Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Farm Service Agency
Rural Housing Service
Census Bureau
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Copyright Royalty Board
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the fruit and vegetable regulations to allow the importation of tree tomatoes from Ecuador into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, the tree tomatoes must be produced in accordance with a systems approach that includes requirements for importation in commercial consignments, registration and monitoring of places of production, field monitoring and pest control practices, trapping, and inspection for quarantine pests by the national plant protection organization of Ecuador. This action will allow the importation of tree tomatoes from Ecuador while continuing to protect against the introduction of plant pests into the United States.
Effective July 5, 2018.
Ms. Claudia Ferguson, M.S., Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Imports, Regulations, and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2352.
The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-83, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States.
In response to a request from the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) to analyze the plant pest risks associated with the importation of tree tomato from Ecuador into the continental United States. The PRA identified four pests of quarantine significance present in Ecuador that could follow the pathway of tree tomatoes from Ecuador into the continental United States. They are:
Based on the findings of the PRA, we prepared a risk management document (RMD) to determine whether phytosanitary measures exist that would address the quarantine plant pest risk. The RMD described the phytosanitary measures required by this rule and provides evidence of their efficacy in preventing the introduction of the identified quarantine pests. Those measures will be applied as part of a systems approach to phytosanitary security.
On June 21, 2017, we published in the
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending August 21, 2017. We received five comments by that date, from private citizens and a State department of agriculture. Two commenters supported the action, while three opposed. The comments are discussed below.
One commenter noted that the PRA rated the fruit flies as high and the moth and virus as a medium for likelihood for introduction. The commenter stated that these pests have a wide host range, which include economically important hosts. Furthermore, the life stages and symptoms of these pests and disease could be difficult to detect during post-harvest and port-of-entry inspections. As such, the commenter recommended that shipments of tree tomato from Ecuador not be allowed into Florida.
We have determined, for the reasons described in the RMD, that the specified measures in the RMD will effectively mitigate the risks associated with the importation of tree tomato from Ecuador. Under the systems approach, biometric samples of tree tomato fruit must be inspected by the NPPO of Ecuador following any post-harvest processing and found free of
One commenter opposed the importation of tree tomatoes from Ecuador due to the risk of introduction of invasive species.
As a signatory of the World Trade Organization agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the United States is obligated to consider requests from foreign governments for access to the U.S. market. We have considered the risks associated with the action and, based on the PRA and RMD, we have determined that the mitigation measures are effective to protect animal and plant health within the United States.
The same commenter stated that we needed to consider the economic effects this action would have on U.S. tomato growers.
As mentioned in the economic analysis, tree tomatoes are not commercially grown in the United States. Therefore, we have determined that this action will not have a
One commenter stated that we cannot control the pesticides used by Ecuador on their products.
While the United States does not have direct control over pesticides that are used on food commodities in other countries such as tree tomatoes from Ecuador, there are regulations in the United States concerning the importation of food to ensure that commodities do not enter the United States containing illegal pesticide residues. Specifically, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to establish, change, or cancel tolerances for food commodities through section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The EPA tolerance levels are enforced once the commodity enters the United States. Federal Government food inspectors are responsible for monitoring food commodities that enter the United States to confirm that tolerance levels are not exceeded and that residues of pesticide chemicals that are banned in the United States, like DDT, are not present on the commodities.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.
In the proposed rule, the systems approach for tree tomato from Ecuador was designated as § 319.56-78; however, that section has since been utilized. Therefore, the systems approach will be added as § 319.56-83.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, because this rule is not significant, it does not trigger the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the
Tree tomatoes are not commercially grown in the United States. U.S. consumers will benefit from having Ecuador as a new source of fresh tree tomato fruit. Ecuador has approximately 40 tree tomato production sites, with a total growing area of 650 acres. They are served by a single packinghouse. In 2014 (most recent data available), Ecuador exported approximately 5.1 metric tons of fresh tree tomatoes to Germany, Canada, Spain, Holland, Italy, and Japan in more than 130 small shipments. Based on conversations with Ecuadorian officials, we expect that initially there will be about 13 shipments of tree tomatoes from Ecuador, with a total volume of about 0.5 metric tons.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule allows fresh tree tomato to be imported into the continental United States from Ecuador. State and local laws and regulations regarding tree tomato imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Fresh tree tomatoes (
(a)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(b)
(2) Places of production must remove fallen tree tomato fruit in accordance with the operational workplan. Fallen fruit may not be included in field containers of fruit brought to the packinghouse to be packed for export.
(3) The NPPO of Ecuador must inspect fields at registered places of production at least once during the growing season for Tamarillo mosaic virus. Sites must be determined by the NPPO to be free of the virus as a result of these inspections.
(4) Starting 60 days before harvest and continuing throughout the shipping season, the NPPO of Ecuador must visit and inspect registered places of production monthly for signs of infestation. The NPPO of Ecuador must allow APHIS to monitor these inspections. The NPPO of Ecuador must also certify to APHIS that registered places of production have effective fruit fly trapping programs and control guidelines in place to reduce pest populations.
(5) If APHIS or the NPPO of Ecuador determines that a registered place of production has failed to follow the requirements in this paragraph (b), the place of production will be excluded from the export program until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador jointly agree that the place of production has taken appropriate remedial measures to address the plant pest risk.
(c)
(2) Tree tomatoes must be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin, within 24 hours of harvest. These safeguards must remain intact until the tree tomatoes arrive in the United States, or the consignment will not be allowed to enter the United States.
(3) All openings to the outside of the packinghouse must be covered by screening with openings of not more than 1.6 mm or by some other barrier that prevents pests from entering. The packinghouse must have double doors at the entrance to the facility and at the interior entrance to the area where the tree tomatoes are packed.
(d)
(1) If
(2) If Tamarillo mosaic virus is found, the entire lot of fruit will be prohibited from importation into the United States.
(3) If a single larva of
(e)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations to implement amendments to the Act that broadened the scope of the exemptions from the licensing requirements for dealers and exhibitors. Specifically, we are broadening the licensing exemption for any person who maintains four or fewer breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals and only sells the offspring of these animals for pets or exhibition to include additional types of pet animals and domesticated farm-type animals. In addition, we are adding a new licensing exemption for any person who maintains eight or fewer pet animals, small exotic or wild animals, and/or domesticated farm-type animals for exhibition. These actions will allow the Agency to focus its limited resources on situations that pose a higher risk to animal welfare and public safety. Finally, we are making conforming changes to the definitions of
Effective June 4, 2018.
Dr. Kay Carter-Corker, DVM, Director, National Policy Staff, USDA-APHIS-Animal Care, 4700 River Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3748.
Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA, or the Act, 7 U.S.C. 2131
The AWA and regulations seek to ensure the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain warm-blooded animals
On August 4, 2016, we published in the
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 90 days ending November 2, 2016. We received 29 comments on the proposal during the comment period. They were from exhibitors, animal welfare organizations, biomedical research organizations, an organization representing zoos and aquariums, an animal trainer, and the general public. We reviewed each of the comments carefully. We respond below, by topic, to those comments that address specific provisions of the proposal.
We proposed to amend the definitions of
Under the AWA, an
In 2013, an amendment
One commenter observed that the proposed rule removed animal acts, educational exhibits, field trials, and coursing events from the list of activities in the regulatory definition of
The removal of these and other activities from the definition of
One commenter stated that the meaning of “substantial portion of income” within the definition of
We are making no changes in response to the commenters. As a practical matter, we anticipate that owners of common, domesticated household pets that fall under this particular exclusion will also be exempt under the licensing exemptions for exhibitors established in this final rule, which is broader in scope than this exclusion. However, if such an owner has questions, we encourage them to contact the appropriate Animal Care office
Under the AWA, a dealer is defined as any person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, or transports (except as a carrier), buys, or sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of any animal whether alive or dead for research, teaching,
The Agricultural Act of 2014 (referred to as the 2014 Farm Bill)
In the proposed rule, we intended to make the regulations consistent with the 2014 Farm Bill by removing the exemption from the definition of
One commenter disagreed with the proposed change, stating that it will create a loophole for animal operations that are not in compliance with the AWA. As an example, the commenter stated that persons were buying three females and one male animal, breeding them in the absence of care standards, and selling the offspring cheaply to brokers. The commenter stated that these exceptions will create unfair competition by diminishing the ability of licensed breeders to compete for market share.
We are making no changes in response to this comment. The commenter appears to be making reference to a different provision, contained in § 2.1(a)(3)(iii) of the current regulations, that exempts from licensing any person that maintains a total of four or fewer breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals and who sells, at wholesale, only their offspring, which were born and raised on his or her premises, for pets or exhibition. The proposed changes to the $500 gross income exemption do not change the licensing exemptions for dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals. As we noted above, the AWA was amended to broaden exemptions from the licensing requirements for small-scale dealers and exhibitors, which allows APHIS to focus its limited resources on situations that pose a higher risk to animal welfare and public safety.
Another commenter asked if the removal of the $500 gross income exemption meant that APHIS would now be exempting persons exhibiting exotic animals from the licensing requirements.
The $500 gross income exemption only applies to persons selling or negotiating the sale or purchase of animals other than dogs, cats, and wild or exotic animals. It does not apply to the exhibition of exotic animals.
After reviewing these comments and the scope of the $500 gross income exemption, we are amending the definition of
The current regulations in § 2.1(a)(3)(iii) and (vii) exempt from licensing any person who maintains a total of four or fewer breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals and who sells only the offspring of those animals, which were born and raised on his or her premises, for pets or exhibition. In the proposed rule, we proposed a “four breeding female” exemption for additional types and combinations of animals, specifically, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, chinchillas, cows, goats, pigs, and sheep.
One commenter stated that the proposed exemption is inconsistent with the exemptions currently in paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) and (vii) of § 2.1. The commenter noted that the current exemptions apply to breeders of small exotic or wild species with four or fewer breeding females under the assumption that such breeders can adequately care for their animals. The commenter suggested replacing the list of animals in the proposed
We agree with the commenters' suggestions and are making conforming changes in this final rule. Specifically, we are combining the three exemptions (current § 2.1(a)(3)(iii) and (vii) and proposed § 2.1(a)(3)(ix)) into one exemption in revised paragraph § 2.1(a)(3)(iii). We have also harmonized the list of animals, grouped them into categories (pet animals, small exotic and wild mammals, and domesticated farm-type animals) and added additional examples of animals (such as llamas and alpacas) that fall under this exemption for clarity. “Domesticated farm-type animals” are animals that have historically been kept and raised on farms in the United States. This consolidated exemption continues to apply to any person, including, but not limited to, purebred dog and cat fanciers, who meet the criteria in revised paragraph § 2.1(a)(3)(iii), and applies to retail sales and wholesales alike. Finally, we made conforming edits to the definition of
A commenter stated that if the proposal is finalized, small breeders currently maintaining exotic animals under a USDA license may qualify as
The four breeding female exemption for small exotic and wild mammals has been in place since 2004. Neither the proposed rule nor this final rule makes changes to it, other than to add additional examples of such animals and to combine the exemptions for retail sales and wholesales into one paragraph. We also note that States requiring a USDA license or that reduce requirements for persons with a USDA license primarily focus on potentially dangerous animals, not the types of small exotic and wild mammals that fall under this exemption, which are pocket pets such as chinchillas and jerboas being sold for use as pets or exhibition. Larger exotic or wild animals, such as lions, tigers, wolves, or bears, do not fall into this category.
In the proposed rule, we also proposed
One commenter stated that the proposal was unclear with respect to what animal species are eligible for the proposed
In response to this comment, and consistent with our approach to the four breeding female exemption discussed above, we are harmonizing the lists of non-dangerous animals eligible for exemption and grouping them into categories (pet animals, small exotic and wild mammals, and domesticated farm-type animals). We are also adding more examples of animals that fall under this exhibitor exemption for clarity.
Two commenters disagreed with the proposed numeric thresholds, noting that seasonal exhibitors are allowed to work up to eight animals while infrequent or intermittent (mainly film and theatrical) exhibitors are only allowed to work four animals. One of these commenters stated that both types of exhibition require off-site housing and frequent transport, putting animals at greater potential risk regardless of the number exhibited, yet under § 2.1(a)(3)(xii) an infrequent or intermittent exhibitor would require a license with five to eight animals while seasonal exhibitors with the same number of animals exhibited would not require a license. Similarly, another commenter stated that regardless of whether animals are used for seasonal or infrequent exhibition, the potential impact on the animal's welfare is the same. For this reason, the commenter recommended that the seasonal exemption be limited to four or fewer animals.
Two other commenters disagreed with the limit of days we placed on the seasonal exhibit exemption and said that the duration should be longer. One such commenter stated that many spring and fall exhibits run between specific weekends and are often weather dependent, and stated that at least 6 to 8 weeks would be better for the seasonal
Another commenter stated that allowing infrequent or intermittent exhibitors up to 30 days a year to work their animals is far too high. The commenter, a professional pet trainer, was concerned that untrained pet owners would lack the knowledge necessary to keep their pets and other people safe on film sets and at other worksites. The commenter suggested that we limit the proposed exemption in § 2.1(a)(3)(xii) to 1 or 2 days of exhibition per year, as any person working their animals for more days are likely generating a substantial amount of income while remaining exempt from licensing. The commenter said that a trainer can make $500 to $1,000 per day with an animal in a TV or film production, and that a pet working 30 days in a starring role can make a profit of tens of thousands of dollars. The commenter stated that anyone profiting by more than $100 per day from exhibiting an animal should be required to be licensed or work under the guidance of a licensed USDA trainer.
Finally, one commenter disagreed with our use of the term “infrequent exhibition.” The commenter asked who would monitor such exhibitors for compliance with the regulations and stated that allowing infrequent exhibitors to go unlicensed is not fair to licensed exhibitors who have to conduct recordkeeping and be inspected.
We have reconsidered this matter and agree with the commenters that the animals pose similar potential risks and will likely experience similar treatment and care, regardless of the duration or frequency of the exhibition. We have concluded that individuals and businesses exhibiting eight or fewer pet animals, small exotic or wild animals, and/or domesticated farm-type animals have a
One commenter stated that the seasonal exhibition threshold for exemption should be raised from 30 to 45 days, noting that apple orchards, corn mazes, and Christmas tree farms
As noted in the proposed rule, the Act contains a number of exclusions for domesticated farm-type animals and agricultural practices. For example, the definition of
We proposed to remove §§ 3.28(b), 3.53(b), and 3.80(b)(1), which contain obsolete sheltering and minimum space requirements for hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, and nonhuman primates, and to revise § 3.6(a)(2)(xii) to remove phase-in dates which are no longer needed regarding primary enclosures for dogs and cats. We explained in the proposed rule that removal of these requirements will remove any confusion with the current regulatory requirements and will have no impact on facilities and animal welfare.
Four commenters raised questions about our proposed removal of obsolete sheltering and minimum space requirements. One commenter asked if APHIS was certain that no entities were still maintaining animals under these requirements. Three of the commenters stated that some facilities may still be using primary enclosures acquired before August 15, 1990, and asserted that they would therefore still be subject to the requirements we are proposing to remove. These commenters asked that we remove these changes from the proposed rulemaking and reissue the changes in a separate rulemaking so that affected facilities receive adequate notice and opportunity to comment.
We have reconsidered these proposed changes in light of these comments and agree that some entities may still maintain hamsters, guinea pigs, and rabbits in enclosures acquired prior to August 15, 1990. Therefore, we will retain §§ 3.28(b) and 3.53(b) in the regulations and will consider removing them in a separate rulemaking. However, we are adopting the proposed revisions to §§ 3.6(a)(2)(xii) and 3.80(b)(1) in this final rule.
One commenter encouraged APHIS to investigate sanctuaries and private collections holding dangerous animals, as such facilities appear to be exhibiting animals for purposes that affect commerce for compensation in the absence of USDA oversight.
APHIS looks into any credible complaints or information it receives regarding individuals or businesses that may be engaging in regulated activity without the required license. To report a concern about an animal covered under the AWA, the public may submit a complaint online at:
One commenter asked that we lift the stay imposed on the disaster contingency plan rulemaking as soon as possible.
As we noted in the proposed rule, the Secretary is reviewing the impact of the 2014 Farm Bill amendment on the contingency plan rulemaking and will decide whether to lift the stay once the review is concluded.
Another commenter stated concerns about how APHIS decides which current license holders meet the exemption threshold, citing inconsistent data in the APHIS database regarding the number of animals reported at the premises of licensees. Given these inconsistencies, the commenter asked whether APHIS can reliably determine who qualifies for the exemption and who does not.
We will continue to use the information submitted to APHIS by current license holders and the number of animals observed during the inspection process to determine if they meet the exemption thresholds. We consider our process for determining exemptions to be accurate and reliable.
We also received a number of general comments that were outside the scope of the rulemaking.
Finally, we are also making several nonsubstantive miscellaneous changes for consistency.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule with the changes discussed in this document.
This is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions and, pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This rule relieves regulatory responsibilities for some currently licensed entities and reduces the cost of business for those entities. Those currently licensed exhibitors and dealers (including breeders meeting the definition of dealer) who are under the proposed
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866. Further, APHIS considers this rule to be a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771 as the action relieves regulatory responsibilities for some currently
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have performed a final regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available on the
This rule relieves regulatory responsibilities for some currently licensed entities and reduces the cost of business for those entities. Those currently licensed exhibitors and dealers (including breeders meeting the definition of
The cost of a license for the smallest entities is between $40 and $85 annually. Identification tags for dogs and cats cost from $1.12 to $2.50 each. Other covered animals can be identified by a label attached to the primary enclosure containing a description of the animals in the enclosure at negligible cost. We estimate that the average currently licensed entity potentially affected by this rule spends about 10 hours annually to comply with the licensing paperwork and recordkeeping requirements. All of the currently licensed entities that will be considered
We estimate that about 323 currently licensed exhibitors and breeders with a total of 1,106 animals operating at or below the thresholds for their particular AWA-related business activity will be considered
Based on our review of available information, APHIS does not expect the rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We did not receive information concerning affected entities during the public comment period on the proposed rule that would alter this assessment. In the absence of apparent significant economic impacts, we have not identified steps that would minimize such impacts.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. The Act does not provide administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to a judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. We did not receive any requests from tribes for consultation regarding the proposed rule.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the EGovernment Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Animal welfare, Marine mammals, Pets, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Transportation.
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.
(1) Establishments or persons who deal in dogs used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes;
(2) Establishments or persons exhibiting, selling, or offering to exhibit or sell any wild or exotic or other nonpet species of warmblooded animals (except birds), such as skunks, raccoons, nonhuman primates, squirrels, ocelots, foxes, coyotes, etc.;
(3) Any establishment or person selling warmblooded animals (except birds, and laboratory rats and mice) for research or exhibition purposes;
(4) Any establishment wholesaling any animals (except birds, rats, and mice); and
(5) Any establishment exhibiting pet animals in a room that is separate from or adjacent to the retail pet store, or in an outside area, or anywhere off the retail pet store premises.
7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Any person who maintains a total of four or fewer breeding female pet animals as defined in part 1 of this subchapter, small exotic or wild mammals (such as hedgehogs, degus, spiny mice, prairie dogs, flying squirrels, jerboas, domesticated ferrets, chinchillas, and gerbils), and/or domesticated farm-type animals (such as cows, goats, pigs, sheep, llamas, and alpacas) and sells only the offspring of these animals, which were born and raised on his or her premises, for pets or exhibition, and is not otherwise required to obtain a license. This exemption does not extend to any person residing in a household that collectively maintains a total of more than four of these breeding female animals, regardless of ownership, or to any person maintaining such breeding female animals on premises on which more than four of these breeding female animals are maintained, or to any person acting in concert with others where they collectively maintain a total of more than four of these breeding female animals, regardless of ownership;
(vii) Any person who maintains a total of eight or fewer pet animals as defined in part 1 of this subchapter, small exotic or wild mammals (such as hedgehogs, degus, spiny mice, prairie dogs, flying squirrels, jerboas, domesticated ferrets, chinchillas, and gerbils), and/or domesticated farm-type animals (such as cows, goats, pigs, sheep, llamas, and alpacas) for exhibition, and is not otherwise required to obtain a license. This exemption does not extend to any person acting in concert with others where they collectively maintain a total of more than eight of these animals for exhibition, regardless of possession and/or ownership;
(c) * * *
(2) The applicant has paid the application fee of $10 and the annual license fee indicated in § 2.6 to the appropriate Animal Care regional office for an initial license.
