols.” The Exchange believes this definition will assist Participants in distinguishing ports from other offerings.
The Exchange proposes to add a new section (i) and include the following introductory sentence, “The following order and quote protocols are available on NOM.”
Today, NOM offers market participants an Order Entry order protocol and an SQF quote protocol. These fees currently exist on the fee schedule. The Exchange is not amending any pricing related to these protocols. The Exchange proposes to rename “Order Entry Port Fee” as “FIX Port Fee.” This description is more accurate as “FIX” is the name of the
The Exchange believes that grouping the available order and quote protocols together into their own subsection will provide greater transparency within its fee schedule as to the available protocols.
The Exchange proposes to add a new section (ii) and add the following introductory sentence, “The following order and execution information is available to Participants.” The Exchange proposes to group the available order and execution information that is particular to a Participant's executions on NOM into its own subsection. Today, NOM offers CTI, Order Entry DROP, TradeInfo and OTTO DROP. The Exchange proposes to rename “Order Entry DROP” as “FIX DROP” for the reasons described above. Nasdaq ISE, LLC uses the term FIX DROP. The Exchange proposes to rename “TradeInfo” as “NOM TradeInfo Interface” to make clear that this particular offering is an interface. The Exchange proposes to relocate these current fees into section (ii). No changes are being made to pricing and these fees exist today within Section 3.
The Exchange proposes to add a new section (iii) and include the following information, “The following data ports fees apply in connection with data subscriptions pursuant to NOM Rules at Chapter XV, Section 4. The below port fees do not apply if the subscription is delivered via multicast.” The following sentence is simply being relocated, “These ports are available to non-NOM Participants and NOM Participants.” The Exchange believes the addition of these sentences makes clear where the related applicable data fees can be located and when the fees for ports are charged. The Exchange notes that if the subscription is delivered via multicast, the port fee is not charged. There are multiple ways in which data can be communicated. Multicast refers to sending data across a network to several users as [sic] a time. Unicast on the other hand sends data across a network to a single recipient. Finally, TCP, which stands for Transmission Control Protocol and is also known as “TCP/IP” refers to the suite which includes the internet Protocol, provides host-to-host connectivity. Today, the Exchange requires a port when a Participant utilizes Unicast and TCP/IP delivery, but does not require a port when a Participant selects multicast delivery. The Exchange believes this additional information will add more transparency to the fee schedule for Participants selecting data transmission options. The Exchange notes the current offerings for NOM, ITTO and BONO, are being relocated within this section. No changes are being made to the fees.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new section (iv) entitled “Other Ports” to include Disaster Recovery Ports. Today, the Exchange offers Disaster Recovery Ports for all ports reorganized into proposed subsections (i), (ii) and (iii). The Exchange is noting that these ports are available at no cost to make clear their availability.
Today, the Exchange offers Remote ITCH to Trade Options (ITTO) Wave Ports. These ports are subject to a 30-day testing period during which the recurring monthly fees are waived, and a one-year minimum purchase period that begins at the conclusion of the 30-day testing period at the below rates:
NOM no longer offers these ITTO Wave Ports to its Participants. The Exchange proposes to eliminate these fees from the fee schedule.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Finally, the Exchange's proposal to eliminate ITTO Wave Ports is consistent with the Act because these ports are no longer offered to any Participant and removing the fees will eliminate confusion as to the Exchange's current offering.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
With respect to the ITTO Wave Ports, no Participant utilizes these services today. Eliminating these fees will avoid confusion as to the Exchange's current offerings.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) actively-managed series of certain open-end management investment companies (“Funds”) to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares to occur at
U.S. Global Investors ETF Trust (“Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, and U.S. Global Investors, Inc. (“Initial Adviser”), a Texas corporation that is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
The application was filed on January 22, 2018.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on June 4, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Susan McGee, U.S. Global Investors, Inc., 7900 Callaghan Road, San Antonio, Texas 78229-2327 and Stacy L. Fuller, Esq., K&L Gates LLP, 1601 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006-1600.
Erin C. Loomis, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6721 or Parisa Haghshenas, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6723 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as actively-managed exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
2. Each Fund will consist of a portfolio of securities and other assets and investment positions (“Portfolio Instruments”). Each Fund will disclose on its website the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Instruments that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the day.
3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified in the application.
4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
6. With respect to Funds that hold non-U.S. Portfolio Instruments and that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind, applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fifteen calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.
7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Funds of Funds to acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any broker or dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, to sell shares to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and
8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are affiliated persons, or second tier affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind. The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those Portfolio Instruments currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section 17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Fund of Funds.
9. Applicants also request relief to permit a Feeder Fund to acquire shares of another registered investment company managed by the Adviser having substantially the same investment objectives as the Feeder Fund (“Master Fund”) beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(A) and permit the Master Fund, and any principal underwriter for the Master Fund, to sell shares of the Master Fund to the Feeder Fund beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(B).
10. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to relocate the rule text relating to zero-bid option series currently located at Rule 1080(i) to new Rule 1035 and amend the current rule text to describe the current operation of a zero bid series.
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 relocate the zero-bid options series rule text currently located in Rule 1080(i) to Rule 1035, which is currently reserved. The Exchange desires to rename Rule 1035 as “Zero-Bid Option Series.” The Exchange believes it will make it easier to locate this rule text in a separate rule. The Exchange also proposes to amend the current rule text which does not accurately describe the operation of the System.
Current Rule 1080(i) states that the System
The Exchange adopted Rule 1080(i) in 2005 to permit Phlx's former order entry system, AUTOM, to automatically
Thereafter, in 2006, Phlx amended Rule 1080(i) to limit the circumstances in which the Exchange's trading system, as it existed in 2006, would convert a market order to sell into a limit order to sell a zero-bid option at $ 0.05.
The Exchange notes that the System checked the bid/ask differential less than or equal to $0.25 as mentioned in 1080(i)(A)(2) and 1080(i)(B)(2)
At this time, the Exchange proposes to remove the bid/ask differential and NBBO checks mentioned in 1080(i)(A)(2) and 1080(i)(B)(2) and instead, where the bid price for any options series is $0.00, convert market orders to sell to limit orders regardless of the bid/ask differential and NBBO. The Exchange no longer manually handles orders. The Exchange's System automatically handles all zero-bid options. The Exchange believes that all zero bid options should be uniformly treated in the same manner and have an equal opportunity to execute on Phlx. While options with an offer which is lower than $0.25 continue to be likely to be worthless options, the Exchange does not believe those zero-bid options entered by market participants should be treated in a disparate matter as compared to those zero bid options with an offer higher than $0.25. Further, where the disseminated NBBO includes a bid price of zero the Exchange proposes to similarly convert these market orders to limit orders as proposed. The Exchange intends to accept and convert market orders to sell allowing them an equal opportunity to trade if interest should arrive in the case of a no bid option. The Exchange notes that the orders would rest on the Order Book at the minimum price increment. The Exchange proposes to amend the rule to state, similar to Nasdaq ISE LLC's (“ISE”) Rule 713, “In the case where the bid price for any options series is $0.00, a market order accepted into the System to sell that series shall be considered a limit order to sell at a price equal to the minimum trading increment as defined in Rule 1034.” Phlx is specifically utilizing the words “accepted into the System” to account for market orders that may not be accepted into the System due to Limit Up-Limit Down restrictions which may prevent the market order from being accepted. The Limit Up-Limit Down requirements must be met first before
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that eliminating the System check for bid/ask differentials less than or equal to $0.25 and NBBO as mentioned in 1080(i)(A)(2) and 1080(i)(B)(2), is consistent with the Act because the Exchange is treating all market orders to sell in zero bid options, regardless of the bid/ask differential, in the same fashion by converting all those orders, provided that the Exchange's disseminated bid price in such option is zero for an option listed only on the Exchange or, for an option listed on multiple exchanges and the disseminated NBBO includes a bid price of zero in the series. The Exchange no longer handles orders manually. All orders are automatically handled by the Exchange's System. The proposed Phlx rule text proposes to continue to provide that such orders will be automatically placed on the limit order book in price-time priority but restates this language to make clear that the market orders to sell in zero bid options will be placed on the limit order book in the order in which they were received by the System. While the Exchange notes that offers higher than $0.25 are likely not to be worthless options, nonetheless the Exchange would permit the order to rest on the Order Book at the minimum price increment and permit that market order to have the same opportunities for execution as offers lower than $0.25. The Exchange desires to prevent members from submitting market orders to sell in no bid series, which would execute at a price of $0.00. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule will achieve this objective and continue to permit the Exchange to execute orders within its System at prices which reflect some value. The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the Act because it is in the interest of market participants to have these order executed regardless of the bid/ask differential or NBBO, provided that the Exchange's disseminated bid price in such option is zero for any option, regardless of where the option is listed.
The Exchange's proposal to add rule text regarding market orders to sell in zero bid options submitted prior to the Opening Process and persisting after the Opening Process is consistent with the Act because it provides more transparency as to the operation of this rule and as to how those market orders to sell in zero bid options will be handled by the System. Further, the Exchange believes that memorializing its current practice within the rule text will bring more clarity to the manner in which the zero bid rule operates to the benefits of all market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments do not impose an undue burden on competition because the proposed rule change will continue to apply uniformly for all market participants who enter market orders to sell into the System when there is a zero-bid.