7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(xii) If the suspended floor of a primary enclosure is constructed of metal strands, the strands must either be greater than
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-01-07, which applied to all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes; Model FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. AD 2017-01-07 required a functional test or check of the main entry door closure and warning system, and applicable door closing inspections, adjustments, operational tests, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD requires repetitive door closing inspections, adjustments, operational tests, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that during approach for landing, the main entry door detached from an airplane. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective July 9, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 10, 2017 (82 FR 1595, January 6, 2017).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone: 201-440-6700; internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax: 206-231-3226.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-01-07, Amendment 39-18774 (82 FR 1595, January 6, 2017) (“AD 2017-01-07”). AD 2017-01-07 applied to all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes; Model FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 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 2017-0123, dated July 20, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes; Model FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. The MCAI states:
During approach for landing, at an altitude of 7,000 feet, a MF20-D5 lost the main entry door (MED). The flight crew maintained control of the aeroplane to land uneventfully. The results of the preliminary technical investigations concluded that the cause of this event could be either a broken cable, or an unlocked safety catch, associated with one or two deficient micro switches.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-flight opening and/or detachment of the MED, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane, and/or injury to persons on the ground.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Dassault issued Service Bulletin (SB) F20-789, SB F200-133 and SB MF50-531, providing instructions for inspection/adjustment, and an operational test of the MED closure. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2015-0007 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017-01-07] to require a one-time accomplishment of a functional test/check of the MED closure/warning system. It also required [a general visual] inspection and operational test of the MED [including the control and latching mechanisms] and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, EASA determined that the inspection and operational test of the MED must be repeated to ensure continued safety.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2015-0007, which is superseded, and additionally requires repetitive inspections and operational tests of the MED.
Corrective actions include adjusting the telescopic rod bolts on the door until the clearance between the lower part of the door and the fuselage is within the specified tolerances. The corrective actions for the control and latching mechanisms include adjusting components and replacing damaged components (including pull latches, microswitches, pulleys, and cables). Signs of damage include cracks, corrosion, wear, and distortion. 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 received no comments on the NPRM or
We reviewed the available data 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.
Dassault Aviation has issued the following service information.
• Dassault Service Bulletin F20-789, also referred to as 789, dated December 9, 2014.
• Dassault Service Bulletin F50-531, also referred to as 531, dated December 9, 2014.
• Dassault Service Bulletin F200-133, also referred to as 133, dated December 9, 2014.
This service information describes procedures for inspections, adjustments, and operational tests of certain doors and corrective actions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. 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 392 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: “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 July 9, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2017-01-07, Amendment 39-18774 (82 FR 1595, January 6, 2017) (“AD 2017-01-07”).
This AD applies to the airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
(1) Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes.
(2) Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes.
(3) Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes.
(4) Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that during approach for landing, the main entry door detached from an airplane. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct defective crew/passenger doors.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2017-01-07, with no changes. Within 330 flight hours or 13 months, whichever occurs first after February 10, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-01-07), unless already done: Do the applicable door closing inspections, adjustments, and operational tests, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(1) For Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes; Model FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes: Dassault Service Bulletin F20-789, also referred to as 789, dated December 9, 2014.
(2) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes: Dassault Service Bulletin F200-133, also referred to as 133, dated December 9, 2014.
(3) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes: Dassault Service Bulletin F50-531, also referred to as 531, dated December 9, 2014.
Within 72 months after accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 72 months, repeat the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) 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.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2017-01-07 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0123, dated July 20, 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 Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax: 206-231-3226.
(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 February 10, 2017 (82 FR 1595, January 6, 2017).
(i) Dassault Service Bulletin F20-789, also referred to as 789, dated December 9, 2014.
(ii) Dassault Service Bulletin F50-531, also referred to as 531, dated December 9, 2014.
(iii) Dassault Service Bulletin F200-133, also referred to as 133, dated December 9, 2014.
(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone: 201-440-6700; internet:
(5) 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.
(6) 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, correction.
This action corrects a final rule published in the
Effective 0901 UTC, July 19, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA published a final rule in the
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the
On page 22842, column 1 lines 10, 11, and 12, remove the words
“That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of That That airspace”.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule; correction.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) publishes this final rule to make certain conforming changes based on the revisions to Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 1C350 on the Commerce Control List (CCL) contained in a final rule published on April 2, 2018. That final rule amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement the recommendations presented at the February 2017 Australia Group (AG) Intersessional Implementation Meeting, and later adopted pursuant to the AG silent approval procedure, and the recommendations made at the June 2017 AG Plenary Implementation Meeting and adopted by the AG Plenary. Among other changes, the April 2, 2018, final rule amended ECCN 1C350 by renumbering paragraphs .b through .d in alphabetical order. Following the publication of that rule, however, certain references to ECCN 1C350.c and 1C350.d in the description of items eligible under the validated end-user authorization (VEU) provisions of the EAR no longer identified the correct subparagraphs in ECCN 1C350 because the rule inadvertently failed to update the references to ECCN 1C350.c and 1C350.d in the description of eligible items for three of the validated end-users identified in Supplement No. 7 to part 748 (Authorization Validated End-User (VEU)) of the EAR. This final rule amends the VEU provisions to provide the correct references to eligible items in ECCN 1C350 for three validated end-users.
This rule is effective June 4, 2018.
Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Phone: 202-482-5991; Email:
On April 2, 2018, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule titled “Implementation of the February 2017 Australia Group (AG) Intersessional Decisions and the June 2017 AG Plenary Understandings; Addition of India to the AG” (83 FR 13849), which amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement the recommendations presented at the Australia Group (AG) Intersessional Implementation Meeting held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on February 15, 2017, and adopted pursuant to the AG silent approval procedure in April 2017, and the recommendations presented at the Implementation Meeting of the 2017 AG Plenary held in Paris, France, from June 26-30, 2017, and adopted by the AG Plenary. In addition, that final rule amended the EAR to reflect the addition of India as a participating country in the AG, as of January 19, 2018.
The amendments to the April 2, 2018, final rule included revisions to Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 1C350, among which were the renumbering of certain items listed in paragraph .b, .c, or .d of this ECCN. However, that final rule inadvertently omitted updates to the references to ECCN 1C350.c and 1C350.d in the description of eligible items for three of the validated end-users identified in Supplement No. 7 to part 748 (Authorization Validated End-User (VEU)) of the EAR. Consequently, these descriptions no longer identified the correct subparagraphs for eligible items in ECCN 1C350. This final rule amends the references to ECCN 1C350 in Supplement No. 7 to part 748 to identify the correct subparagraphs for eligible items in ECCN 1C350, consistent with the amendments to ECCN 1C350 contained in the April 2, 2018, final rule.
Specifically, this final rule amends Supplement No. 7 to part 748 to correctly identify which items in ECCN 1C350 are eligible for each of the following validated end-users: (1) The description of eligible ECCN 1C350 items in the entry for “CSMC Technologies Corporation” is revised to reference 1C350.c.4 (Phosphorus oxychloride, C.A.S. #10025-87-3) and 1C350.c.12 (Trimethyl phosphite, C.A.S. #121-45-9); (2) the description of eligible ECCN 1C350 items in the entry for “Samsung China Semiconductor Co. Ltd.” is revised to reference 1C350.c.4 and 1C350.d.10 (Hydrogen fluoride, C.A.S. #7664-39-3); and (3) the description of eligible ECCN 1C350 items in the entry for “Shanghai Huahong Grace Semiconductor
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 15, 2017 (82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017)), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public participation are waived for good cause because they are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). The provision of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring a 30-day delay in effectiveness is also waived for good cause. (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). The changes contained in this rule are non-substantive technical corrections of a previously published rule that has already been exempted from notice and comment. This rule is necessary to ensure clarity in the regulations and accuracy regarding the scope of VEU-eligible items in Supplement No. 1 to part 748 of the EAR. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, it would result in further confusion caused by the incorrect cross-references to ECCN 1C350 contained in this Supplement. These changes are also essential to ensuring the accurate and complete implementation of the April 2, 2018, final rule.
Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 748 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4601
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the location of the special local regulation for the annual Great Western Tube Float event held on the navigable waters of the Colorado River, Parker, AZ. The change of the location for the special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action will restrict vessel traffic in certain waters of the Colorado River, from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 9, 2018, from Buckskin Mountain State Park to La Paz County Park.
This rule is effective from 7 a.m. through 5 p.m. on June 9, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Briana Biagas, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone 619-278-7656, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. Due to the timing of the event, we are unable to issue a NPRM before the event is scheduled.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Great Western Tube Float is an annual recurring event listed in Table 1, Item 9 of 33 CFR 100.1102, Annual Marine Events on the Colorado River, between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona). Special local regulations exist for the marine event to allow for special use of the Colorado River, Parker, AZ for this event.
Section 100.1102 of Title 33 of the CFR lists the annual marine events and special local regulations on the Colorado River, between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona). The enforcement date and regulated location for this marine event are listed in Table 1, Item 9 of Section 100.1102. The location listed in the Table indicates that the marine event will occur on the navigable waters of the Colorado River from La Paz County Park to the BlueWater Resort and Casino, immediately before the Headgate Dam. However, due to a change of the location of this year's event from Buckskin Mountain State Park to La Paz County Park, a temporary rule is needed to reflect the actual location of this year's event.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations. The COTP San Diego is establishing a special local regulation for the waters of the Colorado River, Parker, AZ. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of participants, vessels and the navigable waters in the regulated area before, during, and after the scheduled event.
The Coast Guard is temporarily suspending the regulations in 33 CFR 100.1102 for Table 1, Item 9 of that Section and is inserting a temporary regulation as Table 1, Item 20 of that Section in order to reflect that the special local regulation will be effective and enforced from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on June 9, 2018. This change is needed to accommodate the sponsor's event plan and ensure that adequate regulations are in place to protect the safety of vessels and individuals that may be present in the regulated area. No other portion of Table 1 of Section 100.1102 or other provisions in Section 100.1102 shall be affected by this regulation.
Persons and vessels will be prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated waterway unless authorized by the COTP, or his designated representative, during the proposed times. Additionally, movement of all vessels within the regulated area and entry of all vessels into the regulated area will be restricted. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish information on the event in the weekly LNM.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
E.O.s 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it.
As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation. The Coast Guard will publish a LNM that details the vessel restrictions of the regulated area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the impacted portion of the Colorado River, Parker, AZ, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on June 9, 2018.
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: The special local regulation is limited in size and duration. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish event information on the internet in the weekly LNM marine information report. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it,
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of marine event special local regulations on the navigable waters of the Colorado River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on the waters of the Boca Ciego Bay in the vicinity of Gulfport, Florida, during the Gulfport Grand Prix High Speed Boat Race. Approximately 50 boats, 16 feet in length, traveling at speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour are expected to participate. Additionally, it is anticipated that 20 spectator vessels will be present along the race course. The special local regulation is necessary to protect the safety of race participants, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public on navigable waters of the United States during the event. The special local regulation will establish two regulated areas: (1) A race area where all non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg (COTP) or a designated representative; and (2) a buffer zone where designated representatives may control vessel traffic as deemed necessary by the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated
This rule is effective daily from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 1, 2018, through June 3, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Marine Science Technician First Class Michael D. Shackleford, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone (813) 228-2191, email
The Coast Guard is establishing this special local regulation without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the full event plans from the event sponsor nor the details of the event until late March 2018, leaving insufficient time to publish an NPRM. We must establish this special local regulation on June 1, 2018 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the regulated area until after the date of race event, which would compromise public safety.
For the reason discussed above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to provide for the safety of the event participants, spectators, and the general public on the navigable waters of the Gulf of Mexico during the Gulfport Grand Prix High Speed Boat Race event.
This rule establishes a special local regulation that will encompass certain waters of the Boca Ciega Bay in the vicinity of Gulfport, Florida. The special local regulation will be enforced daily from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 1, 2018 through June 3, 2018. The special local regulation will establish two regulated areas: (1) A race area where all non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative; and (2) a buffer zone where vessel traffic may be controlled as deemed necessary by the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative based upon prevailing weather conditions.
Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port (COTP) St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824-7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or by on-scene designated representatives.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the regulated areas. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the waters of the Boca Ciego Bay for seven hours daily over only three days. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM Channel 16 about the regulated areas as well as a Local Notice to Mariners, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade enforced for seven hours daily over a period of three days that will prohibit non-participant persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, remaining within, or anchoring in the regulated area. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(2) Vessel traffic within the buffer zone may be controlled by the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative as deemed necessary by the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative based upon prevailing weather conditions.
(3) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area contact the COTP St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824-7506 or via VHF-FM radio Channel 16 to request authorization.
(4) If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or a designated representative.
(5) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or by on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Seaboard System (CSX) Railroad Bridge across the Okeechobee Waterway (St. Lucie Canal), mile 28.2, at Indiantown, FL. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the replacement of the main drive gears on the bridge.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from June 4, 2018 through 7 a.m. on June 12, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 7 a.m. on May 28, 2018, until June 4, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0385 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email LT Ruth Sadowitz, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Miami, Waterways Management Division, telephone 305-535-4307, email
PCL Civil Constructors, Inc., on behalf of bridge owner, CSX Transportation, Inc, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation that governs the Seaboard System (CSX) Railroad Bridge across the Okeechobee Waterway (St. Lucie Canal), mile 28.2, at Indiantown, FL. The deviation is necessary to facilitate the replacement of the main drive gears and rack segments which will improve the reliability of the bridge. The bridge is a swing bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed to navigation position of 7 feet at normal St. Lucie Canal stage of 14.5 feet.
The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.317(e). Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will only open with a four (4) hour notice to the bridge tender at (772) 597-3822 from 7 a.m. on May 28, 2018 through 7 p.m. on June 3, 2018, and will remain in the closed to navigation position from 7 a.m. on June 4, 2018 through 7 a.m. on June 12, 2018. The Okeechobee Waterway (St. Lucie Canal) is predominantly used by a variety of vessels including U.S. government vessels, small commercial vessels, recreational vessels and tugs and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their 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.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the Chicago Harbor, Chicago, IL near the Adler Planetarium on June 26, 2018. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and after a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
This rule is effective on June 26, 2018, from 9:20 p.m. to 9:50 p.m.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email LT John Ramos, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (630) 986-2155, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard received the final details for this event with insufficient time to publish a NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks display on June 26, 2018.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone on June 26, 2018 from 9:20 p.m. until 9:50 p.m., for a barge based fireworks display, on Lake Michigan near the Adler Planetarium. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that the barge based fireworks display will pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, falling and burning debris, and collisions among spectator vessels.
The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the public during the fireworks display on Lake Michigan. This safety zone will be enforced from 9:20 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. on June 26, 2018. This safety zone encompasses all waters of Lake Michigan within a 420 foot radius from the approximate launch position at 41°52′12″ N, 087°36′23″ W. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the short duration of the rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone for a barge based fireworks event in the Chicago Harbor, Chicago, IL near the Adler Planetarium on June 26, 2018. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60(a)] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on his or her behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 414-747-7182. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or an on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone on Lake Erie, in the vicinity of Luna Pier, MI. This Zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Lake Eire for the Freedom Festival Fireworks Display. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his designated representative. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays.
This regulation is effective from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on June 30, 2018.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2018-0449. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email MST1 Ryan Erpelding, Waterways Department, Marine Safety Unit Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone (419) 418-6037, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. The event sponsor notified the Coast Guard with insufficient time to accommodate the comment period. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for the comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would prevent the Captain of the Port Detroit from keeping the public safe from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks displays.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks displays starting at 10 p.m. on June 30, 2018 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 300 yard radius of the launch site. The likely combination of recreational vessels, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and fireworks debris falling into the water presents risks of collisions which could result in serious injuries or fatalities. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the fireworks display.
This rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on June 30, 2018. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of the Lake Erie within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°48′34.826″ N, 083°26′21.894″ W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled ‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs’ ” (February 2, 2017).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. The majority of vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the safety zone, which will impact only a portion of the Lake Erie in Luna Pier, MI for a short period time. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 120 minutes that will prohibit entry within a 300 yard radius from where a fireworks display will be
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.
(3) The “designated representative” of the Captain of the Port Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf. The designated representative of the Captain of the Port Detroit will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative to obtain permission to do so.
(5) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is amending its safety zones regulation for Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone. This amendment updates 12 permanent safety zones and adds 12 new permanent safety zones. These amendments and additions are necessary to protect spectators, participants and vessels from the hazards associated with annual maritime events, including fireworks displays, boat races, and air shows.
This rule is effective July 5, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email
On April 19, 2018, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this amendment to the CFR. During the comment period that ended May 21, 2018, we received no comments.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The purpose of this rule is to update the safety zones in 33 CFR 165.939 to ensure accuracy of times, dates, and dimensions for various triggering and marine events that are expected to be conducted within the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone throughout the year. The purpose of the rulemaking is also to ensure vessels and persons are protected from the specific hazards related to the aforementioned events. These specific hazards include obstructions in the waterway that may cause marine casualties; collisions among vessels maneuvering at a high speed within a channel; the explosive dangers involved in pyrotechnics and hazardous cargo; and flaming/falling debris into the water that may cause injuries.
As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published April 19, 2018. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
This rule amends 12 permanent safety zones found within table 165.939 of 33 CFR 165.939. These 12 amendments involve updating the location, size, and/or enforcement times.
Additionally, this rule adds 12 new safety zones to table 165.939 within § 165.939 for annually reoccurring
The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that the safety zones in this rule are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during annual marine or triggering events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo zone. Although this rule will be effective year-round, the safety zones in this rule will be enforced only immediately before, during, and after events that pose a hazard to the public and only upon notice by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.
The Captain of the Port Buffalo will notify the public that the zones in this rule are or will be enforced by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public, including publication in the
All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Buffalo or his or her designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative. The Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the characteristics of the safety zones. The safety zones created by this rule will be relatively small and are designed to minimize their impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zones have been designed to allow vessels to transit around them. In addition, the safety zones will have built in times to allow vessels to travel through when situations allow. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within each particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(2) These safety zones are closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
(5) The enforcement dates and times for each of the safety zones listed in Table 165.939 are subject to change, but the duration of enforcement would remain the same or nearly the same total number of hours as stated in the table. In the event of a change, the Captain of the Port Buffalo will provide notice to the public by publishing a Notice of Enforcement in the
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the Severn River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters of the Severn River at Sherwood Forest, MD, during a fireworks display on July 3, 2018 (with alternate date of July 6, 2018). This action will prohibit persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. on July 3, 2018, through 10 p.m. on July 6, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 410-576-2674, email
On January 16, 2018, the Sherwood Forest Club, Inc. of Sherwood Forest, MD, notified the Coast Guard that from 9:20 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. on July 3, 2018, it will be conducting a fireworks display launched from the end of the Sherwood Forest Club main pier, located adjacent to the Severn River, approximately 200 yards east of Brewer Pond in Sherwood Forest, MD. In response, on April 4, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Safety Zone for Fireworks Display; Severn River, Sherwood Forest, MD” (83 FR 14384). There we stated why we were issuing the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended May 4, 2018, we received 2 comments.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Baltimore (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in the July 3, 2018, display will be a safety concern for anyone in the Severn River near the fireworks discharge site. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.
As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published April 4, 2018. Both comments provided support of this rulemaking. There are no substantive changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
This rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2018, and if necessary due to inclement weather, from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Severn River, within 150 yards of a fireworks discharge site located at the end of Sherwood Forest Club main pier in approximate position latitude 39°01′54.0″ N, longitude 076°32′41.8″ W, located at Sherwood Forest, MD. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of life on these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 9:20 p.m. fireworks display. While the zone is being enforced, no vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. To request permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region and or designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel must proceed as directed. If permission is granted to enter the safety zone, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or designated representative and proceed as directed while within the zone.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which would impact a small designated area of the Severn River for 2 hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine band radio channel 16 to provide information about the safety zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 2 hours that would prohibit vessel movement within a portion of the Severn River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones found in 33 CFR 165.23.
(2) Entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region. All vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone.
(3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone shall obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or designated representative. To request permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region and or designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by
(4)
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone on the Maumee River in the vicinity of Toledo, Ohio. This Zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Maumee River for the Thunder over Toledo Fireworks Display. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his designated representative. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays.
This regulation is effective from 9 p.m. on July 4, 2018 until 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2018.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2018-0469. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email MST1 Ryan Erpelding, Waterways Department, Marine Safety Unit Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone (419) 418-6037, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. The event sponsor notified the Coast Guard with insufficient time to accommodate the comment period. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for the comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would prevent the Captain of the Port Detroit from keeping the public safe from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks displays.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks displays starting after 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2018 will be a safety concern for anyone within an 800 foot radius of the launch site. The likely combination of recreational vessels, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and fireworks debris falling into the water presents risks of collisions which could result in serious injuries or fatalities. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the fireworks display.
This rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018 with a rain date of July 5, 2018 from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of the Maumee River within an 800 foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°38′44.5″ N, 083°31′50.6″ W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled ‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs’ ” (February 2, 2017).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. The majority of vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the safety zone, which will impact only a portion of the Maumee River in Toledo, OH for a 90 minute period of time. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 90 minutes that will prohibit entry within an 800 foot radius from where a fireworks display will be conducted. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(c) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.
(3) The “designated representative” of the Captain of the Port Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf. The designated representative of the Captain of the Port Detroit will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative to obtain permission to do so.
(5) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 300-foot radius of the launch site located at Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Presque Isle Bay during the Flagship Niagara's Mariners Ball fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.
This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on June 2, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 716-843-9322, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels form the hazards associated with a fireworks display.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display takes place.
This rule establishes a safety zone on June 2, 2018, from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA contained within 300-foot radius of: 42°08′22.5″ N, 080°05′15.6″ W.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. We anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Modification of fishing seasons.
NMFS announces one inseason action in the ocean salmon fisheries. This inseason action modified the commercial and recreational salmon fisheries in the area from Cape Falcon, OR, to Pigeon Point, CA.
The effective date for the inseason action is set out in this document under the heading Inseason Action.
Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323.
In the 2017 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (82 FR 19630, April 28, 2017), NMFS announced management measures for the commercial and recreational fisheries in the area from the U.S./Canada border to the U.S./Mexico border, beginning May 1, 2017, through April 30, 2018. NMFS is authorized to implement inseason management actions to modify fishing seasons and quotas as necessary to provide fishing opportunity while meeting management objectives for the affected species (50 CFR 660.409). Inseason actions in the salmon fishery may be taken directly by NMFS (50 CFR 660.409(a)—Fixed inseason management provisions) or upon consultation with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and the appropriate State Directors (50 CFR 660.409(b)—Flexible inseason management provisions). The state management agencies that participated in the consultations described in this document were: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).
Management of the salmon fisheries is generally divided into two geographic areas: North of Cape Falcon (U.S./Canada border to Cape Falcon, OR) and south of Cape Falcon (Cape Falcon, OR, to the U.S./Mexico border). The inseason action reported in this document affected fisheries south of Cape Falcon.
All other restrictions and regulations remain in effect as announced for the 2017 ocean salmon fisheries and 2018 salmon fisheries opening prior to May 1, 2018 (82 FR 19631, April 28, 2017) and as modified by prior inseason actions.
The RA determined that the best available information indicated that Chinook salmon abundance forecasts and expected fishery effort in 2018 supported the above inseason action recommended by the states of Oregon and California. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone consistent with these federal actions. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice of the described regulatory action was given, prior to the time the action was effective, by telephone hotline numbers 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.
NOAA's Assistant Administrator (AA) for NMFS, finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory
This action is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Proposed rule.
The NCUA Board (the Board) is proposing to amend the NCUA's general lending rule to provide federal credit unions (FCUs) with an additional option to offer payday alternative loans (PALs). This proposal would
Comments must be received on or before August 3, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
•
•
•
•
•
Martha Ninichuk, Director, Office of Credit Union Resources and Expansion; Matthew Biliouris, Director, Office of Consumer Financial Protection; or Justin M. Anderson, Senior Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone: (703) 518-1581 (Ms. Ninichuk), (703) 518-1140 (Mr. Biliouris), or (703) 518-6556 (Mr. Anderson).
On September 16, 2010, the Board amended its general lending rule to enable FCUs to offer PALs loans as an alternative to predatory payday loans.
The term “payday loan” generally refers to a short-term loan with a relatively small principal amount that is intended to cover a borrower's expenses until his or her next payday, when the loan is to be repaid in full.
PALs I's current regulatory framework permits an FCU to charge an interest rate for PALs loans that is 1000 basis points above the general interest rate set by the Board for non-PALs loans, provided the FCU is making a closed-end loan
(1) The principal of the loan is not less than $200 or more than $1000;
(2) The loan has a minimum maturity term of one month and a maximum maturity term of six months;
(3) The FCU does not make more than three PALs loans in any rolling six-month period to any one borrower and makes no more than one PALs loan at a time to a borrower;
(4) The FCU must not roll over any PALs loan. The prohibition against roll-overs, however, does not apply to an extension of the loan term within the maximum loan term permitted by the rule, provided the FCU does not charge any additional fees or extend any new credit.
(5) The FCU fully amortizes the loan;
(6) The FCU sets a minimum length of membership requirement of at least one month;
(7) The FCU charges an application fee to all members applying for a new
(8) The FCU includes, in its written lending policies, a limit on the aggregate dollar amount of loans made under § 701.21(c)(7)(iii) of a maximum of 20% of net worth and implements appropriate underwriting guidelines to minimize risk; for example, requiring a borrower to verify employment by producing at least two recent pay stubs.
PALs I also includes a best practices section, which discusses topics to help ensure the product remains viable for the FCU and responsible for the borrower.
In the 2010 PALs I rulemaking, the Board indicated that, after one year, it would review the PALs loan data collected on the 5300 call reports and reevaluate the requirements of the rule.
In response, the Board received 27 comment letters from trade organizations, state credit union leagues, private citizens, consumer advocacy groups, a federal agency, lending networks, and FCUs. Generally, almost all of the commenters suggested at least one change to PALs I. There was, however, no general consensus among the commenters as to which aspects of the rule the Board should amend. The Board chose, at that time, not to undertake any changes to PALs I.
On the December 31, 2017, 5300 call report, 518 FCUs reported offering PALs loans. They reported 190,723 outstanding loans with an aggregate balance of $132.4 million. These figures represent a significant increase from 2012 when the Board issued the ANPR discussed above. Based on the 2012 5300 call report, approximately 386 FCUs offered PALs loans, totaling 38,749 PALs loans with an aggregate outstanding balance of approximately $13.5 million.
The Board has recently revisited PALs I and the trends in PALs loans data, as presented above. The data shows a significant increase in the total dollar amount of PALs loans outstanding, but only a modest increase in the number of FCUs offering these loans. The Board wants to ensure that all FCUs that are interested in offering PALs loans are able to do so. The terms of PALs II loans are more flexible and the product is potentially more profitable for FCUs, which should increase interest. The Board notes that PALs II would not replace PALs I. Rather, PALs II would be an additional option FCUs could choose in making PALs loans to their members. An FCU could choose to make PALs I loans, PALs II loans, or both.
As noted above, PALs II will incorporate many of the features of PALs I, but will provide additional flexibility for FCUs in the areas of loan amount, membership requirement, loan term, and number of loans permitted. The Board notes, however, that PALs I loans and PALs II loans are distinct products that must satisfy all of the regulatory conditions applicable to the particular type of loan in order to be classified as such. For example, a $300 loan with a six-month maturity made to a person who has been a member for two-weeks is a PALs II loan because it meets all of the requirements for a PALs II loan, but it is not a PALs I loan because it does not meet the membership requirement of PALs I. As discussed below, this distinction is critical as it has implications for compliance with the CFPB's regulations. Of course, a loan that does not satisfy all of the conditions of either PALs I or PALs II is neither a PALs I nor a PALs II loan.
The Board is proposing to incorporate the following features from PALs I into PALs II. These features achieve a balance between consumer protection and safety and soundness for FCUs.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
For the reasons discussed in each of the subsections below, the Board is proposing PALs II with certain features different from PALs I. The Board believes the different features in PALs II will encourage additional FCUs to offer PALs II loans as an alternative to predatory payday loans. In addition, these different features will help FCUs meet the specific demands of certain payday loan borrowers that may not be met by PALs I and provide borrowers with a safer, less expensive alternative to traditional payday loans.
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Board is proposing to create a new subsection in § 701.21(c)(7) that will contain the regulatory text for PALs II. The Board notes that the best practices and guidance that is applicable to the current PALs rule will also apply to PALs II.
On November 17, 2017, the CFPB passed its Payday Loan Rule, which, among other things, establishes consumer protections for certain credit products and deems certain practices to be abusive and unfair.
The Payday Loan Rule provides a “safe harbor” for any loan that is made by an FCU in compliance with all of the requirements in 12 CFR 701.21(c)(7)(iii), thereby fully exempting those loans from compliance with the Payday Loan Rule.
To provide additional flexibility to FCUs, however, the Board is proposing PALs II as an additional option to serve members' needs in the payday lending space. The Board recognizes that PALs II loans will not qualify for the safe harbor from the CFPB's Payday Loan Rule. However, in the Payday Loan Rule, the CFPB also provided a partial exemption for “alternative loans.” The CFPB defines “alternative loans” as those loans that meet all of the requirements of the NCUA's current PALs rule, except that lenders are not required to have a minimum membership requirement or a limit on the number of loans they can provide to any one borrower in a six-month period.
While PALs II loans, therefore, will not qualify for the safe harbor, these loans can qualify for the alternative loans exemption under particular conditions. Specifically, to qualify as an “alternative loan” a PALs II loan must meet all of the requirements of PALs I, except FCUs are not required to have a minimum membership requirement or a restriction on the number of loans provided to a borrower in a six-month period. The Board believes this proposed change will provide FCUs with additional flexibilities while retaining a partial exemption from the CFPB's Payday Loan Rule.
In addition, the Board is also proposing to authorize additional flexibility in PALs II by raising the maximum amount of a permissible loan to $2,000 and increasing the maximum maturity to 12 months. PALs II loans that utilize these additional flexibilities, however, will not qualify for either the safe harbor or the exemption for “alternative loans.” The Board believes these additional flexibilities will allow an FCU to make a business decision in crafting a PALs program that takes into account the needs of its members and its ability to comply with the CFPB's Payday Loan Rule.
While the terms of PALs II in this proposal would provide FCUs with additional flexibility to meet the demands of borrowers, the Board is considering issuing an additional alternative PALs rule in the future. Before proposing any additional alternatives, however, the Board requests comment on the need and demand for additional alternatives.
Specifically, the Board s requests comment on whether to include some or all of the features of PALs II in PALs I. This option would make PALs I more flexible, but also would eliminate FCUs' safe harbor from the CFPB's Payday Loan Rule.
Also, the Board is considering creating an additional kind of PALs rule, defined as PALs III, which would be even more flexible than PALs II. Before proposing PALs III, however, the Board requests comment on whether there is demand for such a product, as well as what features and loan structures could be included in PALs III. The Board notes, however, that along with the flexibility of additional features
The Board poses the specific questions below for comment, but invites stakeholders to provide input of any kind on any aspect of a potential PALs III rule.
1. Should the Board propose a third alternative PALs rule and why?
2. Should the Board set the permissible interest rate for PALs III loans above that permitted for other PALs loans? If so, why and what legal justification supports a higher interest rate?
3. Should the Board increase in PALs III the maximum amount an FCU can charge for an application fee above that permitted for other PALs loans?
4. Should the Board allow FCUs to make more than one kind of PALs loan at a time to a borrower?
5. Should the Board set in PALs III the limit on the aggregate dollar amount of loans made above that permitted for other PALs loans?
6. Should the Board eliminate for PALs III the requirement that FCUs implement appropriate underwriting guidelines?
7. Should the Board set for PALs III the maximum loan amount above that permitted for other PALs loans?
8. Should the maturities for PALs III loans be longer than those permitted for other PALs loans?
9. Should the Board permit PALs III to include an open-end loan product?
a. If the Board permits an open-end product,
b. If the Board permits participation fees on an open-end PALs product, should the Board set a maximum cap on that fee, and, if so, what should the maximum amount be?
10. Should the Board require FCUs to conduct an ability to repay determination in PALs III similar to that required by the CFPB's Payday Loan Rule?
11. Should the Board prohibit FCUs from charging overdraft fees for PALs loan payments drawn against a member's account?
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a rule may have on a substantial number of small credit unions (those under $100 million in assets). This proposal would provide a limited number of FCUs making PALs loans with additional flexibility to make such loans. The rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions, and, therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, the NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. The proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the connection between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The NCUA has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
The NCUA has determined that this proposed rule would not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
Credit unions, Federal credit unions.
For the reasons discussed above, the National Credit Union Administration proposes to amend 12 CFR part 701 as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756, 1757, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 766, 1767, 1782, 1784, 1787, 1789. Section 701.6 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 3717. Section 701.31 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1601
(c) * * *
(7) * * *
(iii)
(A) * * *
(
(B)
(
(
(
(iv)(A)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(B)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports that cracks were found on the door mechanism actuator shaft assemblies of the nose landing gear (NLG). This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assemblies having certain part numbers, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also provide an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections for Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 19, 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 Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3220.
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 2017-0181, dated September 18, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes The MCAI states:
Cracks were reportedly found on nose landing gear (NLG) door actuator shaft assemblies on CN-235 aeroplanes. The subsequent design review determined that combined or multiple rupture of the affected shaft assembly could occur, without this being signalised to the flight crew.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to an in-flight NLG door opening, possibly resulting in detachment of the affected door, with consequent damage to, or reduced control of, the aeroplane and injury to persons on the ground.
To address this unsafe condition, Airbus Defence & Space (D&S) issued Alert Operators Transmissions AOT-CN235-32-0001 Revision (Rev.) 2 and AOT-C295-32-0001 Rev. 2 to provide inspection instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive detailed (DET) or special detailed [rototest] inspections of the NLG door actuator shaft assembly, as applicable, and, depending on findings, corrective actions [including replacement of any cracked component, or cracked NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly with a serviceable part]. This [EASA] AD also introduces a modification for CN-235 aeroplanes as (optional) terminating action for the repetitive inspections as required by this [EASA] AD.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Airbus Defence and Space has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; and AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016. This service information describes procedures for inspections for cracking of the door mechanism actuator shaft assemblies of the NLG, and corrective actions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
Airbus Defence and Space has also issued Service Bulletin 235-32-0031C, dated September 22, 2016. This service information describes procedures for modification of the NLG door latching mechanism.
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 14 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 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 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
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 July 19, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus Defense and Space S.A. airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes.
(2) Model C-295 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by reports that cracks were found on the door mechanism actuator shaft assemblies of the nose landing gear (NLG). We are issuing this AD to address such cracking, which could lead to an in-flight NLG door opening and possibly result in detachment of the affected door, and consequent damage to, or reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purpose of this AD, an affected NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly has part number (P/N) 35-42311-00 or P/N 95-42315-00, depending on airplane model.
(1) For any affected NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly: Before exceeding 600 flight hours accumulated by any NLG door mechanism lever or cam since new, or within 60 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, on the NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly with the NLG actuator shaft installed, do a detailed inspection for cracking of all installed NLG door mechanism levers and cams, in accordance with the instructions in Airbus Defence and Space Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in figure 1 to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, depending on the findings or corrective actions completed, as specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, after the previous inspection.
(2) For any affected NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly: Before exceeding 1,800 flight hours accumulated by the NLG door shaft of the NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly since new, or within 60 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a rototest or detailed inspection of the NLG door actuator shaft, in accordance with the instructions in Airbus Defence and Space AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; as applicable. Repeat the rototest or detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in figure 2 to paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, depending on the inspection method used during the most recent inspection.
(1) During any detailed inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if any crack with a length of 18 millimeters (mm) (0.709 inches) or more is found, or if there is more than one crack with a length of less than 18 mm (0.709 inch) found, before further flight, replace the cracked component, or replace the NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly with a serviceable part, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defence and Space AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; as applicable.
(2) During any detailed inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if a single crack with a length of less than 18 mm (0.709 inch) is found, within 5 flight cycles after the detailed inspection when the crack was found, replace any cracked component, or replace the NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly with a serviceable part, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defence and Space AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; as applicable.
(3) During any detailed or rototest inspection required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, if any crack is found, before further flight, replace the NLG door mechanism actuator shaft with a serviceable part, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defence and Space AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; as applicable.
Accomplishment of any corrective action on an airplane, as required by paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable, is not terminating action for the repetitive detailed or rototest inspections required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, for that airplane.
For Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes: Modification of the NLG door latching mechanism, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Defence and Space Service Bulletin SB-235-32-0031C, dated September 22, 2016, is terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, for that airplane.
As of the effective date of this AD, installation of an NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly having P/N 35-42311-00 or P/N 95-42315-00, or any of its components, is allowed, provided that the part is new; or provided that the assembly or the components, as applicable, has passed an inspection; in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; as applicable.
Although Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; and AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; both specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, and the corrective actions required by paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(4) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, dated September 29, 2015.
(2) Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2016.
(3) Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, dated September 29, 2015.
(4) Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0181, dated September 18, 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 Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3220.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracking on the frame (FR) 47 angle fitting. This proposed AD would require, depending on airplane configuration, a modification of certain angle fitting attachment holes, repetitive inspections for cracking of certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting web, certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting horizontal splicing, the aft bottom panel, and the FR47/Rib 1 junction area, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 19, 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—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 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 2017-0210, dated October 24, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Prompted by cracks found on the Frame (FR) 47 angle fitting, Airbus issued SB [Service Bulletin] A300-57-6049, SB A300-57-6050, and SB A300-57-6086.
These cracks, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the centre wing box (CWB) of the aeroplane.
Consequently, DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France published AD 94-241-170, AD 1999-147-279, AD 2000-533-328 and AD F-2004-159 (EASA approval 2004-9779), each AD superseding the previous one, to require repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) rotating probe inspections of the FR47 internal lower angle fitting.
After DGAC France AD F-2004-159 was issued, cracks were reportedly found on the horizontal flange of FR47 internal corner angle fitting during accomplishment of routine maintenance structural inspection and modification in accordance with the instructions of Airbus SB A300-57-6050. Prompted by these findings, Airbus reviewed and amended the inspection programme for the internal lower angle fitting flange (horizontal face).
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2012-0092 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-20-18, Amendment 39-17991 (79 FR 65879, November 6, 2014) (“AD 2014-20-18”)], retaining the requirements of DGAC France AD F-2004-159, which was superseded, and requiring additional repetitive inspections of the CWB lower panel through the ultrasonic method and, depending on findings, re-installation of removed fasteners in transition fit instead of interface.
In addition, DGAC France had previously issued AD F-2005-124 (EASA approval 2005-6071) to require the same inspections for A300 F4-608ST aeroplanes, in accordance with Airbus SB A300-57-9001 and SB A300-57-9002.
Following the discovery of numerous cracks during the accomplishment of SB A300-57-6049 and SB A300-57-6089 inspections, Airbus developed in a first step a new (recommended) modification (Airbus SB A300-57-6113) and defined, for post-mod aeroplanes, new inspections, and published SB A300-57-6119, which included new inspection methods (ultrasonic/radiographic) with new inspection thresholds and intervals.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0198, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0092, which was superseded, to require repetitive inspections for post-SB A300-57-6113 aeroplanes.
Since EASA AD 2016-0198 was issued, Airbus revised in a second step the inspection programme for A300-600 pre-SB 57-6113 and A300-600ST aeroplanes, reducing inspection thresholds and intervals. At this opportunity, the existing ultrasonic inspection for A300-600 aeroplanes has been added for A300-600ST aeroplanes.
For the reasons described above, this new [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0198 for A300-600 aeroplanes and of DGAC France AD F-2005-124 for A300-600ST aeroplanes, which are both superseded, and requires [modification through cold expansion of certain angle fitting attachment holes and] repetitive inspections [for cracking of certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting web, certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting horizontal splicing, the aft bottom panel, and the FR47/Rib 1 junction area, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions] with new compliance times and intervals. This [EASA] AD is applicable to both A300-600 and A300-600ST aeroplanes * * *.
Related investigative actions include a rotating probe inspection for cracking. Corrective actions include replacing damaged fasteners, reaming and drilling holes, installing the next nominal fastener for oversized bore holes, and repairing cracks. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
This NPRM would not supersede AD 2014-20-18. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require depending on airplane configuration, a modification of certain angle fitting attachment holes, inspections for cracking of certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting web, certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting horizontal splicing, the aft bottom panel, and the FR47/Rib 1 junction area. Accomplishment of the proposed modification and initial inspections would then terminate all of the requirements of AD 2014-20-18.
Airbus has issued the following service information.
• Service Bulletin A300-57-6049, Revision 8, dated July 4, 2017. This service information describes procedures for HFEC rotating probe inspections for cracking of certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting web.
• Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 6, dated July 4, 2017. This service information describes procedures for HFEC rotating probe inspections for cracking of certain holes in the internal lower angle fitting horizontal splicing (left-hand and right-hand sides) and for ultrasonic inspections for cracking of the aft bottom panel.
• Service Bulletin A300-57-6119, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016. This service information describes procedures for ultrasonic and radiographic inspections for cracking of the FR47/Rib 1 junction area.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
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 65 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the proposed reporting requirement in this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be $5,525, or $85 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this NPRM is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this NPRM has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this NPRM is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
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 July 19, 2018.
This AD affects AD 2014-20-18, Amendment 39-17991 (79 FR 65879, November 6, 2014) (“AD 2014-20-18”).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-603, A300 B4-620, A300 B4-622, A300 B4-605R, A300 B4-622R, A300 C4-605R Variant F, and A300 F4-605R airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 12171 or 12249 has been embodied in production, or on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6069 has been embodied in service.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking on the frame (FR) 47 angle fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of FR47 angle fitting, which could
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purposes of this AD, the definitions in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(6) apply.
(1) Group 1 airplanes are those airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6113, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016, has not been incorporated as of the effective date of this AD.
(2) Group 2 airplanes are those airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6113, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016, has been incorporated as of the effective date of this AD.
(3) The average flight time (AFT) for the inspection threshold is defined as the flight hours (FH) divided by the flight cycles (FC), counted from the first flight of the airplane.
(4) The AFT for the inspection interval is defined as the FH divided by the FC, counted from the date of the last inspection required by paragraph (i), (j), (k), or (l) of this AD, as applicable.
(5) For airplanes on which Airbus modification 10155 has been embodied, the thresholds for the inspections required by paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of this AD are counted from the first flight of the airplane.
(6) For airplanes on which Airbus modification 10155 has not been embodied, the thresholds for the inspections required by paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of this AD are counted since the date on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050 was embodied on the airplane.
For all airplanes on which Airbus modification 10155 has not been embodied: Before exceeding 15,100 FC or 38,900 FH, whichever occurs first after first flight of the airplane; or within the “grace periods” defined in paragraph 1.B.(4), “Accomplishment Timescale,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2001; whichever occurs later, modify the angle fitting attachment holes of the wing center box by cold expansion, including doing a rotating probe inspection for cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2001. Where paragraph 1.B.(4), “Accomplishment Timescale,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2001, specifies “grace periods” relative to the receipt of the service bulletin, count the “grace periods” from December 19, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-23-08). If any crack is found during any inspection: Before further flight, repair 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.