Sell market orders in zero bid options will continue to be placed on the limit order book in price-time priority. The Exchange does not believe that no longer considering the bid/ask differential and the NBBO when determining when to convert sell market orders in zero bid options to limit orders and instead convert all sell market orders in zero bid options will impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange will treat all sell market orders in zero bid options in a uniform fashion. The proposed rule will permit market orders to sell in zero bid options to have the same opportunities for execution as offers with lower than $0.25 and regardless of the NBBO. The Exchange's proposal to add rule text regarding market orders to sell submitted prior to the Opening Process and persisting after the Opening Process does not impose an undue burden on competition, rather this proposal provides more transparency as to the operation of this rule and as to how those market orders to sell in zero bid options will be handled by the System.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) Impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule in connection with the technology migration of C2 onto the options platform of the Exchange's affiliated options exchanges, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX” or “EDGX Options”) and Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or “BZX Options”).
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc., which is also the parent company of Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe Options”), acquired EDGX and BZX and its affiliated exchanges, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”) and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”). C2 intends to migrate its technology onto the same trading platform as BZX, BYX, EDGA and BZX (“Affiliated Exchanges”) on May 14, 2018 (the “migration”). The Exchange proposes to amend certain fees in the Fees Schedule and adopt new connectivity fees, effective May 1, 2018.
A physical port is utilized by a Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) or non-TPH to connect to the Exchange at the data centers where the Exchange's servers are located. The Exchange currently assesses fees for Network Access Ports for these physical connections to the Exchange. Specifically, TPHs and non-TPHs can elect to connect to C2's trading system via either a 1 gigabit per second (“Gbps”) Network Access Port or a 10 Gbps Network Access Port. The Exchange currently assesses a monthly fee of $500 per port for 1 Gbps Network Access Ports and a monthly fee of $1,000 per port for 10 Gbps Network Access Ports. Through June 30, 2018, C2 market participants will continue to have the ability to connect to C2's trading system via the current Network Access Ports. For the month of May 2018, the Exchange will continue to assess the current fee for any Network Access Port a TPH or non-TPH uses during the month of May.
Effective May 14, 2018, in connection with the migration, TPHs and non-TPHs may alternatively elect to connect to C2 via new Physical Ports.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend its login fees. Currently, C2 market participants may access Cboe Command via either a CMI or a FIX Port, depending on how their systems are configured. The Exchange currently assesses monthly fees for each CMI and FIX Login ID a market participant has. Specifically, the Exchange assesses $550 per Login ID, per month for CMI Login IDs and FIX Login IDs. Effective May 14, 2018, market participants will no longer be able to use CMI and FIX Login IDs. Rather, the Exchange will utilize a variety of logical connectivity ports as further described below. Similar to the legacy CMI and FIX Login IDs, a logical port provides users with the ability within the Exchange's system to accomplish a specific function through a connection, such as order entry, data receipt, or access to information. In light of the upcoming discontinuation of CMI and FIX Login IDs, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the fees associated with the login IDs effective May 1, 2018 and adopt the below pricing for logical connectivity in it [sic] place.
The Exchange proposes to provide for each of the logical connectivity fees that new requests will be prorated for the first month of service. Cancellation requests are billed in full month increments as firms are required to pay for the service for the remainder of the month, unless the session is terminated within the first month of service. The Exchange notes that the proration policy is the same on its Affiliated Exchanges.
Currently, the Exchange assesses $5,000 per month for a Market-Maker Permit and $1,000 per month for an Electronic Access Permit. Market-Maker Permits entitle the holder to act as a Market-Maker and also provides an appointment credit, quote and order bandwidth allowance and a login allowance. Electronic Access Permits entitle the holder to access the Exchange and also provides an order entry bandwidth allowance and a login allowance. The Exchange notes that post-Migration, bandwidth allocation and logins will not be tied to a Permit, and as such, TPHs will no longer need to have multiple Permits for each type of Permit (
As described above, post-migration, the Exchange will utilize a variety of logical ports. Part of this functionality is similar to bandwidth packets currently available on C2. Bandwidth packets restrict the maximum number of orders and quotes per second. Post-migration, market participants may similarly have multiple Logical Ports and/or BOE Bulk Ports as they may have bandwidth packets to accommodate their order and quote entry needs. As such, the Exchange proposes to eliminate its current Supplemental Bandwidth Packet fees, effective May 1, 2018. The Exchange believes that the proposed pricing implications of going beyond specified bandwidth described above in the logical connectivity fees section will be able to otherwise mitigate message traffic as necessary.
By way of background, in order to connect to Cboe Command, which allows a TPH to trade on the C2 System, a TPH must connect via either a CMI or FIX interface (depending on the configuration of the TPH's own systems). For TPHs that connect via a CMI interface, they must use CMI CAS Servers. In order to ensure that a CAS Server is not overburdened by quoting activity for Market-Makers, the Exchange currently allots each Market-Maker a certain number of CASs (in addition to the shared backups) based on the amount of quoting bandwidth that they have. Post-migration, the Exchange will no longer use CAS Servers. In light of the upcoming elimination of CAS Servers, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the CAS Server allotment table and extra CAS Server fee, effective May 1, 2018.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate Exchange Data Reports Fees as it no longer wishes to assess such fees. The Exchange notes that requests for reports and data from TPHs and non-TPHs will continue to be treated in a fair and efficient manner.
The Exchange proposes to renumber the sections in the Fees Schedule in light of the elimination of certain sections (
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
The Exchange believes it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess Network Access Port fees through May as market participants will still be able to utilize these ports throughout the month of May and the fee will apply to all TPHs and non-TPHs who use a Network Access Port. The Exchange believes the proposed post-migration Physical Port fees are reasonable because the Exchange is expending significant resources setting up physical connectivity in connection with the migration and will have ongoing costs associated with maintaining connectivity. The Exchange also notes that the proposed amounts are in line with the costs of physical connectivity at its Affiliated Exchanges.
The Exchange believes it's reasonable to eliminate certain fees associated with legacy options for connecting to the Exchange and to replace them with fees associated with new options for connecting to the Exchange that are similar to those offered at its Affiliated Exchanges. In particular, the Exchange believes it's reasonable to no longer assess fees for CMI and FIX Login IDs because the Login IDs will be retired and obsolete upon migration and because the Exchange is proposing to replace them with fees associated with the new logical connectivity options. The Exchange believes the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies uniformly to market participants. The Exchange believes it's reasonable to assess the proposed fees for each of the new logical connectivity ports described above as the proposed fees help recoup costs setting up logical connectivity and also enables the Exchange to continue to maintain and improve its market technology and services. Additionally, the Exchange notes the proposed fees are the same as, or in line with, the fees assessed on its Affiliated Exchanges for similar connectivity.
The Exchange believes it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess an access fee only once for each kind of Permit, notwithstanding the number of Permits a TPH currently holds, because TPHs will be paying lower fees for access and the proposed change will apply uniformly to all TPHs. Additionally, the Exchange notes that currently, TPHs request additional Permits because of bandwidth and/or login needs. As described above, upon migration on May 14, 2018, bandwidth and logins will no longer be tied to Permits and as such, the need to hold multiple permits will be obsolete. Through May 14, 2018 however, TPHs may still need additional Permits and the Exchange does not wish to charge for those additional Permits.
The Exchange believes it's reasonable to eliminate Supplemental Bandwidth Packet fees and the CMI CAS Server fee because TPHs will not pay fees for these connectivity options and because bandwidth packets and CAS Servers will be retired and obsolete upon the upcoming migration. The Exchange believes that even though it will be discontinuing Supplemental Bandwidth Packets, the proposed incremental pricing for Logical Ports and BOE Bulk Ports will continue to encourage users to mitigate message traffic. The proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply uniformly to all TPHs.
The Exchange believes eliminating fees for Exchange Data Reports is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because TPHs and non-TPHs no longer have to pay fees for these reports and it applies to TPHs and non-TPHs uniformly. As noted above, requests for reports and data from TPHs and non-TPHs will continue to be treated in a fair and efficient manner.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to renumber the sections in light of the elimination of certain sections (
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 Exchange does not believe that the proposed change represents a significant departure from pricing offered by the Exchange's affiliates. Additionally, TPHs may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of TPHs or competing venues to maintain their competitive
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 18, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
In its filing, the Exchange proposed to amend Interpretation and Policy .02 to Rule 24A.4, which sets forth requirements relating to a FLEX Option that has the same terms as a Non-FLEX Option.
First, Cboe Options has proposed to amend the rule to make all FLEX Options fungible with Non-FLEX Options that have identical terms.
Second, the Exchange has proposed to clarify that if the expiration date is an Exchange holiday, Cboe Options Rule 24A.4.02 shall designate the previous business day as the expiration date.
Third, Cboe Options has proposed to clarify that in the event a Non-FLEX
Fourth, the Exchange has proposed several non-substantive changes that are designed to make the text easier to read. The Exchange believes that such changes will clarify that the fungibility provisions apply to FLEX Options series with terms identical to the terms of a Non-FLEX Options series.
Finally, the proposed rule text provides that the Exchange's current rule will remain in effect until the effective date specified by the Exchange in a Regulatory Circular.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act
The Commission notes that the rules concerning the fungibility of certain FLEX Options and Non-FLEX Options were previously approved by the Commission.
Because FLEX Options in quarterly, short term, weekly, and EOM expirations are not fungible with their Non-FLEX counterparts, parallel markets in these expirations exist—one FLEX and one Non-FLEX. The Commission previously stated that it is concerned that FLEX Options could act as a surrogate for trading in standardized options.
Nevertheless, the FLEX market was originally intended to allow customization of option terms that were not available in the standardized options. While this has evolved over time with the current fungibility provisions, as the additional classes of options noted above are allowed to become fungible with identical term standardized options, some of which have much shorter terms to expiration, we expect the Exchange to carefully monitor the fungible FLEX Options (and standardized options counterparts) to ensure that they are not being used in a way to trade ahead and/or gain an advantage over other market participants prior to the standardized
Furthermore, the Commission expects the Cboe Options to report any undue effects that may occur as a result of these fungibility rule changes, including taking prompt action should any unanticipated consequences occur. The Commission also expects, prior to the effective date of the new rule, the Exchange to address whether additional position limit aggregation rules should be adopted prior to the rule's delayed implementation date. We note that currently the FLEX rules require that certain FLEX Options positions be aggregated with the position limits in the standardized market.
The Commission believes that the remaining proposed changes will help protect investors and the public interest by providing clarity and transparency to the rules. The proposed rule text regarding Exchange holidays will clarify the fungibility of FLEX Options with expiration dates on Exchange holidays and are consistent with the expiration of the same standardized options on Exchange holidays. Amending the intra-day add provision to state that it applies solely to American-style expirations will codify in the rule text the Exchange's original intent with respect to this provision. Further, the other non-substantive, clarifying changes will make the rule easier to read and understand.
Finally, as noted above the Exchange cannot actually implement this rule change immediately because OCC bylaws currently restrict fungibility of quarterly and short term options. The Commission believes that the delayed implementation date of July 31, 2018 should provide OCC with time to consider fungibility in quarterly and short-term options and determine whether to amend the OCC By-laws to accommodate the changes being adopted by the Exchange. The Exchange has also committed to announce the implementation of the change at least 30 days prior to the effective date pursuant to a Regulatory Circular, which should provide adequate advance notice to market participants. To the extent OCC is not able to implement a bylaw change at or prior to the July 31, 2018, we would expect the Exchange to amend its rules or extend the implementation date.
For the reasons above, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to a proposal to memorialize its order and execution information into Chapter VI, Section 19, entitled “Data Feeds.”
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 memorialize its order and execution information into Chapter VI, Section 19, entitled “Data Feeds.” The Exchange proposes to rename this rule “Data Feeds and Trade Information.” The Exchange proposes other grammatical corrections in Section 19(a) as well.
First, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new Section 19(b) and memorialize the following order and execution information which were previously filed by the Exchange: (1) CTI;
The Exchange originally noted in the CTI and FIX DROP Filing that CTI offers real-time clearing trade updates.
The Exchange is proposing to more specifically describe the CTI offering and memorialize it within Section 19(b)(1). The description provides more detail as to the current functionality of CTI, which is not changing. The description would continue to state that CTI is a real-time clearing trade update message that is sent to a Participant after an execution has occurred and contains trade details specific to that Participant. The information includes, among other things, the following: (i) The Clearing Member Trade Agreement or “CMTA” or The Options Clearing Corporation or “OCC” number; (ii) Exchange badge or house number; (iii) the Exchange internal firm identifier; (iv) an indicator which will distinguish electronic and non-electronically delivered orders; (v) liquidity indicators and transaction type for billing purposes; and (vi) capacity. The Exchange proposes to not add the sentence which states, “The message containing the trade details is also simultaneously sent to The Options Clearing Corporation.” The Exchange's System sends clearing information to OCC for each transaction. This sentence does not add information that is useful or relevant and therefore the Exchange proposes to remove it. The Exchange notes that while the description is being amended, it retains more broadly the former descriptions. The information provided is specific to a market participant. The Exchange is expressing more specifically the type of data contained in CTI. The CTI offering is not changing. The Exchange is providing more details regarding the CTI offering than was originally filed in the CTI and FIX DROP Filing.
The Exchange originally noted in the TradeInfo Filing that TradeInfo allows subscribing members to scan for their orders submitted to BX. Members can scan for all orders in a particular security or all orders of a particular type, regardless of their status (open, canceled, executed, etc.). Members are also able to cancel open orders at the order, port or MPID level (an MPID is a firm mnemonic). For example, after scanning for open orders, the member is then able to select an open order and cancel the order. TradeInfo BX also allows members to scan other order statuses, such as executed, cancelled, broken, rejected and suspended orders. TradeInfo BX enables members to generate reports of execution, order or cancel information, which can be exported into a spreadsheet for review.
The Exchange proposes to amend and memorialize TradeInfo within Section 19(b)(2). The Exchange proposes to note that TradeInfo is a user interface, as compared to a data stream, to add more detail to the description. While some descriptive language is being removed from the rules, such as permitting a subscribing member to scan other order statuses, such as executed, cancelled, broken, rejected and suspended orders, the Exchange believes that this language is covered in the current description in that the text indicates that all orders may be searched regardless of their status. Similarly, the description which provides that a subscribing member may generate reports of execution, order or cancel information, which can be exported into a spreadsheet for review is covered in that the Exchange notes that a view of the orders and execution may be downloaded.
The Exchange originally noted in its FIX DROP filing that the Order Entry DROP provides real time information regarding orders sent to BX and executions that occurred on BX. The DROP interface is not a trading interface and does not accept order messages. The “Order Entry DROP” interface is being renamed “FIX DROP” for clarity as it relates to FIX ports.
The Exchange is now expanding on the original description by providing more detail by stating that it is a real-time order and execution update message that is sent to a Participant after an order has been received/modified or an execution has occurred and contains trade details specific to that Participant. The information includes, among other things, the following: (1) Executions; (2) cancellations; (3) modifications to an existing order (4) busts or post-trade corrections. The Exchange believes that the additional specificity will provide more information to Participants.
The Exchange considers it appropriate to memorialize the order and execution information available on BX within a rule so that Participants may understand the trade information which is available on the Exchange as it pertains to a firm's trading information. This data is available to all Participants regarding that Participant's transactions. Pricing for these products is included in the Exchange's fee schedule at Chapter XV, Section 3.
The Exchange proposes minor changes to Section 19(a)(1) and (2) to change the language to indicate the BX Depth of Market and BX Top of Market each separately are data feeds and removing the “A” before the description.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 1-E (17 CFR 239.200) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
The Commission uses the information provided in the notification on Form 1-E and the offering circular to determine whether an offering qualifies for the exemption under Regulation E. The Commission estimates that, each year, one issuer files one notification on Form 1-E, together with offering circulars,
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Acting Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to reorganize and amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section VII, B, entitled “Port Fees.”
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 reorganize and amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section VII, B, entitled “Port Fees.” The Exchange offers various services across its 6 affiliated options markets, Phlx, Nasdaq BX, Inc., The Nasdaq Options Market LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“Nasdaq Affiliated Markets”).
The Exchange proposes to define a port within Section VII, B to provide additional clarity to the Pricing Schedule as “a logical connection or session that enables a market participant to send inbound messages and/or receive outbound messages from the Exchange using various communication protocols.” The Exchange believes this definition will assist members in distinguishing ports from other offerings.
The Exchange proposes to add a new section (i) and include the following introductory sentence, “The following order and quote protocols are available on Phlx.”
Today, Phlx offers members an Order Entry order protocol, an Active SQF quote protocol as well as an SQF Purge Port. These fees currently exist on the Pricing Schedule. The Exchange is not amending any pricing related to these protocols. The Exchange proposes to rename “Order Entry Port Fee” as “FIX Port Fee.” This description is more accurate as “FIX” is the name of the order entry protocol. Nasdaq ISE, LLC calls this protocol “FIX” in its fee schedule.
The Exchange believes that grouping the available order and quote protocols together into their own subsection will provide greater transparency within its Pricing Schedule as to the available protocols.
The Exchange proposes to add a new section (ii) and add the following introductory sentence, “The following order and execution information is available to members.” The Exchange proposes to group the available order and execution information that is particular to a member's transactions on Phlx into its own subsection. Today, Phlx offers CTI and TradeInfo PHLX. The Exchange proposes to relocate the TradeInfo offering from Section XII of the Pricing Schedule to Section VII, B. The Exchange proposes to rename “TradeInfo PHLX” as “TradeInfo Interface” to conform the naming on the Nasdaq Affiliated Markets. This also makes clear that this particular offering is an interface. No changes are proposed to amend pricing for CTI or the TradeInfo offering. Finally, the Exchange proposes to delete the definition of the TradeInfo offering. The Exchange is instead defining this offering within Rule 1070(b).
The Exchange proposes to add a new section (iii) and include the following information, “The following data port fees apply in connection with data subscriptions pursuant to Phlx's Pricing Schedule at Section IX. These ports are available to non-Phlx members and Phlx members.” The Exchange believes the addition of this sentence makes clear where the related applicable data fees can be located within the Pricing Schedule. Today, no data port fees are listed on Phlx's Pricing Schedule as these services are offered at no cost. The Exchange proposes to list the relevant data ports which are offered today in order to provide information as to the available offerings. Today, the Exchange offers TOPO Ports, PHLX Orders Ports and PHLX Depth of Market Ports at no cost. The Exchange believes listing these offerings on the Pricing Schedule at $0 will add more transparency to the Pricing Schedule. No changes are being made to the fees.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new section (iv) entitled “Other Ports” to include Disaster Recovery Ports. Today, the Exchange offers Disaster Recovery Ports for all the ports reorganized into proposed subsections (i), (ii) and (iii). The Exchange is noting that these ports are available at no cost to make clear their availability.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
1:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 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.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form ADV-E (17 CFR 279.8) is the cover sheet for certificates of accounting filed pursuant to rule 206(4)-2 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (17 CFR 275.206(4)-2). The rule further requires that the public accountant file with the Commission a Form ADV-E and accompanying statement within four business days of the resignation, dismissal, removal or other termination of its engagement.
The Commission has estimated that compliance with the requirement to complete Form ADV-E imposes a total burden of approximately 0.05 hours (3 minutes) per respondent. Based on current information from advisers registered with the Commission, the Commission staff estimates that 1,749 filings will be submitted with respect to surprise examinations and 38 filings will be submitted with respect to termination of accountants. Based on these estimates, the total estimated annual burden would be 89.35 hours ((1,749 filings × .05 hours) + (38 filings × .05 hours)).