For Group 1 airplanes: Before exceeding the applicable threshold specified in figure 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) rotating probe inspection for cracking of holes H, I, K, L, M, N, U, V, W, X, and Y of the internal lower angle fitting web (left-hand and right-hand sides), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6049, Revision 8, dated July 4, 2017. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in figure 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD.
For Group 1 airplanes: Before exceeding the applicable threshold specified in figure 2 to paragraph (j) of this AD, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do an HFEC rotating probe inspection for cracking of holes A, B, C, D, E, F, G, P, Q, S, and T (adjacent to hole G) of the internal lower angle fitting horizontal splicing (left-hand and right-hand sides), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 6, dated July 4, 2017. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in figure 2 to paragraph (j) of this AD.
For Group 1 airplanes: Before exceeding the applicable thresholds specified in figure 3 to paragraph (k) of this AD, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do an ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the aft bottom panel, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 6, dated July 4, 2017. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in figure 3 to paragraph (k) of this AD.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i), (j), (k), or (l) of this AD, any crack is found: Before further flight, accomplish all applicable related investigative and corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(3) of this AD, as applicable. Where the service information specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(3) of this AD specifies to contact Airbus for instructions, before further flight, obtain instructions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA and accomplish those instructions accordingly. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(1) If the inspection was done as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6049, Revision 8, dated July 4, 2017.
(2) If the inspection was done as specified in paragraph (j) or (k) of this AD: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 6, dated July 4, 2017.
(3) If the inspection was done as specified in paragraph (l) of this AD: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6119, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD: Report the results of the inspections required by paragraphs (i), (j), (k), and (l) of this AD to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
Accomplishment of the action required by paragraph (h) of this AD and the initial inspections required by paragraphs (i) and (j), and (k) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2014-20-18.
This paragraph provides credit for actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before December 19, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-23-08), using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050, Revision 02, dated February 10, 2000.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0210, dated October 24, 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.
(3) 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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; Airbus Model A330-200 series airplanes; and Airbus Model A330-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of Angle of Attack (AOA) blockages not detected by upgraded flight control primary computer (FCPC) software standards. This proposed AD would require upgrading certain FCPCs, which would terminate a certain airplane flight manual revision for certain airplanes. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 19, 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
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.
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 Airworthiness Directive 2017-0246R1, dated April 6, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; Airbus Model A330-200 series airplanes; and Airbus Model A330-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
In 2015, occurrences were reported of multiple Angle of Attack (AOA) blockages. Investigation results indicated the need for AOA monitoring in order to better detect cases of AOA blockage.
This condition, if not corrected, could, under specific circumstances, lead to undue activation of the Alpha protection, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed new FCPC software standards for enhanced AOA monitoring and, consequently, EASA issued AD 2015-0124 (later revised) [related FAA AD 2016-25-30, Amendment 39-18756, (82 FR 1175, January 5, 2017) (“AD 2016-25-30”)] to require these software standard upgrades.
Since EASA AD 2015-0124R3 was issued, it was identified that, for some cases, AOA blockages were not detected by those FCPC software standards. Consequently, new FCPC software standards, as specified in Table 1 of this [EASA] AD, have been developed (Airbus modification (mod) 206412, mod 206413 and mod 206414) to further improve the detection of AOA blockage. Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A330-27-3222 and SB A330-27-3223 to implement these mods on in-service aeroplanes. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2017-0246 to require a software standard upgrade of the three FCPCs, either by modification or replacement.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was determined that the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) Emergency Procedure, as previously required by EASA AD 2014-0267-E [related to FAA AD 2014-25-52, Amendment 39-18066,(80 FR 3161, January 22, 2015) (“AD 2014-25-52”)] can also be removed for other AOA sensors and FCPC configurations. This [EASA] AD revises paragraph (2) accordingly, also introducing Table 2 for that purpose.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Airbus has issued the following service information:
• Service Bulletin A330-27-3222, dated February 16, 2017.
• Service Bulletin A330-27-3223, dated June 6, 2017.
This service information describes procedures for upgrading (by modification or replacement, as applicable) certain FCPCs. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplanes in different configurations. 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.
AD 2014-25-52 applies to all Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. AD 2014-25-52 requires revising the airplane flight manual to advise the flightcrew of emergency procedures for abnormal Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot). For certain airplanes, accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD would terminate the AFM requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-25-52.
AD 2016-25-30 applies to all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. AD 2016-25-30 requires new FCPC software standards. For certain airplanes, accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD would terminate the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2016-25-30.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 103 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some or 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 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
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 July 19, 2018.
This AD affects AD 2014-25-52, Amendment 39-18066 (80 FR 3161, January 22, 2015) (“AD 2014-25-52”) and AD 2016-25-30, Amendment 39-18756, (82 FR 1175, January 5, 2017) (“AD 2016-25-30”).
This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD; all manufacturer serial numbers; equipped with flight control primary computers (FCPCs) having software standard P13/M22 (hardware 2K2), P14/M23 (hardware 2K1) or M23 (hardware 2K0), or earlier standard.
(1) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
The software standards specified in paragraph (c) of this AD correspond, respectively, to part number (P/N) LA2K2B100DG0000, P/N LA2K1A100DF0000 and P/N LA2K01500AF0000. All affected airplanes should be equipped with this software, as required by AD 2016-25-30.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of Angle of Attack (AOA) blockages not detected by upgraded FCPC software standards. We are issuing this AD to prevent Alpha protection activation due to blocked AOA probes, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Group 1 airplanes are those in pre-mod 206412, pre-mod 206413, or pre-mod 206414 configuration, as applicable. Group 2 airplanes are those in post-mod (206412, 206413, or 206414, as applicable) configuration.
For Group 1 airplanes: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Upgrade (by modification or replacement, as applicable) the three FCPCs, as specified in table 1 to paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in table 1 to paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD.
For airplanes with an AOA configuration as identified in figure 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD, or as identified in paragraph (m)(2) of AD 2016-12-15, Amendment 39-18564 (81 FR 40160, June 21, 2016) (“AD 2016-12-15”), as applicable: Accomplishing the upgrade required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-25-52, and the airplane flight manual (AFM) procedure required by paragraph (g) of AD 2014-25-52 may be removed from the AFM.
Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2016-25-30 for that airplane.
Installation of any software or hardware of a version earlier than the one listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD is prohibited, as required by paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Group 1 airplanes: After modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
(2) For Group 2 airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0246R1, dated April 6, 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 Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.
(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
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is issuing this proposed order to reclassify medical image analyzers applied to mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection as postamendments class III (premarket approval) devices (regulated under product code MYN), into class II (special controls), subject to premarket notification. FDA is also identifying the proposed special controls that the Agency believes are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. These devices are intended to direct the clinician's attention to portions of an image that may reveal abnormalities during interpretation of patient's radiology images by the clinician. If finalized, this order will reclassify these types of devices from class III to class II and reduce regulatory burdens on industry as these types of devices will no longer be required to submit a premarket approval application (PMA) but can instead submit a less burdensome premarket notification (510(k)) before marketing their device.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed order by August 3, 2018. Please see section X of this document for the proposed effective date when the new requirements apply and for the proposed effective date of a final order based on this proposed order.
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 August 3, 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:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• 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
Robert Ochs, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4312, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6661,
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended, establishes a comprehensive system for the regulation of medical devices intended for human use. Section 513 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c) established three categories (classes) of devices, reflecting the regulatory controls needed to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. The three categories of devices are class I (general controls), class II (special controls), and class III (premarket approval).
Devices that were not in commercial distribution prior to May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as postamendments devices), are automatically classified by section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. Those devices remain in class III and require premarket approval unless, and until, the device is reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and 21 CFR part 807.
A postamendments device that has been initially classified in class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act may be reclassified into class I or II under section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act. Section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA acting by order can reclassify the device into class I or II on its own initiative, or in response to a petition from the manufacturer or importer of the device. To change the classification of the device, the proposed new class must have sufficient regulatory controls to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use.
Reevaluation of the data previously before the Agency is an appropriate basis for subsequent action where the reevaluation is made in light of newly available regulatory authority (see
In accordance with section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act, the Agency is proposing to reclassify medical image analyzers applied to mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection from class III into class II on the basis that there is sufficient information to establish special controls, in addition to general controls, to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that a class II device may be exempted from the 510(k) premarket notification requirements, if the Agency determines that premarket notification is not necessary to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of the device.
This proposed order covers medical image analyzers including computer-assisted/aided detection (CADe) devices for mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection that are assigned product code MYN. These postamendments devices are currently regulated as class III devices under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act. FDA has experience reviewing and analyzing data and information for medical image analyzers since premarket approval of the first device for these uses in 1998. On June 26, 1998, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) approved the first CADe device included in this reclassification order. In the December 30, 1998,
This proposed order does not apply to medical image analyzers/CADe devices currently classified under § 892.2050 (21 CFR 892.2050),
• NWE (Colon Computed Tomography System, Computer-Aided Detection);
• OEB (Lung Computed Tomography System, Computer-Aided Detection);
• OMJ (Chest X-Ray Computer Aided Detection).
There have been no recalls for class II CADe devices. As of the date of this proposal, FDA has received three recalls for class III devices and one Medical Device Report (MDR), however, in the past 10 years only one recall for the class III devices has been received due to distribution of the CADe device without PMA approval. None of these recalls were classified as a Class I recall. There were also no MDRs related to either the class III medical image analyzers or class II CADe devices in the past 10 years. This evidence suggests that the safety profiles for existing class III CADe devices are similar to the class II CADe, and consequently that our regulatory controls applied should be similar.
This proposed order applies to medical image analyzers including CADe devices for mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection that are currently regulated as class III devices as postamendment devices. These devices are intended to identify, mark, highlight, or in any other manner direct the clinicians' attention to portions of a radiology image that may reveal abnormalities during interpretation of patient radiology images by the clinicians. These devices incorporate pattern recognition and data analysis capabilities and operate on previously acquired radiology images, including mammography, radiograph, and ultrasound. These devices are not intended to replace the review by a qualified radiologist or to be used for triage. Furthermore, these devices are not intended to recommend diagnosis of any diseases.
The Radiological Devices Panel (the Panel) convened on March 4-5, 2008 (Ref. 1) and discussed issues relating to how medical image analyzers including CADe devices are used in clinical decisionmaking, how the performance of the devices should be evaluated, and the information needed to determine whether the device provides a reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness. Additional discussions were held regarding medical image analyzers for mammography and radiograph applications. Following the 2008 Panel Meeting, FDA convened a second meeting of the Panel on November 18, 2009. The 2009 Panel Meeting was asked to discuss two proposed draft guidances for the evaluation of medical image analyzers and the Agency's regulatory strategy for these devices (Ref. 2). Subsequently, the two draft guidance documents were finalized by FDA and were made public on July 3, 2012 (Refs. 3 and 4). The guidance document entitled “Clinical Performance Assessment: Considerations for Computer-Assisted Detection Devices Applied to Radiology Images and Radiology Device Data—Premarket Approval (PMA) and Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions” provides guidance regarding clinical performance assessment studies for CADe applied to radiology images and radiology device data. The guidance document entitled “Computer-Assisted Detection Devices Applied to Radiology Images and Radiology Device Data—Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions” provides guidance regarding premarket notification (510(k)) submissions for CADe applied to radiology images and radiology device data. These guidance documents describe clinical and non-clinical methods to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of CADe devices, including medical image analyzers covered by this proposed order. In addition to the two guidance documents, the Panel's discussion regarding the benefits and risks of medical image analyzers that were discussed at the 2008 and 2009 Panel meetings have been taken into consideration by the Agency when developing the proposed special
Since publication of these guidance documents, the Agency has gained considerable experience in reviewing medical image analyzers using the methods described in the aforementioned guidance documents. Further, as part CDRH's 2014-2015 strategic priority “Strike the Right Balance Between Premarket and Postmarket Data Collection,” a retrospective review of class III devices subject to a PMA was completed to determine whether or not, based on our current understanding of the technology, reclassification may be appropriate. During this retrospective review, FDA determined that sufficient information exists such that the risks of false positive and false negative results, misuse, and device failure can be mitigated, to establish special controls that, together with general controls, can provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of medical image analyzers and therefore proposes these devices be reclassified from class III to class II. On April 29, 2015, FDA published a notice in the
In accordance with section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR part 860, subpart C, FDA is proposing to reclassify postamendments medical image analyzers, including CADe devices for mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection, from class III into class II. FDA believes that there is sufficient information to establish special controls, in addition to general controls, that would effectively mitigate the risks to health identified in section V and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of these devices. Absent the special controls identified in this proposed order, general controls applicable to the device are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
FDA is proposing to create a separate classification regulation for medical image analyzer devices that will be reclassified from class III to II. Under this proposed order, if finalized, the medical image analyzer devices will be identified as a prescription device. As such, the prescription device must satisfy prescription labeling requirements (see § 801.109 (21 CFR 801.109),
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act, if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness and, therefore, does not intend to exempt these proposed class II devices from the premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a 510(k) and receive clearance prior to marketing the device.
This proposal, if finalized, will decrease regulatory burden on the medical device industry and will reduce private costs and expenditures required to comply with Federal Regulations. Specifically, regulated industry will no longer have to submit a PMA but can instead submit a 510(k) to the Agency for review prior to marketing their device. A 510(k) is a less-burdensome pathway to market a device which typically results in a more timely premarket review compared to a PMA and reduces the regulatory burden on industry in addition to providing more timely access of these types of devices to patients.
From the Panel discussions on March 4-5, 2008, and November 18, 2009, along with the peer-reviewed literature (Refs. 5-8) and FDA's experiences over the years in reviewing submissions for these devices and similar devices, FDA determined the probable risks to health associated with medical image analyzers including CADe devices for mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection are as follows: (1) False positive results may result in complications, such as incorrect management of the patient with possible adverse effects, and unnecessary additional radiology imaging and/or invasive procedures, such as biopsy; (2) false negative results could result in complications, including incorrect diagnosis and delay in disease management; (3) the device could be misused to analyze images from an unintended patient population or on images acquired with incompatible imaging hardware or incompatible image acquisition parameters, resulting in possibly lower device performance; (4) the device could be misused by not following the appropriate reading protocol, which may lead to lower sensitivity; and (5) device failure could result in the absence or delay of device output, or incorrect device output, which could likewise lead to inaccurate patient assessment.
After considering the information above, FDA has determined that all class III medical image analyzers currently approved by FDA should be reclassified into class II on the basis that special controls, in addition to general controls, can be established to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. FDA believes that the risks to health associated with medical image analyzers applied to mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection can be mitigated with special controls and that these mitigations will provide a reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness. FDA's reasons for reclassification of these devices are as follows:
• The risk of false positive results and false negative results can be mitigated by demonstrating, through clinical performance assessment (
• The risk associated with misuse of the medical image analyzers on an unintended population can be mitigated by specifying in the labeling and indications for use of the device the intended patient population for which the device has been demonstrated to be effective. This risk can be further mitigated by special controls that require informing intended users in the labeling of foreseeable situations in which the device is likely to fail or not to operate at its expected performance level.
• The risk associated with misuse of the medical image analyzer on images acquired from unintended image acquisition hardware or image acquisition parameters can be mitigated by special controls that require including in the device labeling specifications for compatible imaging hardware and imaging protocols.
• The risk resulting from not following the intended reading protocol can be mitigated by including in the labeling the indications for use of the device, by providing adequate instructions for use including a description of the intended reading protocol, and by special controls requiring that the device labeling provide a detailed description of user training that addresses appropriate reading protocols for the device.
• The risk of device failure can be mitigated by requiring design verification and validation testing, and special controls that require device operating instructions. This risk can be further mitigated by special controls that require informing users in the labeling of foreseeable situations in which the device is likely to fail or not to operate at its expected performance level.
FDA believes that the following special controls, in addition to general controls, are sufficient to mitigate the risks to health described in section V and provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for these medical image analyzers:
• Design verification and validation must include detailed descriptions of image analysis algorithms, detailed descriptions of study protocols and datasets, results from performance testing demonstrating the device improves reader performance in the intended use population, standalone performance testing protocols and results, and appropriate software documentation. Performance testing ensures that the risk of false positive and false negative results is reduced.
• Labeling for the device must include detailed descriptions of the following: patient population, the intended reading protocol, the intended user and user training, device inputs and outputs, compatible imaging hardware and imaging protocols. In addition, the labeling for the device must also include applicable warnings, limitations, precautions, device operating instructions, and a detailed summary of the performance testing. Detailed instructions for use and expected device performance on a dataset representative of the intended population in labeling helps minimize the risk of false positive and false negative results. Labeling ensures proper use of the device, including warnings to inform users of foreseeable situations in which the device is likely to fail or not to operate at its expected performance level.
Table 1 shows how FDA believes the special controls set forth in the proposed order will mitigate each of the risks to health described in section V.
In addition, FDA is proposing to limit these devices to prescription use under § 801.109. Prescription devices are exempt from the requirement for adequate directions for use for the layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act and § 801.5, as long as the conditions of § 801.109 are met (referring to 21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)). Under § 807.81, the device would continue to be subject to 510(k) notification requirements.
If this proposed order is finalized, medical image analyzers including CADe devices for mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection will be reclassified into class II. The reclassification will be codified in § 892.2070. FDA believes that adherence to the proposed special controls, in addition to the general controls, is necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the devices. FDA intends to update the guidance document entitled “Clinical Performance Assessment: Considerations for Computer-Assisted Detection Devices Applied to Radiology Images and Radiology Device Data—Premarket Approval (PMA) and Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions” to make it consistent with this reclassification upon finalization of this proposed reclassification order.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) 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.
FDA tentatively concludes that this proposed order contains no new collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) is not required. This
FDA proposes that any final order based on this proposed order become effective 30 days after its date of publication in the
The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see
Radiology devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR part 892 be amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(a)
(b)
(1) Design verification and validation must include:
(i) A detailed description of the image analysis algorithms including a description of the algorithm inputs and outputs, each major component or block, and algorithm limitations.
(ii) A detailed description of pre-specified performance testing methods and dataset(s) used to assess whether the device will improve reader performance as intended and to characterize the standalone device performance. Performance testing includes one or more standalone tests, side-by-side comparisons, or a reader study, as applicable.
(iii) Results from performance testing that demonstrate that the device improves reader performance in the intended use population when used in accordance with the instructions for use. The performance assessment must be based on appropriate diagnostic accuracy measures (
(iv) Appropriate software documentation (
(2) Labeling must include the following:
(i) A detailed description of the patient population for which the device is indicated for use.
(ii) A detailed description of the intended reading protocol.
(iii) A detailed description of the intended user and user training that addresses appropriate reading protocols for the device.
(iv) A detailed description of the device inputs and outputs.
(v) A detailed description of compatible imaging hardware and imaging protocols.
(vi) Discussion of warnings, precautions, and limitations must include situations in which the device may fail or may not operate at its expected performance level (
(vii) Device operating instructions.
(viii) A detailed summary of the performance testing, including: test methods, dataset characteristics, results, and a summary of sub-analyses on case distributions stratified by relevant
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take the following four actions regarding the South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP): Approve the portion of South Carolina's September 5, 2017, SIP submittal seeking to change reliance from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for certain regional haze requirements; convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of South Carolina's regional haze plan to a full approval; remove EPA's Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for South Carolina, which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of South Carolina's regional haze plan; and convert the conditional approvals of the visibility prong of South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM
Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0073 at
Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at
Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires states to submit regional haze plans that contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) as determined by the state. Under the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such “BART-eligible” sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART.
EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART in revisions to the regional haze program made in 2005.
Due to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was “fatally flawed” and its resulting status as a temporary measure following that ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze plans to the extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the
In the June 7, 2012, limited disapproval action, EPA also amended the RHR to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a given pollutant—either a CSAPR federal trading program implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision—qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.
Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR.
On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45481), EPA issued a final rule affirming the continued validity of the Agency's 2012 determination that participation in CSAPR meets the RHR's criteria for an alternative to the application of source-specific BART.
A portion of South Carolina's September 5, 2017, SIP submittal seeks to correct the deficiencies identified in the June 7, 2012, limited disapproval of its regional haze plan submitted on December 17, 2007, by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR.
By statute, plans meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years (or less, if the Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state
Through this action, EPA is proposing to convert the conditional approvals of the prong 4 portions of South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO
On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour primary SO
On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO
On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary PM
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation plan to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's efforts to protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).
The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP submission may satisfy prong 4. One way that a state can meet the requirements is via confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that the state has an approved regional haze plan that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A fully approved regional haze plan will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.
Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze plan, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and
South Carolina's July 17, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone submission; April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO
On April 19, 2016, South Carolina submitted a commitment letter to EPA to submit a SIP revision that adopts provisions for participation in the CSAPR annual NO
EPA is proposing to approve the regional haze portion of the State's September 5, 2017, SIP revision replacing reliance on CAIR with CSAPR, and to convert EPA's previous action on South Carolina's regional haze plan from a limited approval/limited disapproval to a full approval because final approval of this portion of the SIP revision would correct the deficiencies that led to EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of the State's regional haze plan. Specifically, EPA's approval of the regional haze portion of South Carolina's September 5, 2017, SIP revision would satisfy the SO
As described above, EPA is proposing to take the following actions: (1) Approve the regional haze plan portion of South Carolina's September 5, 2017, SIP submission to change reliance from CAIR to CSAPR; (2) convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of South Carolina's December 17, 2007, regional haze plan to a full approval; (3) remove EPA's FIP for South Carolina which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of South Carolina's regional haze plan; and (4) convert EPA's September 26, 2016, conditional approvals to full approvals of the prong 4 portion of South Carolina's July 17, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone submission; April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Are not significant regulatory actions 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);
• Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Are 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
• Do 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);
• Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are 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
• Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, these proposed actions for South Carolina do not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) because they do not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On October 14, 2016, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission for the 2012 Fine Particle (PM
Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0644 at
Carolyn Persoon, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR 18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8290,
Throughout this document, wherever “we”, “us” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On December 15, 2012, EPA promulgated the 2012 PM
To provide guidance on the CAA requirements for state and tribal implementation plans to implement the 2012 PM
After Ohio's submission of the attainment plan by the CAA required date of October 14, 2016, EPA released a November 17, 2016 memorandum from Steve Page entitled “Draft PM
With respect to the requirements for an attainment plan for the 2012 PM
EPA utilizes a longstanding general guidance document that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA commonly referred to as the “General Preamble” (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). The General Preamble addresses the relationship between the subpart 1 and the subpart 4 requirements and provides recommendations to states for meeting statutory requirements for particulate matter attainment planning. Specifically, the General Preamble explains that requirements applicable to Moderate area attainment plan SIP submissions are set forth in subpart 4, but such SIP submissions must also meet the general attainment planning provisions in subpart 1, to the extent these provisions “are not otherwise subsumed by, or integrally related to,” the more specific subpart 4 requirements (57 FR 13538). Additionally, EPA finalized the PM
The CAA requirements of subpart 1 for attainment plans include: (i) The section 172(c)(1) RACM/reasonably available control technology (RACT) and attainment demonstrations; (ii) the section 172(c)(2) requirement to demonstrate RFP; (iii) the section 172(c)(3) requirement for emission inventories; (iv) the section 172(c)(5) requirements for a NNSR permitting program; and (v) the section 172(c)(9) requirement for contingency measures.
The CAA subpart 4 requirements for Moderate areas are generally comparable with the subpart 1 requirements and include: (i) The section 189(a)(1)(A) NNSR permit program requirements; (ii) the section 189(a)(1)(B) requirements for attainment demonstration; (iii) the section 189(a)(1)(C) requirements for RACM; and (iv) the section 189(c) requirements for RFP and quantitative milestones. Section 189(e) also requires that states regulate major sources of PM
OEPA, in coordination with the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO), developed the attainment plan SIP submission for the Cleveland area. This plan was subsequently put through public process, adopted by the state, and submitted by the OEPA to EPA. This section describes the relevant contents of the 2012 PM
The 2012 PM
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires the development of an emissions inventory for nonattainment areas. In addition, the planning and associated modeling requirements set forth in CAA section 189(a) make the development of an accurate and up-to-date emissions inventory a critical element of any viable attainment plan. EPA guidance specifies the best practices for developing an emissions inventory for PM
OEPA's submission included detailed information for the sources in the emissions inventory including facility name, ID, location, and emissions, as well as documentation on mobile source model inputs for both on-road and nonroad sources (
EPA has reviewed the base-year emissions inventory and finds that it satisfies the CAA section 172(c)(3) requirement for a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual 2011 emissions of the relevant pollutants for PM
Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that a PM
Using air quality modeling, an attainment demonstration must project that future air quality levels in the nonattainment area will be below the standard. OEPA and LADCO conducted modeling in accordance with EPA's April 2007 (and where appropriate, draft December 2014) “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM
Per the PM
OEPA and LADCO calculated the baseline design value for PM
Next, OEPA and LADCO compiled base-year emission inventories (as discussed above) and projected emission inventories for the attainment year 2021. LADCO utilized emission inventories compiled by EPA for the years 2011, 2017, and 2025 as the starting point. EPA's 2011 emissions inventory (Version 2011eh) is based on the 2011 NEI, version 2 (2011NEIv2). The inventory uses hourly 2011 continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data for electric generating units (EGUs) emissions, hourly on-road mobile emissions, and 2011 day-specific wild and prescribed fire data. Emissions include all criteria pollutants and precursors (CAPs), and a few hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). See EPA's Technical Support Document (EPA, 2015A) for a thorough description of the methodology used to develop the 2011 emissions inventory.
EPA projected future emission inventories for the years 2017 and 2025 based on the 2011 baseline inventory. The future-year scenarios incorporate current “on-the-books” regulations, and do not include any additional measures or controls.
For EGU projections, Ohio and LADCO relied on the U.S. Energy Information Administration's “High Oil and Gas Resource” (See Docket for detailed discussion). The projected emissions inventory not only accounts for growth in economic sectors, but also includes emissions controls (existing or future regulations) that will impact sources in the area. In this case, OEPA and LADCO only modeled controls that have been promulgated, with no new future controls being added since OEPA has determined that additional RACT and RACM would not be necessary for expeditious attainment, and that current controls in the area are sufficient to meet the RACM requirement. For modeling purposes no additional RACM/RACT was applied to future year inventories.
The base-year and projected emission inventories were used in a photochemical grid model, the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx), to project the expected change from base-year to future year design values. The modeled attainment demonstration results in a predicted future-year concentration at each PM
Based on the above, EPA is proposing to approve OEPA's demonstration of attainment for 2021 as meeting the statutory requirement in CAA 189(a)(1)(B).
The general SIP planning requirements for nonattainment areas under subpart 1 include CAA section 172(c)(1), which requires implementation of all RACM (including RACT). Section 172(c)(1) requires that attainment plans provide for the implementation of RACM (including RACT) to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore, what constitutes RACM and RACT is related to what is necessary for attainment, as well as expeditious attainment, in a given area.
Subpart 4 also requires states to develop attainment plans that evaluate potential control measures and impose RACM and RACT on sources within a Moderate nonattainment area that are necessary to expeditiously attain the NAAQS. Specifically, CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) requires that Moderate nonattainment plans provide for implementation of RACM and RACT no later than four years after the area is designated as nonattainment. As with subpart 1, the terms RACM and RACT are not defined within subpart 4. Nor do the provisions of subpart 4 specify how states are to meet the RACM and RACT requirements. However, EPA's longstanding guidance in the General Preamble provides recommendations for determining which control measures constitute RACM and RACT for purposes of meeting the statutory requirements of subpart 4 (57 FR 13540-13541).
For both RACM and RACT, EPA notes that an overarching principle is that if a given control measure is not needed to attain the relevant NAAQS in a given area as expeditiously as practicable, then that control measure would not be required as RACM or RACT because it would not be reasonable to impose controls that are not in fact needed for attainment purposes. Accordingly, a RACM and RACT analysis is a process to identify emission sources, evaluate
EPA has long applied a policy that states must evaluate the combined effect of reasonably available control measures that, if implemented collectively, would advance the attainment date by at least one year and should be adopted. Since the area's preliminary data indicate that it will attain the NAAQs based on the 2015-2017 design value period, it is not necessary to implement additional controls. The data indicates that the area is attaining the standard with current Federal, state, and local permanent and enforceable measures.
OEPA provided a RACM and RACT analysis in Appendix E of the 2012 PM
OEPA provided an attainment analysis that consisted of: First, a modeling demonstration that the area would attain by the attainment date in 2021 with current on-the-books controls and measures; and second, a demonstration showing that by interpolating modeled future values from 2021 with 2016 design values at the monitored sites, the area would be attaining the standard in both 2020 (at 11.0 μg/m
For the precursor demonstration, OEPA and LADCO initially performed a “concentration-based” contribution analysis using speciated monitoring data to determine whether NH
Therefore, the state proceeded with a sensitivity analysis to determine the impact of reducing NH
The submission was made by the state prior to the date that the precursor guidance was issued by EPA; however, the modeled reduction levels are still within the suggested range of 30-70% reductions found in the precursor guidance.
The results of the 2021 attainment planning sensitivity analyses show modeled impacts from reducing NH
EPA's precursor guidance noted that there may be cases where precursor emissions have an impact above the recommended contribution thresholds, yet do not “significantly contribute” to levels that exceed the standard in the area (pursuant to section 189(e)). Under the PM
Based on a number of factors, in this case EPA believes that NH
Based on the above, EPA agrees with the determination by Ohio that for attainment planning purposes, additional controls on existing sources of NH
OEPA conducted a six-step RACM analysis that focused on direct PM
As detailed in OEPA's RACT/RACM analysis in Appendix E, many of the sources are already well controlled. The state then identified current controls for each source as well as any additional measures or controls that are potentially available to each of the identified sources using EPA's “Menu of Control Measures” document, available online at
In regard to area and mobile sources, a state may tailor the analysis to the considerations that are relevant to the local circumstances, such as the condition and extent of needed infrastructure, population size, and workforce type and habits, all of which may impact the availability of potential control measures in the area. (81 FR 58010)
OEPA also determined economic feasibility of each identified measure or technology. That analysis included consideration of the cost of reducing emissions in the area and the difference between the cost of an emissions reduction measure at a particular source in the area and the cost of emissions reduction measures that have been implemented at similar sources in the same or other areas.
OEPA determined that the technologically feasible measures that were identified were not economically feasible. For example, the state determined that the cost-effectiveness ranged from $5800 per ton to more than $40,000 per ton for measures that were found to be technologically feasible for major stationary sources. In addition, the highest costs of reductions were generally linked to controls of direct PM
Finally, OEPA analyzed the implementation time frame of controls within four years and the earliest applicable attainment date, which by interpolation would be the end of 2017, and determined that the area would attain the standard prior to the state rulemaking and implementation of additional controls in the area. In fact, the area has preliminary 2015-2017 data indicating that it has a three-year design value below the level of the NAAQS, making implementation of additional controls to achieve attainment moot.
As noted by OEPA, both the Federal and state “on the books” controls have led to additional control and will lead to additional emissions reductions in the future. Because of the historic nonattainment status of this area for both ozone and PM
EPA finds OEPA's determination reasonable, and is proposing to approve OEPA's determination that current controls meet the RACM/RACT requirement and that additional controls are not reasonable for other sources in the area or necessary to expeditiously attain the NAAQS.
As noted above, the attainment demonstration modeling analysis reflecting 2021 projected emissions based on only current controls shows that projected 2021 air quality values at monitoring sites in the area range from 8.07-10.69 µg/m
Based on the above, EPA is proposing to find that current controls on sources in the nonattainment area meet the requirements of section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(C) of the CAA. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve current controls: Federal mobile source standards, transport rules, Regional Haze plans, and state VOC RACT rules as meeting the RACM/RACT provisions.
In addition to the attainment planning precursor demonstrations, which showed that neither existing sources of VOC nor existing sources of NH
For NNSR permitting purposes, sensitivity analyses examine potential increases in emissions through a model simulation that evaluates the effect on PM
Consistent with EPA's regulation and draft guidance, OEPA and LADCO have performed sensitivity analyses of potential increases in emissions through a model simulation that evaluates the effect on PM
In addition to the modeled emissions increases based on historical growth at sources, LADCO and OEPA did an additional NH
For the VOC analysis, Ohio added 1,486 tpy of VOC emissions at 3 existing source locations where VOC emissions increases potentially could occur in the nonattainment area. Compared to the 2011 inventory, this represents a 75% increase in VOC emissions from existing stationary sources (EGU and non-EGU). Compared to the 2021 projected inventory, this represents an 80% increase in stationary source emissions. For the NH
Ohio found the addition of the NH
While the increase is slightly above the recommended contribution threshold, EPA believes that it is reasonable to conclude that NH
Based on the results of the modeling demonstration and the additional factors described in this section, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's determination that emissions increases of either VOC or NH
Ohio's attainment demonstration modeling, and precursor analysis for both attainment planning RACM and nonattainment NNSR determined that VOCs and NH
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 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).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
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 Connecticut. The SIP revision amends requirements for controlling volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from consumer products and architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings by revising Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) sections 22a-174-40, 22a-174-41, and adding section 22a-174-41a. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of these regulations into the Connecticut SIP. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0099 at
David Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
In the summer of 2011, the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) updated its Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Model Rule, and in the spring of 2013, OTC updated its Consumer Products Model Rule. Connecticut subsequently revised its regulations at RCSA section 22a-174-40, “Consumer Products,” and section 22a-174-41, “Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Products—Phase 1,” and added section 22a-174-41, “Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Products—Phase 2,” which all became effective in the State of Connecticut on October 5, 2017. Connecticut submitted these regulations to EPA in a SIP revision dated October 18, 2017.
EPA last approved Connecticut's RCSA section 22a-174-40, “Consumer Products,” into the Connecticut SIP on June 9, 2014 (79 FR 32873) and last approved RCSA section 22a-174-41, “Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Products,” into the Connecticut SIP on August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50595).
Connecticut revised section 22a-174-40, “Consumer Products,” is based on the 2013 OTC Model Rule for Consumer Products. Connecticut's rule contains limits for more categories of consumer products than EPA's National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products rule at 40 CFR part 59 subpart C (63 FR 48831, September 11, 1998). The regulation limits are also equal to, or more stringent than, those found in EPA's consumer products rule.
The consumer products listed in Section 22a-174-40 include items sold to retail consumers for household or automotive use, as well as products used in commercial and institutional settings, such as beauty shops, schools and hospitals. The regulation has VOC content limits for over one hundred categories. In addition to the VOC emissions limits, the regulation includes: Limits on toxic contaminants in antiperspirants and deodorants and other consumer products; requirements for charcoal lighter materials, aerosol adhesives and floor wax strippers; requirements for products containing ozone-depleting compounds; product labeling requirements; and record keeping, reporting and testing requirements.
Connecticut revised RCSA section 22a-174-41, “Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Products” renaming the section “Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Products—Phase 1,” and changing its applicability to only regulate AIM coatings manufactured through April 30, 2018. For AIM coatings manufactured on and after May 1, 2018, Connecticut added a new section 22a-174-41a “Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Products—Phase 2,” which contains a number of new coating categories and reduced VOC content limits for some existing coating categories, consistent with the 2011 OTC AIM model rule. The limits in the Connecticut AIM rules remain as stringent as, or more stringent than, those contained in the EPA's AIM rule at 40 CFR part 59 Subpart D (63 FR 48848; September 11, 1998).
Connecticut's revised RCSA sections 22a-174-40, 22a-174-41, and new section 22a-174-41a include additional and more stringent VOC emission controls than the previous SIP-approved version of the consumer product and AIM rules. Thus, the SIP revision satisfies the requirements of Section 110(l) of the CAA because the revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Accordingly, we are proposing to approve Connecticut's revised regulations into the Connecticut SIP.
EPA is proposing to approve and incorporate into the Connecticut SIP revised RCSA section 22a-174-40, “Consumer Products,” revised section 22a-174-41, “Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Products—Phase 1,” and new section 22a-174-41a “Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Products—Phase 2,” all of which became effective in the State of Connecticut on October 5, 2017.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Connecticut RCSA sections 22a-174-40, 22a-174-41, and 22a-174-41a. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) interstate transport SIP requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO
Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0109 at
Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. EPA Region 8, (303) 312-7104,
On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour SO
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4).
In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve the prong 1 and prong 2 portions of infrastructure SIP submissions submitted by: Colorado on July 17, 2013 and February 16, 2018; Montana on July 15, 2013; North Dakota on March 7, 2013; South Dakota on December 20, 2013; and Wyoming on March 6, 2015, as containing adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in these states will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO
Although SO
Given the physical properties of SO
As discussed in Section III of this proposed action, the EPA first reviewed each state's analysis to assess how the state evaluated the transport of SO
In this section, we provide an overview of each state's 2010 SO
Colorado conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether SO
The EPA proposes to find that Colorado's SIP meets the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010 SO
We reviewed 2014-2016 SO
The EPA reviewed ambient air quality data in Colorado and neighboring states to see whether there were any monitoring sites, particularly near the Colorado border, with elevated SO
The data presented in Table 2, above, show that Colorado's network of SO
As noted, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources in Colorado in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility, based on the “urban scale” definition contained in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, Section 4.4. Colorado assessed point sources up to 50 km from state borders to evaluate trends and SO
Table 3 shows the distance from the sources listed therein to the nearest out-of-state source emitting above 100 tpy of SO
With regard to the Rawhide Energy Station, because it is located within 50 km of the Frontier Petroleum Refinery in Cheyenne, Wyoming, the EPA has assessed potential SO
The EPA also reviewed the location of sources in neighboring states emitting more than 100 tpy of SO
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 1, we reviewed ambient SO
In its prong 2 analysis, Colorado reviewed potential SO
As shown in Table 1, the statewide SO
As noted in Colorado's submission, any future large sources of SO
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, we reviewed additional information about emission trends, as well as the technical information considered for interstate transport prong 1. We find that the combination of low ambient concentrations of SO
Montana relied on existing programs to assert that SO
The EPA proposes to find that Montana's SIP meets the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010 SO
We reviewed 2014-2016 SO
The EPA reviewed ambient air quality data in Montana and neighboring states to see whether there were any monitoring sites, particularly near the Montana border, with elevated SO
As noted, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources in Montana in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility, based on the “urban scale” definition contained in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, Section 4.4. Therefore, we assessed point sources up to 50 km from state borders to evaluate trends and SO
The EPA also reviewed the location of sources in neighboring states emitting more than 100 tpy
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 1, we reviewed ambient SO
The EPA has reviewed available information on SO
As shown in Table 1, the statewide SO
As noted in Montana's submission, any future large sources of SO
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, the EPA has incorporated additional information into our evaluation of Montana's submission, which did not include an independent analysis of prong 2. In doing so, we have reviewed information about emission trends, as well as the technical information considered for our interstate transport prong 1 analysis. We find that the combination of low ambient concentrations of SO
North Dakota conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether SO
The EPA proposes to find that North Dakota's SIP meets the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010 SO
To date, the only area in a state bordering North Dakota that has been designated nonattainment for the 2010 SO
As noted, North Dakota also referred to ambient monitor values in its transport analysis. We reviewed these, as well as the more recent 2014-2016 SO
The EPA reviewed
As noted, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources in North Dakota in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility, based on the “urban scale” definition contained in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, Section 4.4. Therefore, we assessed North Dakota sources of 100 tpy
As shown, there are six North Dakota sources within 50 kilometers of a cross-state source, and each neighboring state source is located in the State of Minnesota. The EPA has therefore assessed potential SO
With regard to the Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks, Minnesota combined metropolitan area, the EPA does not have monitoring or modeling data to indicate transport from Grand Forks, North Dakota, to East Grand Forks, Minnesota. On the contrary, wind roses for three local meteorological stations indicate prevailing winds to be north-south oriented as opposed to west-east that would be conducive to interstate transport.
With regard to the Crookston, Minnesota area, the EPA finds the distance between the Hillsboro Sugar Mill and Crookston (49 km) makes it very unlikely that SO
With regard to the Moorhead, Minnesota, and Fargo, North Dakota, combined metropolitan area, the EPA reviewed available monitoring data. There is one SO
Finally, with regard to the Fergus Falls, Minnesota area, air quality modeling submitted to the EPA by the State of Minnesota for the Hoot Lake Plant indicates that the highest predicted 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour concentration within the modeling domain is 55.8 ppb.
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 1, we reviewed ambient SO
In its prong 2 analysis, North Dakota reviewed potential SO
As shown in Table 1, the statewide SO
As noted in North Dakota's submission, any future large sources of SO
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, we reviewed additional information about emission trends, as well as the technical information considered for interstate transport prong 1. We find that the combination of low ambient concentrations of SO
South Dakota conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether SO
The EPA proposes to find that South Dakota's SIP meets the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010 SO
We reviewed 2014-2016 SO
The EPA
South Dakota also analyzed potential impacts to the Billings, Montana area, which was still in nonattainment status at the time of South Dakota's submission. As noted in the section of this notice about North Dakota, the EPA redesignated the former Billings 2010 SO
The data presented in Table 9, above, show that South Dakota's network of SO
As noted, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources in South Dakota in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility, based on the “urban scale” definition contained in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, Section 4.4. Therefore, we assessed point sources up to 50 km from state borders to evaluate trends and SO
With regard to potential cross-state impacts from the Big Stone Power Plant, air quality modeling submitted to the EPA by South Dakota indicates that the highest predicted 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour concentration within the modeling domain surrounding the power plant is 57.88 ppb.