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective May 1, 2018. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to modify the Fee Schedule, effective May 1, 2018. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify the Monthly Excessive Bandwidth Utilization Fees (“EBUF”).
Currently, EBUF is assessed to an ATP Holder for submitting orders in an order-to-execution ratio greater than 10,000 over the course of a calendar month (“Orders Fee”), or for submitting in excess of 3 billion messages (either orders or quotes) without executing at least one contract for every 1,500-5,000 messages (“Messages Fee”).
The Exchange has found that firms may have assessable behavior for an anomaly that takes place over the course of a day or two, or that occurs late in the month before the anomalous behavior can be fully diagnosed and mitigated. Because the firms recognize this as affecting their own efficiency, they address such issues quickly and work with Exchange staff to improve their messaging behavior. The Exchange notes that in a recent period of high volatility, firms were quick to address potential EBUF charges. To encourage a collegial effort in resolving such anomalies, the Exchange proposes that the EBUF only be charged for the second and any subsequent instance in a rolling 12-month period. In other words, EBUF would not be assessed for the first occurrence in a rolling 12-month period.
The Exchange also proposes to modify the calculation basis for the Messages Fee. Currently, the Exchange charges an ATP Holder a fee of $0.005 per 1,000 messages (including orders or quotes) in excess of 3 billion messages in a calendar month if the ATP Holder does not execute at least one contract for every 5,000 messages entered. In order for the Exchange to have flexibility to adjust the threshold level to reflect market conditions and current business activity, the Exchange proposes to amend the current rule text in the Fee Schedule to remove reference to the current threshold level of 3 billion messages and replace it with language providing that the level “would be no less than 2 billion messages and no more than 10 billion messages.” The Exchange is not proposing to change the current level, which would remain at 3 billion messages. If the Exchange were to change the level, the Exchange would announce any such change by Trader Update and the revised threshold would be applicable for the next calendar month.
The Exchange also proposes to modify the manner in which the Messages Fee is calculated to encourage quote quality. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to exclude from the Messages to Contracts Traded Ratio calculation any quotes that sets or matches the National Best Bid-Offer (“NBBO”) market at the time the quotes are received. The Exchange believes that such exclusion will encourage Market Makers to submit tighter quotes without the risk that such quotes would result in increased fees. The proposed revised calculation would also keep Market Makers from submitting wide quotes to avoid excessive messaging.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to exclude from the Messages to Contracts Traded Ratio calculation any quote in a Specialist's or e-Specialist's allocated issues. Specialists and e-Specialists have a heightened Regulatory obligation to make markets in their allocated issues.
The Exchange notes that failure to mitigate excessive message traffic by a Specialist or e-Specialist can be addressed by the Exchange by disqualification due to operational change warranting immediate action.
During the period of recent volatility and activity, the Exchange noted a significantly higher number of messages generated without a proportional amount of executed volume, especially in less active-option issues. Concurrently, the Exchange saw no degradation in system performance because of prudent upgrades and expansion of the trading system in the past year. Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposed modifications would continue to encourage market participants to be rational and efficient in the use of the Exchange's system capacity. The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications should also reduce the possibility of charging ATP Holders a Messages Fee for messages designed to help maintain accurate and liquid markets with narrower spreads.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to the Fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed changes would continue to encourage market participants to be rational and efficient in the use of the Exchange's system capacity, which would benefit all market participants. The Exchange believes that assessing the Fees only after the second instance in a rolling twelve month period is reasonable because it would encourage participants to work with the Exchange staff to mitigate the issues while not having a deleterious effect on market quality or participation.
The Exchange believes setting the threshold for the Messages Fee to be within a range is reasonable because it would provide the Exchange with flexibility to respond to changing market and business conditions in an expeditious manner which the Exchange believes would help perfect the mechanism for a free and open national market system, and generally help protect investors and the public interest.
The proposed adjustments to the manner in which the Messages Fee is calculated are reasonable because the proposed changes would encourage Market Makers to submit tighter quotes without the risk that such quotes would result in increased fees. The proposed adjustments are also not unfairly discriminatory as the proposed changes would apply to all similarly situated market participants that are subject to the Messages Fee on an equal basis while encouraging quotes that are competitive and that increase the overall quality of markets.
Finally, the Exchange believes the exclusion of Specialist and e-Specialist quotes in their appointed issues is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Specialists and e-Specialists have a heightened quoting obligation than other market participants and cannot relinquish allocation of their issues as easily as Market Makers are able to increase or decrease their appointments.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
To the extent that these purposes are achieved, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would enhance the quality of the Exchange's markets and increase the volume of orders directed to the Exchange. In turn, all the Exchange's market participants would benefit from the improved market liquidity. If the proposed changes make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become ATP Holders.
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under sections 12(d)(1)(J), 57(c), 57(i) and 60 of Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 12(d)(1)(A), 12(d)(1)(C), 57(a)(1), 57(a)(2) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
TCW Direct Lending LLC (the “Fund”), TCW Middle Market Lending Opportunities BDC, Inc. (the “Extension Fund”), and TCW Asset Management Company (the “Adviser”).
Applicants seek an order to permit the Fund (i) to conduct an exchange offer pursuant to which investors in the Fund (“Unitholders”), including certain directors and officers of the Fund and employees of the Adviser (collectively, the “TCW Directors, Officers and Employees”), may elect to exchange all or a portion of their units in the Fund (“Units”) for an equivalent number of shares (“Shares”) in the Extension Fund (each such Unitholder, an “Electing Unitholder”), and (ii) to transfer to the Extension Fund a pro rata portion of the Fund's assets and liabilities, including a pro rata portion of each of the Fund's portfolio investments, in proportion to the percentage of Units tendered and accepted for exchange.
The application was filed on April 20, 2017, and amended on October 16, 2017, May 3, 2018, and May 9, 2018.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on May 30, 2018 and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to section 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. The Applicants: c/o Adrian Rae Leipsic, Esq., and Adam E. Fleisher, Esq., Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, One Liberty Plaza, New York, New York 10006.
Asen Parachkevov, Senior Counsel, or David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Fund, a Delaware limited liability company, is a closed-end management investment company that has elected to be regulated as a business development company (“BDC”) under the Act. On April 18, 2014, the Fund filed a registration statement on Form 10 to register Units pursuant to section 12(g) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). The Fund commenced operations on September 19, 2014. The Fund operates as a direct lending company that seeks to generate risk-adjusted returns primarily through direct investments in senior secured loans made to middle-market companies or other companies that are engaged in various businesses.
2. The Fund conducted a private offering of its Units to investors in reliance on the exemption from registration provided by section 506 of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). The Fund entered into subscription agreements with its Unitholders, pursuant to which the Unitholders made capital commitments to the Fund. The Units are not traded on an exchange and are not freely transferable.
3. The Extension Fund, a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Fund, intends to elect to be regulated as a BDC. Applicants state that the Extension Fund will have investment objectives and investment policies that are substantially similar to the Fund's. Applicants state that the Extension Fund intends to conduct an initial public offering or listing of its Shares immediately following the completion of the Proposed Transactions.
4. The Adviser, a Delaware limited liability company, is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). The Adviser serves as investment adviser to the Fund pursuant to an investment advisory
5. Applicants state that the Fund's legal interest in each of its existing portfolio investments is capable of being proportionally assigned or similarly transferred on a pro rata basis. Applicants further state that each of the credit agreements and loan documents governing the terms of the Fund's assets, which primarily consist of loans and other private investments in middle market companies, permits an assignment, participation or similar transfer by the Fund without the need for the written consent of any administrative or collateral agent, borrower or other party.
6. Applicants state that the Fund's limited liability company operating agreement (the “LLC Agreement”) provides that the Fund will be dissolved upon the expiration of its six-year term on September 19, 2020 (subject to any extensions of the term in accordance with the procedures set forth in the LLC Agreement), whereupon the Fund's assets will be liquidated in an orderly manner, capital will be returned to the Unitholders, and the Fund will wind up. Applicants state that the Fund's organizational documents do not permit the Fund to conduct an initial public offering of its Units, and the Fund has agreed that no Unitholder will be required to participate in a publicly traded vehicle without such Unitholder's consent.
7. Applicants state that the Fund's LLC Agreement provides for the ability of the Fund to engage in a “split-off” transaction, which, as described below and in greater detail in the application, would be implemented through the Exchange Offer, the Refinancing, the Contribution Transaction and the Share Issuance (each defined below, and, collectively, the “Proposed Transactions”). The costs and expenses of the Proposed Transactions will be borne by the Adviser.
8. If the requested order is granted, the Applicants propose to conduct an exchange offer, pursuant to which each Unitholder may elect to exchange a number of Units for an equivalent number of Shares (the “Exchange Offer”). The Exchange Offer will be conducted as a private placement pursuant to Regulation D and made in compliance with rule 13e-4 under the Exchange Act and section 23(c)(2) of the Act.
9. Applicants state that the Exchange Offer will not commence unless and until (1) the boards of the Fund and the Extension Fund (the “Fund Board” and the “Extension Fund Board”, and collectively, the “Boards”), including a “required majority” (as defined in section 57(o) of the Act (“Required Majority”)) of the directors of each Board, authorize and approve the Proposed Transactions, and make all necessary determinations, including among other things, that: (i) The Proposed Transactions are in the best interests of the Fund or the Extension Fund, as applicable, (ii) the interests of Unitholders who elect to remain invested in the Fund and the interests of the Electing Unitholders will not be diluted as a result of effecting the Proposed Transactions, and (iii) following the Proposed Transactions, all Unitholders, including the Electing Unitholders, will hold the same pro rata interest in the same underlying portfolio investments as immediately prior to the Exchange; (2) the Fund Board, including a Required Majority, approves the participation in the Exchange by any “remote” affiliate of the Fund, as described in Section 57(d) of the Act and as required under section 57(f) of the Act; and (3) the Extension Fund Board, including a Required Majority, and the Fund, in its capacity as initial shareholder of the Extension Fund, each approve the investment advisory agreement between the Extension Fund and the Adviser.