The EPA also reviewed the location of sources in neighboring states emitting more than 100 tpy of SO
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 1, we reviewed ambient SO
The EPA has reviewed available information on SO
As shown in Table 1, the statewide SO
As noted in South Dakota's submission, any future large sources of SO
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, the EPA has incorporated additional information into our evaluation of South Dakota's submission, which did not include an independent analysis of prong 2. In doing so, we have reviewed additional information about emission trends, as well as the technical information considered for interstate transport prong 1. We find that the combination of low ambient concentrations of SO
Wyoming conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether SO
The EPA proposes to find that Wyoming's SIP meets the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010 SO
Wyoming focused its analysis on potential impacts to the Billings, Montana area, which was still in nonattainment status at the time of Wyoming's submission. As noted, the EPA redesignated the former Billings 2010 SO
We reviewed 2014-2016 SO
The EPA reviewed ambient air quality data in Wyoming and neighboring states to see whether there were any monitoring sites, particularly near the Wyoming border, with elevated SO
As noted, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources in Wyoming in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility, based on the “urban scale” definition contained in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, Section 4.4. Therefore, we assessed point sources up to 50 km from state borders to evaluate trends and SO
With regard to the Frontier Petroleum Refinery in Cheyenne, the EPA has assessed potential SO
The EPA reviewed available monitoring data in Cheyenne, Wyoming. One monitor is located 6 km northeast of the Frontier Petroleum Refinery (Site ID 560210100—See Table 11), and recorded a 2014-2016 SO
With regard to the Elk Basin Gas Plant, the EPA does not have information at this time suggesting that the State of Montana is impacted by emissions from Elk Basin Gas Plant or other emissions activity originating in Wyoming in violation of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, we do not have evidence that demonstrates that emissions from this source will significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO
With regard to potential cross-state impacts from the Naughton Power Plant, air quality modeling submitted to the EPA by Wyoming indicates that the highest predicted 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour concentration within the modeling domain surrounding the power plant is 56.3 ppb.
For the other sources listed in Table 12, the low levels of emissions and large distances between Wyoming sources within 50 km of a state border and the nearest SO
The EPA also reviewed the location of sources in neighboring states emitting more than 100 tpy of SO
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 1, we reviewed ambient SO
The EPA has reviewed the analysis presented by Wyoming and additional information on SO
As shown in Table 1, the statewide SO
As noted in Wyoming's submission, any future large sources of SO
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, the EPA has incorporated additional information into our evaluation of Wyoming's submission, which did not include an independent analysis of prong 2. In doing so, we reviewed information about emission trends, as well as the technical information considered for interstate transport prong 1. We find that the combination of low ambient concentrations of SO
The EPA is proposing to approve the following submittals as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed actions merely approve state law as meeting federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:
• Are not significant regulatory actions 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);
• are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• are 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
• do 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);
• do not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• do not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, these SIPs are not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state plan submitted by the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on May 31, 2017, and supplemented on December 19, 2017, and February 2, 2018, for implementing and enforcing the Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units. The state plan provides for implementation and enforcement of the EG, as finalized by EPA on June 23, 2016, applicable to existing CISWI units for which construction commenced on or before June 4, 2010, or for which modification or reconstruction commenced after June 4, 2010, but no later than August 7, 2013. The state plan establishes emission limits, monitoring, operating, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for affected CISWI units.
Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0184] at
Jason Dressler, South Air Enforcement and Toxics Section, Air Enforcement and Toxics Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Mr. Dressler can be reached via telephone at 404-562-9208 and via email at
Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) directs the Administrator to develop regulations under section 111(d) of the Act limiting emissions of nine air pollutants (particulate matter, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, and cadmium) from four categories of solid waste incineration units: Municipal solid waste; hospital, medical, and infectious solid waste; commercial and industrial solid waste; and other solid waste.
On December 1, 2000, EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS) and EG to reduce air pollution from CISWI units, which are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD, respectively.
Section 129(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to submit to EPA for approval state plans and revisions that implement and enforce the EG—in this case, 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. State plans and revisions must be at least as protective as the EG, and become federally enforceable upon approval by EPA. The procedures for adoption and submittal of state plans and revisions are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.
Florida submitted a state plan to implement and enforce the EG for existing CISWI units in the state
Under 40 CFR 60.26 and 60.2515(a)(9), an approvable state plan must demonstrate that the State has legal authority to adopt and implement the EG's emission standards and compliance schedule. In its submittal, Florida cites the following State law provisions for its authority to implement and enforce the plan: Florida Statutes (F.S.) Sec. 403.031 (definitions); F.S. Sec. 403.061 (promulgate air quality plans, adopt rules, take enforcement action, set standards, monitor air quality, require reporting, permitting, and implement the CAA); F.S. Sec. 403.087 and 403.0872 (permitting); F.S. Sec. 403.121 (judicial and administrative remedies), 403.131 injunctive relief), 403.141 (civil liability), and 403.161 (civil and criminal penalties); F.S. Sec. 403.201 (variances); F.S. Sec. 403.716 (operator training); and, F.S. Sec. 403.8055 (incorporation by reference of Federal standards). Florida also notes that it has adopted rules into the Florida Administrative Code to implement and enforce its air quality program. EPA has reviewed the cited authorities and has preliminarily concluded that the State has adequately demonstrated legal authority to implement and enforce the CISWI state plan in Florida.
Under 40 CFR 60.24(a), a state plan must include emission standards, defined at 40 CFR 60.21(f) as “a legally enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable rate of emissions into the
Under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(1), a state plan must include a complete source inventory of all CISWI units. Florida has identified affected units at five facilities: Titan Pennsuco, Argos Cement Newbery Kiln 1, Argos Cement Newberry Kiln 2, Suwannee American Cement, and American Cement Company LLC. Omission from this inventory of CISWI units does not exempt an affected facility from the applicable section 111(d)/129 requirements. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Florida has met the affected unit inventory requirements under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(1).
Under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(2), a state plan must include an emissions inventory of the pollutants regulated by the EG. Emissions from CISWI units may contain cadmium, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Florida submitted an emissions inventory for CISWI units as part of its state plan, which was supplemented on February 2, 2018. This emissions inventory contains CISWI unit emissions rates for each regulated pollutant. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Florida has met the emission inventory requirements of 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(2).
Under 40 CFR 60.24(a), 60.24(c), and 60.2515(a)(4), the state plan must include emission standards that are no less stringent than the EG. Florida has incorporated the emission standards from the EG by reference into its regulations at Rule 62-204.800(9)(f), F.A.C., with one exception: For units in the waste-burning kiln subcategory, Florida's state plan provides an equivalent production-based mercury emission limit of 58 pounds of mercury per million tons of clinker, rather than the concentration-based standard of 0.011 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter contained in Table 8 to subpart DDDD of part 60.
Under 40 CFR 60.2515(b), EPA has the authority to approve plan requirements that deviate from the content of the EG, so long as the state demonstrates that the requirements are at least as protective. In the February 7, 2013 rule adopting the EG for existing CISWI units, EPA discussed its methodology for developing emission limits for the subcategories of sources subject to the rule.
In other words, EPA has previously explained that the equivalent production-based emission limit of 58 pounds of mercury per million tons of clinker for waste-burning kilns is at least as protective as the standard contained in the EG. Because Florida's state plan imposes either this equivalent standard or the applicable EG on waste-burning kilns—and imposes the applicable EG on all other affected CISWI units—we have preliminarily concluded that Florida's CISWI plan satisfies the emissions limitations requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(c).
40 CFR 60.2515(a)(4) also requires a state plan to include operator training and qualification requirements, a waste management plan, and operating limits that are at least as protective as the EG. Florida's state plan incorporates these requirements from the EG at Rule 62-204.800(9)(f)(3)-(5). Thus, we have preliminarily concluded that Florida's state plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(c) and 60.2515(a)(4).
Under 40 CFR 60.24(a), (c), and (e) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(3), each state plan must include a compliance schedule, which requires affected CISWI units to expeditiously comply with the state plan requirements. EPA has the authority to approve compliance schedule requirements that deviate from those imposed under the EG, so long as those are at least as protective as the EG.
In the state plan at Rule 62-204.800(9)(f)(7), F.A.C., Florida generally requires that affected sources comply with the EG initial compliance requirements for CISWI units, which EPA has codified at 40 CFR 60.2700 through 40 CFR 60.2706. However, for waste-burning kilns complying with the production-based mercury emission limit, Florida's state plan requires compliance with the requirements applicable to Portland Cement Manufacturing Kilns, which are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL.
As noted above, EPA has authority to approve requirements that are at least as stringent as the EG. Here, we have preliminarily concluded that the state plan's compliance schedule requirements for waste-burning kilns contain all relevant elements of the EG, and also impose additional recordkeeping requirements that are necessary for the effective implementation and enforcement of the equivalent limit. For these reasons, we have preliminarily concluded that Florida's state plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(a), (c), and (e) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(3).
Under 40 CFR 60.24(b)(2), 60.25(b), and 60.2515(a)(5), an approvable state plan must require that sources conduct testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. Florida's state plan incorporates by reference the model rule provisions of the EG: For performance testing at Rule 62-204.800(9)(f)(6), F.A.C.; for monitoring at Rule 62-204.800(9)(f)(9), F.A.C.; and, for recordkeeping and reporting at Rule 62-204.800(9)(f)(10), F.A.C. In addition to these requirements, Florida imposes further monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for waste-burning kilns operating under a production-based mercury emission limit. Because Florida's state plan imposes requirements that are at least as stringent as those imposed under Federal law for testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, we have preliminarily concluded that Florida's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(b)(2), 60.25(b), and 60.2515(a)(5).
40 CFR 60.23 sets forth the public participation requirements for each state plan. The State must conduct a public hearing; make all relevant plan materials available to the public prior to the hearing; and provide notice of such hearing to the public, the Administrator of EPA, each local air pollution control agency, and, in the case of an interstate region, each state within the region. 40
In its state plan submittal, as supplemented by its December 19, 2017 letter, Florida has requested approval of alternative public participation requirements for this and future state plan submittals. If approved, Florida intends to apply these modified public participation procedures to future state plans and state plan revisions. As Florida notes, the State published notice of the proposed revisions to the state plan in the Florida Administrative Register. In the notice, the State provided the public with an opportunity to submit comments and to request a public hearing, which would be held on February 21, 2017. Because Florida did not receive any comments or requests for hearing, however, the hearing was not held.
In these circumstances, we believe that Florida's procedures, although different from the procedures required under 40 CFR 60.23(c) and (d), provide for adequate notice to and participation of the public. We also note that the State's alternative procedures comply with the notice requirements for State Implementation Plan submittals under CAA section 110 and 40 CFR part 51. Thus, EPA is proposing in this action to approve Florida's alternative public participation procedures for this and future CAA section 111(d)/129 state plan submissions.
Under 40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(7), the State must provide in its state plan for annual reports to EPA on progress in enforcement of the plan. Accordingly, Florida provides in its plan that it will submit reports on progress in plan enforcement to EPA on an annual (calendar year) basis, commencing with the first full reporting period after plan revision approval. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Florida's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(7).
Pursuant to CAA section 111(d), CAA section 129, and 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and DDDD, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's state plan for regulation of CISWI units as submitted on May 31, 2017, and supplemented on December 19, 2017, and February 2, 2018. In addition, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart K to reflect this action.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 111(d)/129 plan submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. In reviewing 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided they meet the criteria and objectives of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
In addition, this rule 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. It also 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). And it does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because EPA is not proposing to approve the submitted plan to apply in Indian country located in the state, and because the submitted plan will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride, Intergovernmental relations, Manufacturing, Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Waste treatment and disposal.
42 U.S.C. 7411.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; notice of intent.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site (Site) located in Sandy City, Salt Lake County, Utah, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Utah, through the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance and five-year reviews (FYR), have been completed. However,
Comments must be received by July 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Erna Waterman, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, EPR-SR, Denver, CO 80202, (303) 312-6762, email:
EPA Region 8 announces its intent to delete the remaining portions of Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.
EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the
Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.
The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures in not appropriate.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.
The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
(1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of Intent to Delete.
(2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this notice prior to publication of it today.
(3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate;
(4) The State of Utah, through the UDEQ, has concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.
(5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to Delete in the
(6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.
If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.
The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL.
The 106-acre Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site (UTD988075719) is located 15 miles southeast of Salt Lake City at the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon. Constructed in the 1870s, the Davenport and the Flagstaff smelters treated ores from mines near Alta, Utah. Lead smelting was the dominant industrial activity at the Site. Lead and arsenic were the primary products associated with ore processing. At times copper, gold, silver, and other metals were also produced at the Site. Ore processing and disposal of waste products have resulted in contamination at the Site.
The EPA proposed the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site on the National Priorities List (NPL) in January 2000 and finalized listing of the Site on April 30, 2003 (68 FR 23077). The EPA proposed the Site to the NPL based on studies conducted between 1992 and 2003 due to soil and sediments contaminated with lead and arsenic. Lead levels greater than 200,000 mg/kg were detected in an investigation conducted in 2000.
The Site is divided into three operable units. Operable Unit 1 (OU1) is the southern 28 acres of the Site. It is the location of the former Davenport Smelter and current location of residential properties. Operable Unit 2 (OU2) is the middle and western part of the Site, and is comprised of 29 acres of commercial and undeveloped land. Operable Unit 3 (OU3) is the northern 49 acres of the Site. The location of the former Flagstaff Smelter, which was once agricultural land, is now mostly residential. Wastes were present on the Site for many years and, in some locations, groundwater was in direct contact with visible slag without appreciable impact on groundwater. Concentrations of contaminants of concern (COCs) in groundwater are generally below federal maximum contamination limits (MCLs).
Because portions of OU1 was deleted from the NPL on August 20, 2004 under a Partial Deletion (69 FR 51583), the remaining portions of OU1, OU2 and OU3 are the focus of this deletion.
The former smelters were the suspected source of waste within OU1, OU2 and OU3. Analysis of sample data confirmed that soil contamination was caused by deliberate use of waste as fill and environmental factors transporting smelter waste. The 1999 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment identified arsenic and lead as contaminants of concern. This Risk Assessment established the action levels of 600 mg/kg for lead and 126 mg/kg for arsenic for surface soils. EPA completed a Focused Feasibility Study (FS) in December 2001.
Prior to the signing of the Record on Decision (ROD) in 2009, a removal action in OU1 was conducted. While the majority of OU2 land was undeveloped, there were three residences and a restaurant within OU2. EPA issued a ROD for OU2 dated September 16, 2009, an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) dated July, 2012 and an ESD for OU1/OU3, dated November 11, 2015. These decision documents defined the remedy as follows:
• Soils on properties with principal threat wastes (wastes that fail TCLP and/or is a characteristic hazardous waste) required stabilization and disposal in a RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfill.
• Excavation of a minimum of 18 inches of soil of all properties was recommended for remediation of all residential properties that had soil lead levels which exceeded the established action levels of 600 mg/kg for lead and 126 mg/kg for arsenic.
• Hand excavation would be conducted around affected areas of native vegetation.
• Institutional Controls (ICs) to make sure the remedy is protective.
• Off-Site disposal of contaminated soils and backfill with clean soil.
• Due to physical restrictions presented by topography and existing utility structures, and to preserve mature vegetation to enhance the overall remedy performance, contamination at concentrations greater than action levels could be left in place.
• If removal of contaminated soils was not feasible due to steep slopes and existing structures, these soils remained after construction activities were completed if they did not pose a threat to human health.
The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs), as amended, were to prevent unacceptable exposure risks to current and future human populations presented by contact, ingestion, or inhalation of smelter materials, associated contaminated materials, or COCs derived from the smelter wastes.
In 2004, an OU1 removal action addressed 26 residential properties. Remediation work for OU2 and OU3 was conducted in two removal actions. The contractor mobilized in August 2011. The pre-final inspection of the removal action was on November 16, 2011 and the final inspection on May 29, 2012. The OU2 Construction Completion Report was signed on September 24, 2012. Little Cottonwood Canyon Partners conducted a non-time critical removal action at OU3 under an agreement with the EPA and under oversight of the UDEQ. This action allowed for redevelopment of the agricultural land for residential use. Remediation work for OU3 began on April 26, 2006; the final inspection was
The Operations and Maintenance Plan consists of the following activities: inspection/observation during redevelopment construction; review of development construction plans and specification for conformance with cover requirements; storm water management and irrigation restrictions; and temporary stockpile and covering of soil and slag. Maintaining appropriate soil cover and drainage is a required operation and maintenance IC. The State is responsible for enforcing the cap and soil ICs.
The 2009 OU2 ROD required the establishment of ICs to prevent exposure to contaminated materials and to require State review of future changes to land use. ICs that support limited commercial and residential re-use were adopted by the City of Sandy. In addition, ICs for groundwater and surface water were established by the State to prohibit use as drinking water.
Statutory Five-Year Reviews (FYR) of the Site are required because hazardous substances remain on-Site above levels which allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Two FYRs were conducted, in 2012 and 2017. Both FYRs found the remedy at the Site to be protective. The 2017 FYR identified an issue of needing to clarify roles of local authorities with respect to ICs. The issue was resolved by ensuring Salt Lake County would monitor and enforce ICs. The next five-year review is scheduled to be completed by September 2022.
Major community involvement activities included establishing a local presence by meeting with local property owners and concerned citizens. Outreach efforts included community interviews, fact sheets, letters, flyers, door-to-door visits, public meetings, neighborhood meetings, public comment periods and website updates. The most recent interviews were conducted in the spring 2017 for the FYR. The EPA's Community Involvement criteria associated with 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4) require EPA to conduct interviews and/or gather community input.
Today, approximately seventy percent of the Site has been fully developed for residential and commercial land-use. The successful revitalization of this Site is sustainable, provides valuable reuse, and elevates the quality of life with revitalization for years to come.
The implemented Site-wide remedy achieves the RAOs specified in the September 2009 OU2 ROD and the April 25, 2005 OU1/OU3 ESD for all pathways of exposure. No further Superfund responses are needed to protect human health and the environment at the Site.
The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in consultation with the State of Utah, has determined that all required response actions have been implemented and no further response action is appropriate.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Proposed rule.
DHS is proposing to deregulate HSAR clause 3052.219-70 as the requirements of this clause duplicate the requirements in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. As such, HSAR clause 3052.219-70 is no longer needed to provide guidance to contractors and DHS proposes to remove the clause from the HSAR.
Interested parties should submit written comments to one of the addresses shown below on or before July 5, 2018, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments identified by HSAR Case 2017-001, Rescinding HSAR clause 3052.219-70, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Reporting, using any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “HSAR Case 2017-001” under the heading “Enter Keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “HSAR Case 2017-001.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “HSAR Case 2017-001” on your attached document.
•
•
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Candace Lightfoot, Procurement Analyst, DHS, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Acquisition Policy and Legislation at (202) 447-0882 or email
On December 4, 2003, DHS published an interim final rule to establish the Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR). 68 FR 67867. On May 2, 2006, DHS published
On June 16, 2010, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council issued a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to require contractors' small business subcontract reports be submitted using the eSRS, rather than Standard Forms 294 and 295. 75 FR 34260; FAR Case 2005-040. This change to the FAR was issued under Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-42 of June 16, 2010. 75 FR 34291. As a result of the FAR revision HSAR clause 3052.219-70 is no longer needed to provide guidance to contractors on the eSRS requirements. Therefore, DHS is proposing to remove HSAR clause 3052.219-70 and the cross-reference to it found in paragraph (a) of 48 CFR 3019.708-70.
In addition, DHS is proposing to amend the authority citation for part 3019 to conform the authority to the Positive Law Codification of Title 41, United States code, “Public Contracts”. The new codification of Title 41 was enacted on January 4, 2011.
Executive Orders 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) and 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. OMB considers this rule to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. See OMB's Memorandum “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (April 5, 2017). This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
There are no quantified costs or cost savings to this rule as it simply rescinds requirements that have already been shifted to the FAR. DHS believes there are non-monetized efficiency and streamlining benefits to this rule as it removes outdated provisions of the HSAR.
This action rescinds HSAR clause 3052.219-70 and, as such, DHS does not expect the proposed change to result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
The total hours and costs associated with existing HSAR clause 3052.219-70, as set forth in HSAR OMB Control Number, 1600-0003, Post-award Contract Information, are as follows:
Government procurement.
Therefore, DHS proposes to revise 48 CFR parts 3019 and 3052 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301-302, 41 U.S.C. 1702, 41 U.S.C. 1707, and 48 CFR part 1 and subpart 1.3.
5 U.S.C. 301-302, 41 U.S.C. 1702, 41 U.S.C. 1707, and 48 CFR part 1 and subpart 1.3
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice and request for applications.
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is announcing the opportunity for interested veterans to apply for a new pilot program, Veteran Farmer Streamlined Eligibility Pilot Program (“Pilot Program”), which will assist veterans in meeting the management experience requirements at a faster pace for either a Microloan or Downpayment Loan through the Farm Ownership Loan (FO) Program. As set forth in a cooperative agreement between FSA and Texas A&M University, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program employees will expand their existing veterans training program, “Battleground to Breaking Ground,” to incorporate the requirements of the Pilot Program through a cooperative agreement with FSA. FSA will be involved in helping develop and review curriculum, review applications, participate in orientation, and monitor participants' progress throughout the Pilot Program. The purpose of the Pilot Program is to provide an educational opportunity for veterans so that they can obtain agricultural production, financial, and managerial training at an accelerated pace that will then result in the veteran to be considered conditionally eligible for either a Microloan or Downpayment Loan through the FO Program.
The application period will open on June 15, 2018, and close on July 20, 2018 no later than 11 p.m. CST.