10. Applicants state that simultaneously with the Share Issuance (as defined below), the Fund will transfer to the Extension Fund a pro rata portion of each of the Fund's assets and liabilities, including each of the Fund's portfolio investments, in proportion to the percentage of Units tendered by Electing Unitholders and accepted for exchange (the “Contribution Transaction”). Applicants state that such computation will be objective and formulaic and determined solely on the basis of the percentage of Electing Unitholders, and will not be impacted by the valuation of the Fund's assets or any other factor that would impart an element of discretion. Applicants further state that material liabilities (other than those arising under the Fund's credit facility) will also be proportionally transferred or transferred on a pro rata basis by the Fund to the Extension Fund.
11. Applicants state that simultaneously with the Contribution Transaction, the Extension Fund will issue the applicable number of Shares to each Electing Unitholder in exchange for the corresponding number of Units accepted by the Fund from such Electing Unitholder in the Exchange Offer (the “Share Issuance”).
12. Immediately prior to (and effectively contemporaneously with) the closing of the Exchange, the Contribution Transaction and the Share Issuance, (a) the Extension Fund will enter into a new credit facility and draw down an amount equal to the pro rata portion of the Fund's existing indebtedness immediately prior to the closing of the Exchange Offer attributable to the Units that have been validly tendered by Electing Unitholders and accepted for exchange, which amount will be distributed to the Fund and will be used to pay down the Fund's current outstanding senior secured revolving credit facility, and (b) the Fund will enter into a new credit facility to drawn down an amount to pay down the remainder of its existing credit facility (together, the “Refinancing”).
13. Applicants believe that the Proposed Transactions will result in a number of benefits to Unitholders. Applicants state that the Proposed Transactions will provide Unitholders with the optionality that was negotiated for and was disclosed at the time of their investment in the Fund and will enable Unitholders to participate in the Extension Fund in a manner that promotes capital formation. Applicants state that the Proposed Transactions will position the Extension Fund to continue operations as a BDC with the goals of achieving greater economies of scale and completing an initial public offering or listing of its Shares. Applicants further state that by allowing the Unitholders to elect to participate in the Extension Fund, the Proposed Transactions will enable potential future retail investors to benefit from alignment with sophisticated institutional investors who elect to participate in the Extension Fund.
1. The Applicants are requesting an exemption pursuant to section 57(c) from the provisions of sections 57(a)(1) and 57(a)(2), in order to permit the Applicants to effect the Contribution Transaction and the Share Issuance.
2. Sections 57(a)(1) provides that it shall be unlawful for any person who is related to a BDC in a manner described in section 57(b)
3. Section 57(a)(2) provides that it shall be unlawful for any person who is related to a BDC in a manner described in section 57(b), acting as principal, to purchase from such BDC, or from a company controlled by such BDC, any securities or other property except for securities of which the seller is the issuer.
4. Rule 57b-1 does not exempt the Fund and the Extension Fund from being subject to the prohibitions of section 57(a).
5. Section 57(c) authorizes the Commission to issue an exemptive order if (i) the terms of the proposed transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching of the BDC or its shareholders or partners on the part of any person concerned, (ii) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policy of the BDC, as recited in the filings made by such company with the Commission under the Securities Act, its registration statement and reports filed under the Exchange Act, and its reports to shareholders or partners; and, and (iii) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
6. The Applicants submit that the request for an exemption from the provisions of section 57(a)(1) and (a)(2) meets the standards for an order set forth in section 57(c). First, Applicants state that the terms of the Contribution Transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable and involve no element of overreaching, since the transfer by the Fund of a pro rata portion of each of its assets and liabilities to the Extension Fund will be determined solely on the basis of the percentage of Electing Unitholders, which is purely an objective and formulaic exercise. Second, the Applicants state that the Contribution Transaction and the Share Issuance are consistent with the stated investment policies of the Fund as fully disclosed to Unitholders. Finally, the Applicants submit that the Boards, including a Required Majority of each, will have approved and authorized, as well as made all required determinations with respect to, the Proposed Transactions.
7. The Applicants are also requesting an Order pursuant to section 57(i) and rule 17d-1, to permit certain joint transactions that may be otherwise prohibited by Section 57(a)(4) and rule 17d-1.
8. Section 57(a)(4) makes it unlawful for any person who is related to a BDC in a manner described in section 57(b), acting as principal, knowingly to effect any transaction in which the BDC or a company controlled by such BDC is a joint or a joint and several participant. Section 57(i) provides that the rules under section 17(d) applicable to registered closed-end investment companies are deemed to apply to transactions subject to section 57(a). In relevant part, rule 17d-1 prohibits any person who is related to a BDC in a manner described in section 57(b), acting as principal, from participating in, or effecting any transaction in connection with, any joint enterprise or other joint arrangement in which the BDC or a company controlled by such BDC is a participant, unless an application has been filed with the Commission and an order has been granted.
9. The Fund and the Extension Fund may be viewed as affiliated persons of each other in a manner described in section 57(b). Considered together, the Proposed Transactions will require a considerable degree of coordination among the Fund, the Extension Fund and the Adviser that may indicate the existence of a “joint arrangement” as described in rule 17d-1. Further, certain TCW Directors, Officers and Employees who have invested in the Fund are affiliated persons of the Fund pursuant to section 57(b).
10. Rule 17d-1(b) provides that in determining whether to grant such an order, the Commission will consider whether the participation of the investment company in the joint transaction “is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.”
11. The Applicants submit that the request for an order under section 57(a)(4) and rule 17d-1 meets the standards set forth to rule 17d-1 for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to the request for exemption from sections 57(a)(1) and (a)(2). The Applicants state that TCW Directors, Officers and Employees will participate in the Exchange pursuant to the same terms and documentation as all other Unitholders, and the Proposed Transactions will not place any of the Fund, the Extension Fund or existing Unitholders of the Fund in a position less advantageous than that of any other of such persons. The Applicants further submit that the terms of the investment advisory agreement between the Extension Fund and the Adviser will be comprehensively disclosed to all Unitholders in the Offer to Exchange, the Fund and the Extension Fund will pay comparable management fees in respect of overlapping investments transferred by the Fund to the Extension Fund, and each Unitholder who wishes to remain invested in the Fund will be subject to the Fund's existing fee structure without any modification.
12. The Applicants are requesting an exemption pursuant to section 12(d)(1)(J) from the provisions of section 12(d)(1)(A) and section 12(d)(1)(C), to permit the Applicants to effect the Proposed Transactions.
13. Sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(C) are made applicable to BDCs by section 60 to the same extent as if they were registered closed-end investment companies. The Proposed Transactions may be viewed as violating sections 12(d)(1)(A)
14. The Applicants submit that the requested exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(C) meets the standards set forth in section 12(d)(1)(J). Section 12(d)(1)(J) provides that “the Commission, by rule or regulation, upon its own motion or by order upon application, may conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provision of this subsection, if and to the extent that such exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.”
15. The Applicants state that the Proposed Transactions are consistent with the public interest in that they are intended to result in a benefit to non-electing Unitholders, Electing Unitholders and potential future investors in the Extension Fund. The Applicants also state that the Proposed Transactions are consistent with investor protection because the momentary holding by the Fund of Shares of the Existing Fund does not raise any of the concerns that Sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (C) were intended to address.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to reorganize and amend Chapter XV, Section 3, entitled “BX Options Market—Ports and Other Services.”
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 reorganize and amend Chapter XV, Section 3, entitled “BX Options Market—Ports and Other Services.” The Exchange offers various services across its 6 affiliated options markets, BX, The Nasdaq Options Market LLC, Nasdaq Phlx LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“Nasdaq Affiliated Markets”).
The Exchange proposes to define a port within Section 3 to provide additional clarity to the fee schedule as “a logical connection or session that enables a market participant to send inbound messages and/or receive outbound messages from the Exchange using various communication protocols.” The Exchange believes this definition will assist Participants in distinguishing ports from other offerings.
The Exchange proposes to add a new section (i) and include the following introductory sentence, “The following order and quote protocols are available on BX.” Today, BX offers market participants an Order Entry order protocol and an SQF quote protocol. These fees currently exist on the fee schedule. The Exchange is not amending any pricing related to these protocols. The Exchange proposes to rename “Order Entry Port Fee” as “FIX Port Fee.” This description is more accurate as “FIX” is the name of the order entry protocol. A Participant may request an SQF Port or an SQF Purge Port, the price is $500 for either port. SQF is an interface that allows market makers to connect and send quotes, sweeps and auction responses into the Exchange. The SQF Purge port only receives and notifies of purge requests from the market maker. The proposal is to include a line item for each offering because a market participant may either select an SQF port or an SQF Purge Port and both are assessed the same $500 fee. The price does not vary. The Exchange separately lists these offerings on Nasdaq ISE, LLC. A separate line item will make clear that there are two options for this offering. The price of the SQF Purge Port is not being amended.
The Exchange believes that grouping the available order and quote protocols together into their own subsection will provide greater transparency within its fee schedule as to the available protocols.