Erin Kimbrough, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program, 979-847-6185,
FSA is an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its farm loan programs are authorized by the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972, as amended (CONACT, Pub. L. 92-419). Farmers or ranchers may be able to get a loan or loan guarantee through FSA's Farm Loan Programs (FLP) if they are unable to obtain credit elsewhere to start, purchase, sustain, or expand a farm. Unlike loans from a commercial lender, FSA loans are temporary in nature with the goal of graduating loans to commercial credit. Direct loans through the FO Program are used to purchase or enlarge a farm or ranch, construct a new or improve existing farm or ranch buildings, and for soil and water conservation and protection purposes. Downpayment loans and Microloans are types of loans available through the FO Program. Microloans are limited to $50,000.00. See definition of Microloan in 7 CFR 761.2.
Currently, in order to be eligible for either Microloans or Downpayment Loan through the FO Program, the applicant must have participated in the business operations of a farm for at least 3 years out of the 10 years prior to the date the application is submitted. In addition, section 302(b)(1) of the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 1922) provides the Secretary with the flexibility to determine “other acceptable experience for a period of time.” For example, FSA currently allows 1 of the 3 years to be substituted with leadership or management experience while serving in any branch of the military (see 7 CFR 764.152(d)(3)). For the Pilot Program, FSA is building on the CONACT's flexibility in order to allow veterans to qualify for FSA's managerial experience in a quicker timeframe.
Section 333D of the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 1983d) provides FSA with the authority to conduct a pilot program in order to evaluate its current processes in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the farm loan programs. The Congressional Directives in the explanatory statement for the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017 (Division A, Pub. L. 115-31) directs FSA to support a certified training program for veteran farmers to be prequalified for direct FOs (see page H3331 (
The purpose of this Pilot Program is to provide an educational opportunity to veteran farmers so that they can obtain production, financial, and managerial training and other required experiences as specified in 7 CFR 764.101 and 764.152 to potentially qualify for either a Microloan or Downpayment Loan through the FO Program in 12-18 months rather than the current timeline of 2 years. FSA's goal through the use of the Pilot Program is that there will be a better educated applicant, better customer service for the applicant and the seller of the farm, more efficient loan approval process for the loan officer and a more successful farm borrower. The agency will review the outcome of the Pilot Program to determine if this is a cost effective approach that leads to greater borrower success. A successful Pilot Program may lead to a broader use of this approach with other universities or with other applicants.
FSA strongly encourages American Veterans who are seeking a career in agriculture to apply to for the Pilot Program. The most challenging barriers for new or beginning farmer or ranchers, including veterans who desire to enter into agriculture businesses, are access to both land and capital. Access to capital is not limited to the availability of credit, but also to the ability of an applicant to meet the eligibility requirements for either a Microloan or Downpayment Loan through the FO Program. This includes having the requisite managerial experience and ability to develop and present a viable business plan. By offering specific agricultural production and financial training, as well as hands on mentoring in the veteran's chosen area of agriculture, a conditional loan eligibility will be earned upon on the completion of the Pilot Program.
FSA has found that veterans are very interested in starting a farming or ranching business, which led to developing the Pilot Program. Specifically, in response to the request for comments about farm loan pilot projects after the 2014 Farm Bill (79 FR 60805-60807, October 8, 2014), two of
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program is already operating under the heading “Battleground to Breaking Ground.” FSA's Pilot Program expands on the existing program curriculum to prepare veterans for financing from FSA. The Pilot Program will be a combination of written course work offered online, an individual education plan that includes hands on agricultural production workshops, and mentorships. Upon conclusion of the course, a veteran will meet the business operation requirement as specified in 7 CFR 764.101 and 764.152 for eligibility up to 1 year sooner and will be considered conditionally eligible for either a Microloan or Downpayment Loan through FO Program.
The applicant must meet the following eligibility requirements and will self-certify to the following when applying online for Texas A&M's Battleground to Breaking Ground program and provide additional documentation where specified below:
1. The applicant is a veteran. After being selected for the Pilot Program, applicants will need certain documentation such as DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, or other military ID to verify veteran status to participate in the Pilot Program and to apply for either a Microloan or Downpayment Loan through the FO Program;
2. The applicant meets all FSA farm loan program eligibility requirements under 7 CFR 764.101 and 764.152, except the farm experience requirement which will be expedited by the Pilot Program;
3. The applicant is not ineligible for Federal benefits based on a conviction of any Federal or State controlled substance offense (see 7 CFR 764.101(a));
4. The applicant is of legal age, and has mental capacity and authority to enter into a legally binding agreement (see 7 CFR 764.101(b));
5. The applicant meets citizenship requirements (see 7 CFR 764.101(c));
6. The applicant provides a credit report from one of the three main credit reporting agencies at the time of orientation to the Pilot Program. If a history of failures to repay past debts as they came due was out of the control of the applicant, the applicant may wish to submit a written description of the circumstances for the consideration of the committee. Lack of credit history or isolated incidents of delinquent payments is not considered poor credit. Credit scores are not used to make a determination of credit worthiness (see 7 CFR 764.101(d));
7. The applicant has properly fulfilled prior obligations to other parties, including other agencies of the Federal Government (see 7 CFR 764.101(d)(2));
8. The applicant is unable to obtain sufficient credit elsewhere to finance actual needs at reasonable rates and terms. When the loan application is filed, FSA will evaluate the ability to obtain credit based on factors including, but not limited to:
a. Loan amounts, rates, and terms available in the marketplace; and
b. Property interests, income, and significant non-essential assets (see 7 CFR 764.101(e));
9. The applicant meets the unpaid Federal judgement and delinquent Federal debt requirements in 7 CFR 764.101(f) and (g);
10. The applicant meets the Federal Crop Insurance Violations requirements in 7 CFR 764.101(h); and
11. The applicant meets the prior debt forgiveness requirements in 7 CFR 764.152(b).
Each veteran must complete an electronic application for the Battleground to Breaking Ground Program through Texas A&M's website,
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program employees will score and rank the “Battlefield to Breaking Ground” applications using the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program matrix. FSA will look at the top ranked applicants from the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program scoring and will select, in order of ranking, the top 15 to 18 applications. FSA will then confirm eligibility on the selected applications for participation in the Pilot Program. In the case of a tied score for the Pilot Program selection, FSA will review the applicant's narrative addressing the applicant's readiness to farm to make a selection. The readiness to farm question is part of the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program application. Applicants not selected for the Pilot Program due to FSA's loan eligibility criteria will still have the option to participate in the “Battleground to Breaking Ground” program at the discretion of Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program will notify all applicants by email.
Applicants will not be considered a participant in the Pilot Program until after they have signed an expectation agreement supplied by Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program as part of its existing veterans “Battleground to Breaking Ground” program. The expectation agreement specifies the requirements for completion of the “Battleground to Breaking Ground” program.
Successful completion of the Pilot Program will result in the veteran receiving a certificate from FSA as well as a developed business plan. Successful completion will also result in the veteran being conditionally eligible for either a Microloan or Downpayment Loan through the FO Program. The veteran should apply for the loan within 2 years of successfully completing the Pilot Program, unless the business plan is based on a later start date.
Participants who do not complete the Pilot Program may not be considered conditionally eligible for either a Microloan or Downpayment Loan through the FO Program.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family or parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
•
•
•
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Proposed collection; comments requested.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Housing Service's (RHS) intention to request a revision for a currently approved information collection in support of the program for Self-Help Technical Assistance Grants.
Comments on this notice must be received by August 3, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Andrea Birmingham, Finance and Loan Analyst, Single Family Housing Direct Loan Division, RHS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 0783, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250-0783, Telephone (202) 720-1489.
RHS will be collecting information from non-profit organizations to enter into grant agreements. These non-profit organizations will give technical and supervisory assistance, and in doing so, they must develop a final application for section 523 grant funds. This application includes Agency forms that contain essential information for making a determination of eligibility.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division at (202) 692-0040.
Comments may be sent to Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Wednesday, June 6, 2018, 12:30 p.m. ET.
Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20237.
Notice of Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors (Board) will be meeting at the time and location listed above. The Board will vote on a consent agenda consisting of the minutes of its March 14, 2018 meeting, a resolution honoring the the 65th anniversary of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's (RFE/RL) Armenian Service—Azatutyun Radiokayan, a resolution honoring the 65th anniversary of RFE/RL's Georgian Service—Radio Tavisupleba, a resolution honoring the 65th Anniversary of RFE/RL's Kazakh Service—Radio Azattyq, a resolution honoring the 65th anniversary of RFE/RL's Kyrgyz Service—Radio Azattyk, a resolution honoring the 65th anniversary of RFE/RL's Tajik Service—Radio Ozodi, and a resolution honoring the 65th anniversary of RFE/RL's Uzbek Service—Radio Ozodlik. The Board will receive a report from the Chief Executive Officer and Director of BBG.
This meeting will be available for public observation via streamed webcast, both live and on-demand, on the agency's public website at
The public may also attend this meeting in person at the address listed above as seating capacity permits.
Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203-4545.
Bureau of the Census, Commerce.
Notice of request for nominations.
The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is requesting nominations of individuals and organizations to the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations (Committee). The Census Bureau will consider nominations received in response to this notice, as well as from other sources. The
Please submit nominations by August 3, 2018.
Please submit nominations to the
Tara Dunlop Jackson, Committee Liaison Officer, Customer Liaison Marketing Services Offices, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H177, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone (301) 763-5222 or at
The Committee was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), Appendix 2. The following provides information about the Committee, membership, and the nomination process.
1. The Committee advises the Director of the Census Bureau (the Director) on the full range of economic, housing, demographic, socioeconomic, linguistic, technological, methodological, geographic, behavioral, and operational variables affecting the cost, accuracy, and implementation of Census Bureau programs and surveys, including the decennial census.
2. The Committee advises the Census Bureau on the identification of new strategies for improved census operations, and survey and data collection methods, including identifying cost efficient ways to increase response rates.
3. The Committee provides guidance on census policies, research and methodology, tests, operations, communications/messaging, and other activities to ascertain needs and best practices to improve censuses, surveys, operations, and programs.
4. The Committee reviews and provides formal recommendations and feedback on working papers, reports, and other documents related to the design and implementation of Census Bureau programs and surveys.
5. In providing insight, perspectives, and expertise on the full spectrum of Census Bureau surveys and programs, the Committee examines such areas as hidden households, language barriers, students and youth, aging populations, American Indian and Alaska Native tribal considerations, new immigrant populations, populations affected by natural disasters, highly mobile and migrant populations, complex households, poverty, race/ethnic distribution, privacy and confidentiality, rural populations and businesses, individuals and households with limited access to information and communications technologies, the dynamic nature of new businesses, minority ownership of businesses, as well as other concerns impacting Census Bureau survey design and implementation.
6. The Committee uses formal advisory committee meetings, webinars, web conferences, working groups, and other methods to accomplish its goals, consistent with the requirements of the FACA. The Committee will consult with regional office staff to help identify regional, local, tribal and grass roots issues, trends and perspectives related to Census Bureau surveys and programs.
7. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body under the FACA.
1. The Committee consists of up to 32 members who serve at the discretion of the Director. The Census Bureau is seeking seven qualified candidates to be considered for appointment.
2. The Committee aims to have a balanced representation among its members, considering such factors as geography, age, sex, race, ethnicity, technical expertise, community involvement, and knowledge of census programs and/or activities.
3. The Committee aims to include members from diverse backgrounds, including state, local and tribal governments; academia; research, national and community-based organizations; and, the private sector.
4. Members will be selected from the public and private sectors. Members may serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) or representatives who are selected to represent specific organizations.
5. SGEs and representatives will be selected based on their expertise in or representation of specific areas to include: Diverse populations (including race and ethnic populations); national, state, local, and tribal interest organizations serving hard-to-count populations; researchers; community-based organizations; academia; business interests; marketing and media professionals; researchers; and, members of professional associations. Members will be individually advised of the capacity in which they will serve through their appointment letters.
6. Membership is open to persons who are not seated on other Census Bureau stakeholder entities (
7. Members will serve for a three-year term. All members will be reevaluated at the conclusion of each term with the prospect of renewal, pending Committee needs. Active attendance and participation in meetings and activities (
8. Members will be selected on a standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.
1. Members of the Committee serve without compensation, but receive reimbursement for Committee-related travel and lodging expenses.
2. The Committee meets at least twice a year, budget permitting, but additional meetings may be held as deemed necessary by the Census Bureau Director or Designated Federal Officer. All Committee meetings are open to the public in accordance with the FACA.
1. Nominations should satisfy the requirements described in the Membership section above.
2. Individuals, groups, and/or organizations may submit nominations on behalf of candidates. A summary of the candidate's qualifications (resume´ or curriculum vitae)
3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks diverse Committee membership.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on silicon metal from the People's Republic of China (China) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of the AD duty order.
Applicable June 4, 2018.
Karine Gziryan or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4081 or (202) 482-5193, respectively.
On June 10, 1991, Commerce published in the
The merchandise covered by the order is silicon metal containing at least 96.00 percent, but less than 99.99 percent of silicon by weight. For a complete description of the scope of the
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing antidumping duty orders on certain tool chests and cabinets (tool chests) from the People's Republic of China (China) and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam).
Applicable June 4, 2018.
Yang Jin Chun or Andre Gziryan at (202) 482-5760 or (202) 482-2201, respectively (China); Dmitry Vladimirov at (202) 482-0665 (Vietnam); AD/CVD Operations Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on April 10, 2018, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of tool chests from China and Vietnam.
The product covered by these orders is tool chests. For a complete description for the scope of the orders,
On May 24, 2018, in accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determinations in these investigations, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of tool chests from China and Vietnam.
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of tool chests from China and Vietnam. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of tool chests from China and Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 16, 2017, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on entries of tool chests from China and Vietnam. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amount as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the cash deposit rates listed below.
Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request Commerce to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of tool chests from China and Vietnam, respectively, Commerce extended the four-month period to six months in each case.
Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice,
For China, the weighted-average antidumping duty margin percentages and cash deposit percentages are as follows:
For Vietnam, the weighted-average antidumping duty margin percentage is as follows:
This notice constitutes the antidumping duty orders with respect to tool chests from China and Vietnam pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at
These orders are issued and published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The scope of these orders covers certain metal tool chests and tool cabinets, with drawers, (tool chests and cabinets), from the People's Republic of China (China) and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam). The scope covers all metal tool chests and cabinets, including top chests, intermediate chests, tool cabinets and side cabinets, storage units, mobile work benches, and work stations and that have the following physical characteristics:
(1) A body made of carbon, alloy, or stainless steel and/or other metals;
(2) two or more drawers for storage in each individual unit;
(3) a width (side to side) exceeding 15 inches for side cabinets and exceeding 21 inches for all other individual units but not exceeding 60 inches;
(4) a body depth (front to back) exceeding 10 inches but not exceeding 24 inches; and
(5) prepackaged for retail sale.
For purposes of this scope, the width parameter applies to each individual unit,
Prepackaged for retail sale means the units may, for example, be packaged in a cardboard box, other type of container or packaging, and may bear a Universal Product Code, along with photographs, pictures, images, features, artwork, and/or product specifications. Subject tool chests and cabinets are covered whether imported in assembled or unassembled form. Subject merchandise includes tool chests and cabinets produced in China or Vietnam but assembled, prepackaged for retail sale, or subject to other minor processing in a third country prior to importation into the United States. Similarly, it would include tool chests and cabinets produced in China or Vietnam that are assembled, prepackaged for retail sale, or subject to other minor processing after importation into the United States.
Subject tool chests and cabinets may also have doors and shelves in addition to drawers, may have handles (typically mounted on the sides), and may have a work surface on the top. Subject tool chests and cabinets may be uncoated (
Subject tool chests and cabinets may be packaged as individual units or in sets. When packaged in sets, they typically include a cabinet with one or more chests that stack on top of the cabinet. Tool cabinets act as a base tool storage unit and typically have rollers, casters, or wheels to permit them to be moved more easily when loaded with tools. Work stations and mobile work benches are tool cabinets with a work surface on the top that may be made of rubber, plastic, metal, wood, or other materials.
Top chests are designed to be used with a tool cabinet to form a tool storage unit. The top chests may be mounted on top of the base tool cabinet or onto an intermediate chest. They are often packaged as a set with tool cabinets or intermediate chests, but may also be packaged separately. They may be packaged with mounting hardware (
Side cabinets are designed to be bolted or otherwise attached to the side of the base storage cabinet to expand the storage capacity of the base tool cabinet.
Subject tool chests and cabinets also may be packaged with a tool set included. Packaging a subject tool chest and cabinet with a tool set does not remove an otherwise covered subject tool chest and cabinet from the scope. When this occurs, the tools are not part of the subject merchandise.
All tool chests and cabinets that meet the above definition are included in the scope unless otherwise specifically excluded.
Excluded from the scope of these orders are tool boxes, chests, and cabinets with bodies made of plastic, carbon fiber, wood, or other non-metallic substances.
Also excluded from the scope of these orders are industrial grade steel tool chests and cabinets. The excluded industrial grade steel tool chests and cabinets are those:
(1) Having a body that is over 60 inches in width; or
(2) having each of the following physical characteristics:
(a) a body made of steel that is 0.047 inches or more in thickness;
(b) a body depth (front to back) exceeding 21 inches; and
(c) a unit weight that exceeds the maximum unit weight shown below for each width range:
Also excluded from the scope of these orders are service carts. The excluded service carts have all of the following characteristics:
(1) Casters, wheels, or other similar devices which allow the service cart to be rolled from place to place;
(2) an open top for storage, a flat top, or a flat lid on top of the unit that opens;
(3) a space or gap between the casters, wheels, or other similar devices, and the bottom of the enclosed storage space (
(4) a total unit height, including casters, of less than 48 inches.
Also excluded from the scope of these orders are non-mobile work benches. The excluded non-mobile work benches have all of the following characteristics:
(1) A solid top working surface;
(2) no drawers, one drawer, or two drawers in a side-by-side configuration; and
(3) the unit is supported by legs and has no solid front, side, or back panels enclosing the body of the unit.
Also excluded from the scope of these orders are metal filing cabinets that are configured to hold hanging file folders and are classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 9403.10.0020.
Merchandise subject to these orders is classified under HTSUS categories 9403.20.0021, 9403.20.0026, 9403.20.0030, 9403.20.0080, 9403.20.0090, and 7326.90.8688, but may also be classified under HTSUS category 7326.90.3500. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Committee will hold a public meeting via conference call.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, June 21, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.
The meeting will be held via conference call by dialing 1-800-832-0736 and entering room number 9294759.
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Committee will meet via conference call to discuss possible support for research on surfclam genetics.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Joint notice of receipt and notice of availability.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received one permit application from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (District) to enhance propagation and survival of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, for a five-year period (with a five-year renewal). As part of this permit application, the District has submitted a Rescue and Rearing Management Plan (RRMP). The RRMP specifies operational methods for South-Central California Coast (S-CCC) steelhead (
Comments or requests for a public hearing on applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the application should be submitted to the California Coastal Office, NMFS, c/o Erin Seghesio, 777 Sonoma Avenue Room 325, Santa Rosa, CA 95404. Comments may also be submitted via fax to 707-578-3435, or by email to:
Erin Seghesio at 707-578-8515,
The following listed species are covered in this notice:
Steelhead (
Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Any one requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
The District has applied for a permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA for a period of five years (with a five-year renewal) that would allow take of juvenile and adult steelhead from the threatened S-CCC Distinct Population Segment (DPS) pursuant to an RRMP, which was developed with technical assistance from NMFS. The objective of the District's program is to assist with the restoration, conservation, and maintenance of the steelhead population in the Carmel River Watershed as mitigation for environmental impacts caused by diversion of surface and subsurface streamflow in the lower 24 miles of the mainstem Carmel River. The program which was initiated in 1997, was necessary to ensure compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) from the environmental impacts of California American Water Company's water withdrawals.
The RRMP will be implemented as an enhancement program at the Facility; actions taken pursuant to the permit are designed to enhance survival of S-CCC steelhead that are subject to annual low-flow river dryback. The RRMP incorporates three main components: (1) Rescue and relocation activities; (2) captive rearing activities; and (3) subsequent post-release monitoring. There is no captive spawning of steelhead reared at the facility.
Activities that constitute take of S-CCC steelhead and would be permitted include: Rearing, handling and transport, and tagging. The RRMP includes measures to minimize the likelihood of genetic or ecologic effects to naturally produced S-CCC steelhead resulting from operations at the Facility, and rescue and translocation activities. Post-release monitoring activities conducted by the District will collect necessary data to document achievement of performance indicators specified in the RRMP. For a more detailed discussion of these activities, please see the permit application.
NMFS invites the public to comment on the permit application and associated RRMP during a 30 day public comment period beginning on the date of this notice. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1529(c)). All comments and materials received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public. We provide this notice in order to allow the public, agencies, or other organizations to review and comment on these documents.
NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted during the comment period to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decision will not be made until after the end of the 30-day public comment period and after NMFS has fully considered all relevant comments received. NMFS will publish public notice of its final action in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Working Group (WG) of the Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel (NTAP) and NTAP as a whole of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold a meeting.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 19, beginning at 9 a.m. and conclude by 5 p.m. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn Boston Logan Airport located on 100 Boardman St., Boston, MA 02128.