The Exchange proposes to add a new section (ii) and add the following introductory sentence, “The following order and execution information is available to Participants.” The Exchange proposes to group the available order and execution information that is particular to a Participant's executions on BX into its own subsection. Today, BX offers CTI, Order Entry DROP and
The Exchange proposes to add a new section (iii) and include the following information, “The following data ports fees apply in connection with data subscriptions pursuant to BX Rules at Chapter XV, Section 4. The below port fees do not apply if the subscription is delivered via multicast.” The following sentence is simply being relocated, “These ports are available to non-BX Participants and BX Participants.” The Exchange believes the addition of this sentence makes clear where the related applicable data fees can be located and when the fees for ports are charged. The Exchange notes that if the subscription is delivered via multicast, the port fee is not charged. There are multiple ways in which data can be communicated. Multicast refers to sending data across a network to several users as [sic] a time. Unicast on the other hand sends data across a network to a single recipient. Finally, TCP, which stands for Transmission Control Protocol and is also known as “TCP/IP” refers to the suite which includes the internet Protocol, provides host-to-host connectivity. Today, the Exchange requires a port when a Participant utilized Unicast and TCP/IP delivery, but does not required [sic] a port when a Participant selects multicast delivery. The Exchange believes this additional information will add more transparency to the fee schedule for Participants selecting data transmission options. The Exchange notes the current offerings for BX Depth and BX Top are being relocated within this section. No changes are being made to the fees.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new section (iv) entitled “Other Ports” to include Disaster Recovery Ports. Today, the Exchange offers Disaster Recovery Ports for all the ports reorganized into proposed subsections (i), (ii) and (iii). The Exchange is noting that these ports are available at no cost to make clear their availability.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to modify certain Routing Fees related to its equity options platform.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule for its equity options platform (“BZX Options”) to make certain changes to the following tiers: (i) Quoting Incentive Program (“QIP”) Tier 2 under footnote 5; (ii) Non-Customer Non-Penny Pilot Take Volume Tiers 1 and 2 under footnote 13; and (iii) Non-Customer Penny Pilot Take Volume Tiers 1 and 3 under footnote 3, effective May 1, 2018.
The Exchange currently offers two QIP Tiers under footnote 5, which provide an additional rebate ranging from $0.02 to $0.04 per contract for qualifying Market Maker
Fee code NP is currently appended to all Non-Customer orders in Non-Penny Pilot Securities that remove liquidity, and result in a standard fee of $1.10 per contract. The Exchange currently offers two Non-Customer Non-Penny Pilot Take Volume Tiers (“NP Volume Tiers”) under footnote 13, which provide a reduced fee of $1.04 per contract for orders that that yield fee code NP. The Exchange proposes to increase the rates set forth in NP Volume Tiers 1 and 2. Specifically, NP Volume Tiers 1 and 2 will increase from $1.04 per contract to $1.07 per contract. The Exchange notes that the proposed rates still provide a discount from the standard Non-Customer NP rate and will continue to provide an incentive for Members to strive for the tier levels, which provide a discount off the standard rate.
Fee code PP is currently appended to all Non-Customer orders in Penny Pilot Securities that remove liquidity, and result in a standard fee of $0.50 per contract. The Exchange currently offers three Non-Customer Penny Pilot Take Volume Tiers under footnote 3, which provide reduced fees ranging from $0.44 to $0.47 per contract for orders that that yield fee code PP.
Pursuant to Volume Tier 1, a Member will pay a reduced fee (currently $0.44 per contract) if the Member (i) has an ADAV in Customer orders greater than or equal to 0.80% of average OCV; (ii) has an ADAV in Market Maker orders greater than or equal to 0.35% of average OCV; and (iii) has on BZX Equities an ADAV greater than or equal to 0.30% of average TCV.
Pursuant to Volume Tier 3, a Member will pay a reduced fee (currently $0.44 per contract) if the Member has an ADAV in Customer orders greater than or equal to 1.70% of average OCV. The Exchange proposes to add a second prong that requires the member to have an ADAV in Customer Non-Penny orders greater than or equal to 0.30% of average OCV. The Exchange believes the proposed changes will encourage the entry of additional orders to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes the increase to the rates in NP Volume Tiers 1 and 2 is reasonable because Members submitting Non-Customer orders still have the opportunity to receive a lower fee in Non-Penny Pilot classes than the standard rate (albeit less of a discount than before). The Exchange also believes the rates will continue to provide an incentive for Members to strive for the tier levels, which provide discounts off the standard rate. The Exchange believes the proposed changes are equitable and nondiscriminatory because the proposed changes apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange next notes that volume-based discounts such as those currently maintained on the Exchange have been widely adopted by options exchanges and are equitable and non-discriminatory because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to the value of an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes. While the proposed modifications to the existing QIP Tier 2 and NP Volume Tiers [sic] make such tiers more difficult to attain, each is intended to incentivize Members to send additional Market Maker and/or Customer orders, respectively, to the Exchange in an effort to qualify or continue to qualify for the lower fees made available by the tiers. As such, the Exchange also believes that the proposed changes are reasonable. The Exchange notes that increased volume on the Exchange provides greater trading opportunities for all market participants.
The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to its fee schedule would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
I.
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) options facility. While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on May 1, 2018. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet 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 Section VI. (Technology Fees) of the Fee Schedule to establish Port Fees assessed to BOX Participants connecting to BOX systems. The Exchange does not currently charge Participants to access the BOX System through ports. The Exchange is now proposing to assess fees for these connections.
The Exchange proposes to delete the table and applicable language in Section VI.A (Connectivity Fees). Currently, Section VI.A (Connectivity Fees) of the Fee Schedule states that market participants are required to connect to the BOX network through datacenters owned and operated by third-party vendors. The Fee Schedule includes a table of connectivity fees associated with two datacenters, NY4 and 65 Broadway, where market participants can connect to BOX. The Exchange is proposing to delete the table and data center specific language from the Fee Schedule. The Exchange notes that no other exchanges include this detail within their fee schedules and it has received Participant feedback that the inclusion of this information is causing
Next, the Exchange proposes to add language to Section VI.A. to state that BOX will pass-through any connectivity fees to Participants and non-Participants that are assessed to BOX by third-party external vendors on behalf of a Participant or non-Participant connecting to BOX (including cross-connects).
The Exchange then proposes to establish fees for access and services used by Participants via existing connections known as “Ports.”
BOX will assess monthly Port Fees on Participants in each month the market participant is credentialed to use a Port in the production environment and based upon the number of credentialed Ports that user is entitled to use.
The FIX Port Fees will be the following:
The Exchange notes that the proposed FIX Port fees are similar to fees assessed at options exchanges within the industry.
The SAIL Port Fees will be the following:
The Exchange also notes that the proposed SAIL Port fees are similar to fees assessed at options exchanges in the industry.
Further, BOX will assess Drop Copy Port Fees of $500 per port per month for each month a Participant is credentialed to use a Drop Copy Port. The Exchange notes that the proposed Drop Copy Port Fee is similar to fees at another options exchange in the industry;
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes to the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to renumber the footnotes to reflect the proposed changes discussed above.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,
The Exchange believes that removing the datacenter specific text and table from Section VI.A of the Fee Schedule is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. As discussed above, market participants will continue to be assessed the applicable fees by and billed directly by the datacenter pursuant to their agreement with the datacenter. The Exchange believes that removing the table of associated fees is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it has caused investor confusion with regard to connectivity fees assessed at BOX.
BOX believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to pass-through any connectivity fees that are charged to BOX by third-party vendors on behalf of the Participant or non-Participant. BOX believes it is reasonable and equitable to recover these costs that were incurred on BOX for the benefit of the Participant or non-Participant. The Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable as another exchange in the industry has a similar provision in its fee schedule.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess FIX and SAIL Port Fees on Participants who use such services. The FIX Port enables Participants to submit orders electronically to the Exchange for processing, while the SAIL Port enables Market Makers to submit quotes to the Exchange for processing. The SAIL Port also allows other Participants to submit orders electronically to the Exchange for
The Exchange believes that the SAIL Port Fees are reasonable because they are within the range of comparable fees at other competing options exchanges.
The Exchange believes that the Drop Copy Port Fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is uniformly assessing the Drop Copy Port Fees on all users that wish to subscribe to it, regardless of account type. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed Drop Copy Port Fee is reasonable because it is identical to fees charged by another exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Unilateral action by BOX in establishing fees for services provided to its Participants and others using its facilities will not have an impact on competition. As a small Exchange in the already highly competitive environment for options trading, BOX does not have the market power necessary to set prices for services that are unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory in violation of the Exchange Act. BOX's proposed fees, as described herein, are comparable to and generally lower than fees charged by other options exchanges for the same or similar services. Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposed change will not impose a burden on intramarket competition as the proposed fees are applicable to all Participants who connect to BOX.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 24b-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
There are 21 national securities exchanges that spend approximately one half hour each complying with this rule, for an aggregate total compliance burden of 10.5 hours per year. The staff estimates that the average cost per respondent is $65.18 per year, calculated as the costs of copying ($13.97) plus storage ($51.21), resulting in a total cost of compliance for the respondents of $1,368.78.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Nasdaq Options Market LLC (“NOM”) Rules to memorialize its order and execution information into Chapter VI, Section 19, entitled “Data Feeds.”
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 memorialize its order and execution information into Chapter VI, Section 19, entitled “Data Feeds.” The Exchange proposes to rename this rule “Data Feeds and Trade Information.” The Exchange proposes other grammatical corrections in Section 19(a) as well.
First, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new Section 19(b) and memorialize the following order and execution information which was previously filed by the Exchange: (1) CTI; (2) TradeInfo; (3) FIX DROP; and (4) OTTO DROP.
The Exchange originally noted in the Information Filing that CTI offers real-time clearing trade updates. The message containing the trade details is also simultaneously sent to the The Options Clearing Corporation. The trade messages are routed to a member's connection containing certain information. The administrative and market event messages include, but are not limited to: System event messages to communicate operational-related events; options directory messages to relay basic option symbol and contract information for options traded on the Exchange; complex strategy messages to relay information for those strategies traded on the Exchange; trading action messages to inform market participants when a specific option or strategy is halted or released for trading on the Exchange; and an indicator which distinguishes electronic and non-electronically delivered orders.
The Exchange is proposing to more specifically describe the CTI offering and memorialize it within Section 19(b)(1). The description provides more detail as to the current functionality of CTI, which is not changing. The description would continue to state that CTI is a real-time clearing trade update message that is sent to a Participant after an execution has occurred and contains trade details specific to that Participant. The information includes, among other things, the following: (i) The Clearing Member Trade Agreement or “CMTA” or The Options Clearing Corporation or “OCC” number; (ii) Exchange badge or house number; (iii) the Exchange
The Exchange originally noted in the Information Filing that TradeInfo allows users to scan for their NASDAQ-listed orders submitted in NASDAQ. Users can then perform actions on their orders. Users can scan for all orders in a particular security or all orders of a particular type, regardless of their status (open, canceled, executed, etc.). For example, after scanning for open orders the user is then able to select an open order and is allowed to make corrections to the order or cancel the order. TradeInfo also allows the users to scan other orders, such as executed, cancelled, broken, rejected and suspended orders.
The Exchange proposes to amend and memorialize TradeInfo within Section 19(b)(2). The Exchange proposes to note that TradeInfo is a user interface, as compared to a data stream, to add more detail to the description. While some descriptive language is being removed from the rules, such as permitting a subscribing member to scan other order statuses, such as executed, cancelled, broken, rejected and suspended orders, the Exchange believes that this language is covered in the current description in that the text indicates that all orders may be searched regardless of their status. The Exchange is also adding more information to the TradeInfo description to provide Participants greater transparency.
The Exchange originally noted in the Information Filing that the Order Entry DROP provides real time information regarding orders sent to NOM and executions that occurred on NOM. The DROP interface is not a trading interface and does not accept order messages. The “Order Entry DROP” interface is being renamed “FIX DROP” for clarity as it relates to FIX ports.
The Exchange proposes to amend and memorialize FIX DROP within Section 19(b)(3). The Exchange is expanding on the original description by providing more detail by stating that it is a real-time order and execution update message that is sent to a Participant after an order has been received/modified or an execution has occurred and contains trade details specific to that Participant. The information includes, among other things, the following: (1) Executions; (2) cancellations; (3) modifications to an existing order; and (4) busts or post-trade corrections.
The Exchange originally noted in the Information Filing that OTTO DROP provides real-time information regarding orders entered through OTTO and the execution of those orders. The OTTO DROP data feed is not a trading interface and does not accept order messages. The Exchange is not amending this description rather the Exchange is memorializing the description within Section 19(b)(4).
The Exchange considers it appropriate to memorialize the order and execution information available on NOM within a rule so that Participants may understand the trade information which is available on the Exchange as it pertains to a firm's trading information. This data is available to all Participants regarding that Participant's transactions. Pricing for these products is included in the Exchange's fee schedule at Chapter XV, Section 3.
The Exchange proposes minor changes to Section 19(a)(1) and (2) to change the language to indicate the Nasdaq ITCH to Trade Options and Best of Nasdaq Options each separately are data feeds and removing the “A” before the description.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to memorialize its order and execution information into Phlx Rule 1070.
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 memorialize its order and execution information into Rule 1070, entitled
First, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new Rule 1070(b) and relocate the CTI description into 1070(b)(1) as this information concerns a member's specific trade information as compared to information available concerning the Phlx Order Book, which data is described in 1070(b). The current description includes examples in the first sentence which are not being replicated within the new description,
The Exchange proposes to memorialize TradeInfo in new Rule 1070(b)(2). The Exchange originally noted in the TradeInfo Filing
The Exchange proposes to align the description of TradeInfo on Phlx with the description that was filed for The Nasdaq Options Market LLC and Nasdaq BX, Inc., where this service is also offered.
The Exchange considers it appropriate to memorialize the order and execution information available on Phlx within a rule so that members may understand the trade information which is available on the Exchange as it pertains to a firm's trading information. This data is available to all members regarding that members' transactions. Pricing for all ports is included in the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at VII, B.
The Exchange proposes minor changes to Rule 1070(a)(1) and (2) to change the language to indicate the Top of PHLX Options and PHLX Orders each separately are data feeds and removing the “A” before the description. As mentioned above, the numbering is also being amended with the PHLX Depth of Market description within Rule 1070(a)(3).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposal does not impose an undue burden on competition, rather the Exchange is seeking to provide greater transparency within its rules with respect to the various order and execution information offered on Phlx.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of Colorado, dated 05/07/2018.
Issued on 05/07/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 155090.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is COLORADO.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4364-DR), dated 05/08/2018.
Issued on 05/08/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 05/08/2018, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15516C and for economic injury is 155170.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Oklahoma dated 05/04/2018.
Issued on 05/04/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15507 5 and for economic injury is 15508 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Oklahoma.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Illinois dated 05/07/2018.
Issued on 05/07/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance,
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15510 6 and for economic injury is 15511 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Illinois, Indiana.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts dated 05/04/2018.
Issued on 05/04/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15501 B and for economic injury is 15502 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Massachusetts, Rhode Island.
The Department of State has renewed the Charter of the Advisory Committee on Cyber and International Communications and Information Policy (ACCICIP) for a period of two years. The name of the Committee has been changed to reflect the combined oversight of cyber and international information and communications policy issues within the Department of State by including the word “Cyber.”
The Committee serves the Department of State in a solely advisory capacity regarding current issues and concerns affecting cyber and international communications and information policy. ACCICIP members are private sector communications and information technology policy specialists from U.S. telecommunications companies, trade associations, policy institutions, and academia.
For further information, please call Joseph Burton, Executive Secretary, Advisory Committee on Cyber and International Communications and Information Policy, Division of International Communications and Information Policy, Economic and Business Affairs Bureau, U.S. Department of State at (202) 647-5231.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission will hold its regular business meeting on June 15, 2018, in Baltimore, Maryland. Details concerning the matters to be addressed at the business meeting are contained in the
The meeting will be held on Friday, June 15, 2018, at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Crowne Plaza Baltimore Downtown-Inner Harbor, Carroll Room, 105 West Fayette Street, Baltimore, MD 21201.
Gwyn Rowland, Manager, Governmental & Public Affairs, 717-238-0423, ext. 1316.
The business meeting will include actions or presentations on the following items: (1) Informational presentation of interest to the lower Susquehanna River region; (2) election of Commission officers for FY2019; (3) the proposed FY2019 Regulatory Program Fee Schedule; (4) adoption of a preliminary expense budget for FY2020; (5) adoption of member allocations for FY2020; (6) ratification/approval of contracts/grants; (7) a proposed records retention policy; (8) a resolution on delegation of settlement authority; (9) a report on delegated settlements; (10) the proposed Water Resources Program for fiscal years 2019 through 2021; (11) amendments to the
Projects, the fee schedule, the records retention policy and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan listed for Commission action are those that were the subject of a public hearing conducted by the Commission on May 10, 2018, and identified in the notice for such hearing, which was published in 83 FR 15665, April 11, 2018.
The public is invited to attend the Commission's business meeting. Comments on the Regulatory Program projects, the fee schedule, the records retention policy and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan were subject to a deadline of May 21, 2018. Written comments pertaining to other items on the agenda at the business meeting may be mailed to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-1788, or submitted electronically through
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on April 27, 2018, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) received a petition from Burlington Junction Railway (BJRY) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 223. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2018-0045.
Specifically, BJRY seeks a waiver of compliance from the glazing regulations in 49 CFR 223.11,
BJRY intends to use this locomotive as a backup to their primary locomotive when it is down for inspections or repairs. Locomotive BJRY 3236 will be used for freight car switching in an industrial area on approximately 1.5 miles of track. The route consists of one overpass and six public grade crossings. The maximum speed that this locomotive will operate is 10 miles per hour.
BJRY provided documentation from the City of Burlington showing no train accidents and seven reports of criminal mischief (vandalism to vehicles) for the past three years. BJRY believes that this locomotive can be safely operated throughout the area with the current non-compliant glazing. The cost to BJRY for installation of all new window frames and compliant FRA Type I & II glazing is significant, with only a marginal increase in safety due to the limited use, short route, and low speed.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by June 29, 2018 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC); DOT.
Notice of Public Meeting.
This notice announces the public meeting via conference call of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Advisory Board.
The public meeting will be held on (all times Eastern):
• Wednesday, June 6, 2018 from 2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. EST
The meeting will be held via conference call at the SLSDC's Policy Headquarters, 55 M Street SE, Suite 930, Washington, DC 20003.
Wayne Williams, Chief of Staff, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; 202-366-0091.
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. I), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC). The agenda for this meeting will be as follows:
Attendance at the meeting is open to the interested public but limited to the space available. With the approval of the Administrator, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing further information should contact the person listed in the
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. 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; 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 May 10, 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 authorities listed below.
1. AMINI, Meghdad; DOB 05 Jun 1982; POB Tehran, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; Passport U36089349 (Iran); National ID No. 0071070222 (Iran) (individual) [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR] (Linked To: ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE).
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism,” (E.O. 13224) for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, techological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, Iran's ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS-QODS FORCE, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
2. KHODA'I, Mohammad Hasan (a.k.a. KALANTARI, Sajjad); DOB 21 Sep 1983; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; National ID No. 444-973367-3 (Iran) (individual) [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR] (Linked To: ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of E.O. 13224 for acting for or on behalf of Iran's ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS-QODS FORCE, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
3. NAJAFPUR, Sa'id (a.k.a. CHEKOSARI, Sa'id Najafpur; a.k.a. NAJAFPUR, Behnam; a.k.a. “DADR, Behnam”; a.k.a. “SADR, Behnam”); DOB 1980; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR] (Linked To: ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of E.O. 13224 for acting for or on behalf of Iran's ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS-QODS FORCE, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
4. NIKBAKHT, Mas'ud (a.k.a. MAS'UD, Abu Ali; a.k.a. NOBAKHT, Mas'ud; a.k.a. NOWBAKHT, Mas'ud; a.k.a. NOWBAKHT, Sa'id); DOB 28 Dec 1961; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; Passport 9004318; alt. Passport 9011128; alt. Passport 9004398 (individual) [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR] (Linked To: ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of E.O. 13224 for acting for or on behalf of Iran's ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS-QODS FORCE, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
5. SALEHI, Foad (a.k.a. BASAIR, Foad Salehi; a.k.a. BASIR, Foad Salehi); DOB 28 Apr 1986; POB Tehran, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; Passport J37945161 (Iran); National ID No. 0077849248 (Iran) (individual) [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR] (Linked To: ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE; Linked To: VALADZAGHARD, Mohammadreza Khedmati).
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of E.O. 13224 for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, techological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of Iran's ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS-QODS FORCE, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of E.O. 13224 for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, techological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of MOHAMMADREZA KHEDMATI VALADZAGHARD, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
6. VALADZAGHARD, Mohammadreza Khedmati; DOB 05 Apr 1986; POB Tehran, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; Passport N35635875; National ID No.
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of E.O. 13224 for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, techological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, Iran's ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS-QODS FORCE, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
1. JAHAN ARAS KISH, No. 5 Jam Tower, Unit 31, 6th Floor, Bidar Street, Elahieh, Tehran, Iran; No. 716 Sarina Tower 1, 7th Floor, Kish, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Registration ID 10877 (Iran) [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR] (Linked To: ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE; Linked To: NAJAFPUR, Sa'id).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of E.O. 13224 for being owned or controlled by SA'ID NAJAFPUR, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
2. JOINT PARTNERSHIP OF MOHAMMADREZA KHEDMATI AND ASSOCIATES (a.k.a. KHEDMATI AND COMPANY JOINT PARTNERSHIP); Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; National ID No. 14006467155 (Iran); Registration ID 503586 (Iran) [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR] (Linked To: VALADZAGHARD, Mohammadreza Khedmati; Linked To: KHODA'I, Mohammad Hasan).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of E.O. 13224 for being owned or controlled by MOHAMMADREZA KHEDMATI VALADZAGHARD, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of E.O. 13224 for being owned or controlled by MOHAMMAD HASAN KHODA'I, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
3. RASHED EXCHANGE (a.k.a. SARAFI RASHED); website
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of E.O. 13224 for being owned or controlled by MOHAMMADREZA KHEDMATI VALADZAGHARD, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration (VHA), VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program.
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA).
VA is announcing the availability of 1-year renewal funding for the 12 currently operational fiscal year (FY) 2018 VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem (GPD) Program Special Need Grant recipients and their collaborative VA Special Need partners (as applicable) to submit renewal applications for assistance under the Special Need Grant component of VA's Homeless Providers GPD Program. The focus of this NOFA is to encourage applicants to continue to deliver services to the homeless Special Need Veteran population. This NOFA contains information concerning the program, application process, and amount of funding available.
An original completed signed and dated renewal application for assistance under VA's GPD Program and associated documents, must be received by the GPD Program Office by 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 22, 2018. (see application requirements below).
Applications may not be sent by facsimile. In the interest of fairness to all competing applicants, this deadline is firm as to date and time, and VA will treat any application that is received after the deadline as ineligible for consideration. Applicants should make early submission of their materials to avoid any risk of loss of eligibility because of unanticipated delays or other delivery-related problems.
An original signed, dated, completed, and collated grant renewal application and all required associated documents must be submitted to the following address: VA Homeless Providers GPD Program Office, 10770 N 46th Street, Suite C-200, Tampa, Florida 33617. Applications must be received by the application deadline. Applications must arrive as a complete package. Materials arriving separately
Ms. Chelsea Watson, Deputy Director, VA Homeless Providers GPD Program, Department of Veterans Affairs, 10770 N 46th Street, Suite C-200, Tampa, Florida 33617; (toll-free) 1-(877) 332-0334.
This NOFA announces the availability of funds to provide 1-year funding assistance in FY 2019 under VA's Homeless Providers GPD Program for the 12 operational GPD Special Need recipients, and their collaborative VA partners (as applicable). Eligible applicants may obtain grant assistance to cover additional operational costs that would not otherwise be incurred, but for the fact that the recipient is providing supportive housing beds and services for the following Special Needs homeless Veteran populations:
(1) Women;
(2) Frail elderly;
(3) Chronically mentally ill; or
(4) Individuals who have care of minor dependents.
Definitions of key terms relating to these populations are contained in 38 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61.1 Definitions. Eligible applicants should review these definitions to ensure their proposed populations meet the specific requirements.
Funding applied for under this NOFA may be used for the provision of service and operational costs to facilitate the following for each targeted group:
(1) Ensure transportation for women, especially for health care and educational needs; and
(2) Address safety and security issues including segregation from other program participants if deemed appropriate.
(1) Ensure the safety of the residents in the facility, including preventing harm and exploitation;
(2) Ensure opportunities to keep residents mentally and physically agile to the fullest extent through the incorporation of structured activities, physical activity, and plans for social engagement within the program and in the community;
(3) Provide opportunities for participants to address life transitional issues and separation and/or loss issues;
(4) Provide access to assistance devices, such as walkers, grippers, or other devices necessary for optimal functioning;
(5) Ensure adequate supervision, including supervision of medication and monitoring of medication compliance; and
(6) Provide opportunities for participants either directly or through
(1) Help participants join in and engage with the community;
(2) Facilitate reintegration with the community and provide services that may optimize reintegration, such as life-skills education, recreational activities, and follow-up case management;
(3) Ensure that participants have opportunities and services for re-establishing relationships with family;
(4) Ensure adequate supervision, including supervision of medication and monitoring of medication compliance; and
(5) Provide opportunities for participants, either directly or through referral, to obtain other services particularly relevant for a chronically mentally ill population, such as vocational development, benefits management, fiduciary or money, management services, medication compliance, and medication education.
(1) Ensure transportation for individuals who have care of minor dependents, and their minor dependents, especially for health care and educational needs;
(2) Provide directly or offer referrals for adequate and safe child care;
(3) Ensure children's health care needs are met, especially age-appropriate wellness visits and immunizations; and
(4) Address safety and security issues, including segregation from other program participants if deemed appropriate.
38 United States Code §§ 2011, 2012, 2061, as implemented in regulation at 38 CFR 61.
1. One hundred percent of the daily cost of care estimated by the Special Need grant recipient for furnishing services to homeless Veterans with Special Needs that the Special Need grant recipient certifies to be correct, minus any other sources of income; or
2. Two times the current VA State Home Program per diem rate for domiciliary care.
Applicants should ensure their funding requests and operational costs are based on the 12-month period above and should be approximately in line with prior year expenditures. Requests cannot exceed the amount obligated under their FY 2018 award. Applicants should note unexpended funding from FY 2018 will be de-obligated.
Changes to the Special Need population the applicant currently serves will not be allowed.
Special Need funding may not be used for capital improvements, or to purchase vans or real property. However, the leasing of vans or real property may be acceptable. Questions regarding acceptability should be directed to VA's National GPD Program Office at the number listed in Contact Information. Applicants may not receive Special Need funding to replace funds provided by any Federal, state, or local Government agency or program to assist homeless persons.
To be eligible, an applicant must be a currently operational FY 2018 VA Homeless Providers GPD Program Special Need Grant recipient with or without a collaborative VA Special Need partner. If the applicant was not funded under the VA Homeless Providers GPD Program NOFA published in the
1.
2.
3.
Applications must be received by the application deadline. Applications must arrive as a complete package, to include VA collaborative partner materials (see Application Requirements). Materials arriving separately
In the interest of fairness to all competing applicants, this deadline is firm as to date and hour, and VA will treat any application that is received after the deadline as ineligible for consideration. Applicants should take this firm deadline into account and make early submission of their materials to avoid any risk of loss of eligibility as a result of unanticipated delays or other delivery-related problems.
Applications must be physically delivered (
DO NOT fax or email the application as it will be treated as ineligible for consideration.
A.
B.
Selections will be made based on criteria described in the FY 2016 application and additional information as specified in this NOFA.
Awardees will be required to support their request for payments with adequate fiscal documentation as to income and expenses.
All awardees that are selected in response to
Each program receiving Special Need funding will have a liaison appointed from a nearby VA medical facility to provide oversight and monitor services provided to homeless Veterans in the program.
Monitoring will include at a minimum, a quarterly review of each per diem program's progress toward meeting performance goals, including the applicant's internal goals and objectives in helping Veterans attain housing stability, adequate income support, and self-sufficiency as identified in each per diem program's original application. Monitoring will also include a review of the agency's income and expenses as they relate to this project to ensure payment is accurate.
Each funded program will participate in VA's national program monitoring and evaluation as these monitoring procedures will be used to determine successful accomplishment of these housing outcomes for each per diem-funded program.
Applicants with questions regarding the funding from previous Special Need awards should contact the VA Homeless Providers GPD Program Office prior to application.
A full copy of the regulations governing the GPD Program is available at the GPD website at
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 VA. Peter M. O'Rourke approved this document on May 9, 2018, for publication.
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 |