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The purpose of this WG meeting is to: (1) Review options and recommend preferred research plan for re-obligating industry vessel sea days funds (Nobska), (2) develop workplan for FY18-20, (3) define criteria for Bigelow trawl gear performance, and (4) describe potential flume tank experiments. The purpose of the NTAP as a whole meeting is to: (1) Review updates on the revised NTAP charter and Bigelow operations, (2) review, adopt or revise NTAP WG recommendations from last meeting, (3) review the status of summer flounder catchability and gear performance analyses, (4) review a briefing on the Bigelow/Albatross time series, (5) adopt a regular meeting schedule for full NTAP and WG, and (6) cover other business.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC) Bluefish Monitoring Committee will hold a public meeting.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 24, 2018, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only connection option. Details on the proposed agenda, webinar listen-in access, and briefing materials will be posted at the MAFMC's website:
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The purpose of this meeting is for the Monitoring Committee to develop and approve management measures designed to achieve the recommended bluefish catch and landings limits for 2019.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of a Record of Decision.
NOAA announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Portland Harbor Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Restoration Plan (PEIS/RP). The NOAA Restoration Center Chief and the Assessment and Restoration Division Chief signed the ROD on May 29, 2018, which constitutes the agency's final decision.
Christopher Doley, Chief, Restoration Center, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; Tony Penn, Chief, Assessment and Restoration Division, NOAA Ocean Service, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Megan Callahan Grant at (503) 231-2213 or email at
NOAA, on behalf of the Portland Harbor Natural Resource Trustee Council, prepared the Final Portland Harbor PEIS/RP. The PEIS/RP was prepared under the authority of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and was also developed to comply with the Federal agency decision-making requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and NOAA's environmental review procedures (NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, as preserved by NAO 216-6A). The document was designed to solicit public opinion on a proposed restoration approach for the Portland Harbor natural resource damage assessment
NOAA is not soliciting comments on the PEIS/RP but will consider any comments submitted that would assist us in preparing future NEPA documents. An electronic copy of the PEIS/RP is available at:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS has requested the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) to conduct a peer review of the agency's stock assessments for the Aleutian Islands golden king crab (AIGKC) and Norton Sound red king crab (NSRKC) stocks. The CIE is a group affiliated with the University of Miami that provides independent peer reviews of NMFS science nationwide, including reviews of stock assessments for fish, shellfish and marine mammals. The AIGKC and NSRKC stock assessments are reviewed annually by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) Crab Plan Team, and the NPFMC Scientific and Statistical Committee. The CIE review will examine whether the assessments incorporate the best scientific information available for making management decisions and whether they provide reasonable approaches to understanding the population dynamics and stock status for the AIGKC and NSRKC stocks. The public is invited to attend and observe the presentations and discussions between the CIE panel and the NMFS and Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG) scientists who designed the underlying assessment models, collected the data, and performed the stock assessments.
The meeting will be held on Monday, June 18, 2018, through Thursday, June 21, 2018 from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time.
The meeting will be held at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-6349. Visitors will need to provide proper ID and sign in at the front desk.
William Stockhausen, AFSC staff; telephone: (206) 526-4241.
The CIE panel will consist of three peer reviewers who will assess materials related to the topics, participate in a review workshop with the NMFS and ADFG scientists who developed the assessment models and the analytical approaches, and produce a report. This review will be highly technical in nature and will cover mathematical details of the analytical approaches.
Members of the public are invited to observe, and will be provided opportunities to contribute on June 18-20, 2018. The final report will be available prior to the September NPFMC Plan Team meetings and will consist of individual reports from each panelist and a summary report. The results of the review will be presented during the September 2018 NPFMC Crab Plan Team meeting, which will be announced later in the
These workshops will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Laura Oremland, (301) 427-8162, at least 10 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
NOAA Fisheries is notifying the public of the receipt of two applications for Endangered Species Act section 10(a)(1)(A) enhancement permits for hatchery programs rearing fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River basin.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received applications for renewal of two enhancement permit applications pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) section for hatchery operations rearing and releasing Snake River fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River basin of Idaho. The applications are in the form of two existing hatchery and genetic management plans (HGMPs) and an addendum. This new addendum
Comments must be received at the appropriate address (see
Written responses to the addendum should be addressed to the NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Portland, OR 97232. Comments may be submitted by email. The mailbox address for providing email comments is:
Natasha Preston at (503) 231-2178 or by email at
Chinook salmon (
Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the “taking” of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The term “take” is defined under the ESA to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS may issue permits to take listed species for any act otherwise prohibited by section 9 for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species, under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. NMFS regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are promulgated at 50 CFR 222.307.
The co-managers and funding agencies, including the NPT, WDFW, ODFW, IDFG, LSRCP, IPC, and BPA, have submitted to NMFS applications for two permits, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act, for hatchery activities in the Snake River basin. The applications are in the form of two existing HGMPs and an addendum with updates to those HGMPs.
The addendum and previously submitted HGMPs describe actions involving hatchery activities (with associated monitoring and evaluation) in the Snake River basin. The programs are intended to contribute to the survival and recovery of Snake River Fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River basin, and to responsibly enhance fishing opportunity on hatchery-origin returns.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate each application, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. If it is determined that the requirements are met, permits will be issued to the NPT, WDFW, ODFW, IDFG, LSRCP, IPC, and BPA for the purpose of carrying out the hatchery programs. NMFS will publish a record of its final action in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC) Bluefish Advisory Panel will hold a public meeting, jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Bluefish Advisory Panel.
The meeting will be held on Monday, June 25, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only connection option. Details on the proposed agenda, webinar listen-in access, and briefing materials will be posted at the MAFMC's website:
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The purpose of this meeting is for the Advisory Panel to create a fishery performance report (FPR). The intent of this report is to facilitate a venue for structured input from the Advisory Panel for the bluefish specifications process. The FPR will be used by the MAFMC's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and the Bluefish Monitoring Committee (MC) when setting 2019 management measures designed to achieve the recommended bluefish catch and landings limits. In addition, the MAFMC and ASMFC will consider input from the Advisory Panels in August when reviewing these specifications.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management
This meeting will be held on Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 9 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The committee will discuss the EBFM Plan Development Team report. They will also provide feedback on an initial draft “Ecosystem Risk Assessment for the Georges Bank Ecosystem Production Unit”. The committee will discuss the “2018 Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Strategy Independent Peer Review” Report as well as receive a report about a draft “Northeast Regional Implementation Plan of NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Roadmap”. They will discuss a draft strawman outline of an example prototype Fishery Ecosystem Plan (eFEP) and identification of tasks and timeline to complete an eFEP. Discuss other business as necessary.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 57 Data Workshop for U.S. Caribbean spiny lobster.
The SEDAR 57 assessment of the U.S. Caribbean spiny lobster will consist of: A Data Workshop; a series of Assessment webinars; and a Review Workshop.
The SEDAR 57 Data Workshop will be held from 10 a.m. on June 20, 2018 until 3 p.m. on June 22, 2018; the Assessment workshop and webinars and Review Workshop dates and times will publish in a subsequent issue in the
Julie Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing workshops and webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion in the Data Workshop agenda are as follows:
1. An assessment data set and associated documentation will be developed.
2. Participants will evaluate all available data and select appropriate sources for providing information on life history characteristics, catch statistics, discard estimates, length and age composition, and fishery dependent and fishery independent measures of stock abundance, as specified in the Terms of Reference for the workshop.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action deletes product(s) from the Procurement List previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 4/27/2018 (83 FR 82), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product(s) listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product(s) are deleted from the Procurement List:
The following information is applicable to all products listed above.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Additions to the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Comments must be received on or before: July 1, 2018.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for
Defense Security Services, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 3, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this
Respondents are government contracting activity (GCA) personnel who have a partnership with the DSS regarding the cleared contractors associated with their activities' program(s). The completed surveys will be analyzed by DSS in order to obtain information on DSS relationships with GCAs, and actions will be determined based on feedback from respondents to continue to improve the utility and efficacy of DSS programs and products for government partners.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice.
The Commander of the Northwestern Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is soliciting applications to fill vacant stakeholder representative member positions on the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC). Members are sought to fill vacancies on a committee to represent various categories of interests within the Missouri River basin. The MRRIC was formed to advise the Corps on a study of the Missouri River and its tributaries and to provide guidance to the Corps with respect to the Missouri River recovery and mitigation activities currently underway. The Corps established the MRRIC as required by the U.S. Congress through the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA), Section 5018.
The agency must receive completed applications and endorsement letters no later than July 27, 2018.
Mail completed applications and endorsement letters to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District (Attn: MRRIC), 601 E 12th Street, Kansas City, MO 64106 or email completed applications to
Lisa Rabbe, 816-389-3837.
The operation of the MRRIC is in the public interest and provides support to the Corps in performing its duties and responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531
A Charter for the MRRIC has been developed and should be reviewed prior to applying for a stakeholder representative membership position on the Committee. The Charter, operating procedures, and stakeholder application forms are available electronically at
1. The primary purpose of the MRRIC is to provide guidance to the Corps and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan currently in existence, including recommendations relating to changes to the implementation strategy from the use of adaptive management; coordination of the development of consistent policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, activities, and priorities for the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan. Information about the Missouri River Recovery Program is available at
2. Other duties of MRRIC include exchange of information regarding programs, projects, and activities of the agencies and entities represented on the Committee to promote the goals of the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; establishment of such working groups as the Committee determines to be necessary to assist in carrying out the duties of the Committee, including duties relating to public policy and scientific issues; facilitating the resolution of interagency and intergovernmental conflicts between entities represented on the Committee associated with the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; coordination of scientific and other research associated with the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; and annual preparation of a work plan and associated budget requests.
This Notice is for individuals interested in serving as a stakeholder member on the Committee. Members and alternates must be able to demonstrate that they meet the definition of “stakeholder” found in the Charter of the MRRIC. Applications are currently being accepted for representation in the stakeholder interest categories listed below:
a. Environmental/Conservation Org;
b. Hydropower;
c. Local Government;
d. Major Tributaries;
e. Navigation;
f. Recreation;
g. Thermal Power; and
h. Water Supply
Terms of stakeholder representative members of the MRRIC are three years. There is no limit to the number of terms a member may serve. Incumbent Committee members seeking reappointment do not need to re-submit an application. However, they must submit a renewal letter and related materials as outlined in the “Streamlined Process for Existing Members” portion of the document
Members and alternates of the Committee will not receive any compensation from the federal government for carrying out the duties of the MRRIC. Travel expenses incurred by members of the Committee are not currently reimbursed by the federal government.
Applications for stakeholder membership may be obtained electronically at
1. The name of the applicant and the primary stakeholder interest category that person is qualified to represent;
2. A written statement describing the applicant's area of expertise and why the applicant believes he or she should be appointed to represent that area of expertise on the MRRIC;
3. A written statement describing how the applicant's participation as a Stakeholder Representative will fulfill the roles and responsibilities of MRRIC;
4. A written description of the applicant's past experience(s) working collaboratively with a group of individuals representing varied interests towards achieving a mutual goal, and the outcome of the effort(s);
5. A written description of the communication network that the applicant plans to use to inform his or her constituents and to gather their feedback, and
6. A written endorsement letter from an organization, local government body, or formal constituency, which demonstrates that the applicant represents an interest group(s) in the Missouri River basin.
To be considered, the application must be complete and received by the close of business on July 27 2018, at the location indicated (see
• Ability to commit the time required.
• Commitment to make a good faith (as defined in the Charter) effort to seek balanced solutions that address multiple interests and concerns.
• Agreement to support and adhere to the approved MRRIC Charter and Operating Procedures.
• Demonstration of a formal designation or endorsement by an organization, local government, or constituency as its preferred representative.
• Demonstration of an established communication network to keep constituents informed and efficiently seek their input when needed.
• Agreement to participate in collaboration training as a condition of membership.
All applicants will be notified in writing as to the final decision about their application.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy (DOE).
Request for Information (RFI).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on its Request for Information (RFI) on Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) metrics in the U.S. for system and subsystem performance. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is specifically interested in feedback on (1) the performance metrics identified within the document titled “Existing Ocean Energy Performance Metrics” relating to performance in the U.S. marine resource, as well as any additional applications, assumptions, benefits, drawbacks, or other considerations for those metrics, (2) any performance metrics not captured within the “Existing Ocean Energy Performance Metrics” documents, (3) considerations for baseline reference values documenting the current state of the U.S. MHK industry identified by metric and resource type, and (4) feedback specifically on Technology Readiness Level (TRL) definitions as referenced in the document and as those TRL definitions relate to the U.S. MHK industry.
Responses to the RFI must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. (ET) on July 31, 2018.
Interested parties are to submit comments electronically to
Questions may be addressed to
The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from industry, academia, research institutions, government agencies, and other stakeholders on assumptions and uncertainties with metrics in the U.S. that are used to evaluate MHK system and subsystem performance. In addition to levelized cost of energy, various other metrics, as documented in “Existing Ocean Energy Performance Metrics” (collocated with this RFI on EERE Exchange,
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person that would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of the
DOE invites comment on the Draft WIR Evaluation during a 96-day comment period beginning June 4, 2018, and ending on September 7, 2018. A public meeting on the Draft WIR Evaluation will be held on June 18, 2018. Before the scheduled meeting, DOE will issue stakeholder and media notifications and publish an additional notice in the local newspaper providing the date, time, and location of the public meeting. Information on the public meeting date and location also will be available before the scheduled meeting at the website listed in
The Draft WIR Evaluation is available on the internet at
For further information about this Draft WIR Evaluation, please contact Mr. Jan Bovier by mail at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, P.O. Box 450, MSIN H6-60, Richland, WA 99354, by phone at 509-376-9630, or by email at
DOE has conducted a multi-year program to remove the vast majority of the radioactive waste and key radionuclides contained in 16 underground, single-shell tanks (tanks which do not have secondary containment) and ancillary structures (a catch tank, a process vault with smaller tanks, diversion boxes and buried pipelines), located in WMA C at the Hanford Site. For example, approximately 96 percent of the waste volume and radionuclide activity has been removed from the largest (100 series) tanks using a series of advanced technologies. The tanks and ancillary structures previously stored or transferred a variety of wastes, including liquid waste generated by DOE and its predecessor agencies from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to produce plutonium and other nuclear material for nuclear weapons during the Manhattan Project and Cold War eras.
DOE Manual 435.1-1, which accompanies DOE Order 435.1,
(1) The wastes have been processed, or will be processed, to remove key radionuclides to the maximum extent that is technically and economically practical;
(2) The waste will be managed to meet safety requirements comparable to the performance objectives set out in 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61, Subpart C,
(3) The waste will be managed, pursuant to DOE authority under the
The Draft WIR Evaluation documents and demonstrates that the tanks, ancillary structures, and their residual waste at closure of the WMA C will meet the above-referenced criteria in DOE Manual 435.1-1. DOE is predicating this Draft WIR Evaluation on extensive analysis and scientific rationale, using a risk-informed approach, including analyses presented in the “
Although not required by DOE Manual 435.1-1, DOE is consulting with NRC on this Draft WIR Evaluation and also making the Draft WIR Evaluation available for comment from the States, Tribal Nations, and the public. After consultation with NRC, carefully considering comments received, and performing any necessary revisions of analyses and technical documents, DOE plans to issue a final WIR Evaluation and a potential determination as to whether the WMA C tanks, ancillary structures, and their residual waste at the time of WMA C closure is non-HLW, and may be managed and disposed of in place as LLW.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of petition for waiver and grant of an interim waiver, and request for comments.
This document announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver from AHT Cooling Systems GmbH and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc. (“AHT”), seeking a waiver from the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) test procedure used for determining the energy consumption of commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers (collectively “commercial refrigeration equipment”). AHT seeks to use an alternate test procedure to address issues involved in testing twenty-four commercial freezer basic models, identified by AHT as part of its petition, that do not have a defrost cycle when the units are operated in freezer mode. (AHT states that the specified units can operate as a freezer, ice-cream freezer, and refrigerator.) AHT seeks to test and rate the specified basic models using an alternate test procedure to account for the lack of any defrost cycles or defrost capability when the units are operated in freezer mode. This notice announces that DOE grants AHT an interim waiver from the DOE's commercial refrigeration equipment test procedure for the specified basic models, subject to use of the alternate test procedure as set forth in the Interim Waiver Order. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning AHT's petition and its suggested alternate test procedure to inform its final decision on AHT's waiver request.
Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before July 5, 2018.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
•
•
•
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section V of this document.
The docket Web page can be found at
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. E-mail:
Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. E-mail:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA” or “the Act”),
DOE's regulation set forth at 10 CFR 431.401 contain provisions that allow an interested person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model when the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that either (1) prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii).
DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the
The wavier process also provides that DOE may grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the underlying petition for waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the
On May 16, 2017, AHT filed a petition for waiver and an application for interim waiver from the test procedure applicable to commercial refrigeration equipment set forth in 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B. AHT petitioned for waiver for twenty-four basic models
To address the lack of defrost capability, AHT requests that the equipment, when operated and tested as a freezer, be subject to an alternate test procedure that follows the requirements of the existing DOE test procedure, which incorporates by reference ASHRAE 72-2005, with the exception that no defrost cycles will be incorporated in the test protocols.
AHT also requests an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. DOE will grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. See 10 CFR 431.401(e)(2).
DOE understands that, absent an interim waiver, it is not expected that AHT's equipment could be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of its true energy consumption characteristics. The DOE test procedure specifies test period and door-opening period start times that reference a defrost occurrence, which is not possible in the specified AHT freezer basic models. This lack of defrost results in no defined start to either the test period or the door-opening period under DOE's test procedure.
EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of equipment covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Consistent representations are important for manufacturers to use in making representations about the energy efficiency of their equipment and to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim
The test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment is at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B, “Amended Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Energy Consumption of Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers.” AHT seeks to use this test procedure to test and rate specific commercial freezer basic models, except that the test period shall be selected as follows:
The test shall begin when steady state conditions occur (per ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, Section 3, definitions, which defines steady state as “the condition where the average temperature of all test simulators changes less than 0.2 °C (0.4 °F) from one 24-hour period or refrigeration cycle to the next”). Additionally, the door-opening requirements shall be as defined in ASHRAE 72-2005 Section 7.2, with the exception that the eight-hour period of door openings shall begin three hours after the start of the test. Ambient temperature, test simulator temperatures, and all other data shall be recorded at three-minute intervals beginning at the start of the test and throughout the 24-hour testing period.
DOE has reviewed AHT's application for an interim waiver, the alternate test procedure requested by AHT, and the operating manual for the commercial freezer basic models.
Therefore, DOE has issued an Order, stating:
(1) AHT must, going forward, test and rate the following AHT commercial freezer basic models (which do not have defrost cycle capability when operated in freezer mode) as set forth in paragraph (2) below:
IBIZA 100 NAM F, IBIZA 145 NAM F, IBIZA 210 NAM F, MALTA 145 NAM F, MALTA 185 NAM F, MANHATTAN 175 NAM F, MANHATTAN 210 NAM F, MIAMI 145 NAM F, MIAMI 185 NAM F, MIAMI 210 NAM F, MIAMI 250 NAM F, PARIS 145 NAM F, PARIS 185 NAM F, PARIS 210 NAM F, PARIS 250 NAM F, SYDNEY 175 NAM F, SYDNEY 210 NAM F, SYDNEY 213 NAM F, SYDNEY 223 NAM F, SYDNEY 230 NAM F, SYDNEY 250 NAM F, SYDNEY XL175 NAM F, SYDNEY XL210 NAM F, and SYDNEY XL250 NAM F.
(2) The alternate test procedure for the AHT basic models listed in paragraph (1) is the test procedure for CRE prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B, except that the test period shall be selected as detailed below. All other requirements of Appendix B and DOE's regulations remain applicable.
The test shall begin when steady state conditions occur (per ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, Section 3, definitions, which defines steady state as “the condition where the average temperature of all test simulators changes less than 0.2 °C (0.4 °F) from one 24-hour period or refrigeration cycle to the next”). Additionally, the door-opening requirements shall be as defined in ASHRAE 72-2005 Section 7.2, with the exception that the eight-hour period of door openings shall begin three hours after the start of the test. Ambient temperature, test simulator temperatures, and all other data shall be recorded at three-minute intervals beginning at the start of the test and throughout the 24-hour testing period.
(3)
(4) This interim waiver shall remain in effect according to the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401(h) and (k).
(5) This interim waiver is issued to AHT on the condition that the statements, representations, and documentary materials provided by AHT are valid. If AHT makes any modifications to the defrost controls or capabilities (
(6) Granting of this interim waiver does not release AHT from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.
DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future basic models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. AHT may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional basic models of commercial freezers. Alternatively, if appropriate, AHT may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic model(s) set forth in the original petition consistent with 10 CFR 431.401(g).
DOE is publishing AHT's petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iv). The petition did not identify any information as confidential business information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure, as specified in section III of this notice, to determine the energy consumption of AHT's specified commercial freezer basic models. DOE may consider including the alternate
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by July 5, 2018, comments and information on all aspects of the petition, including the alternate test procedure. Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is Scott Blake Harris, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP, 1919 M Street NW, Eighth Floor, Washington, DC 20036.
Submitting comments via
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
AHT Cooling Systems GmbH and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc. (collectively AHT)
Commercial refrigeration equipment, such as AHT's, has recently become subject to a new regulatory regime. This includes new test procedures
Following the filing of its initial Petition, AHT was advised by the Department that each mode in which its appliances operated would have to be tested separately, and thus each mode in which an appliance operated would have to be listed as a separate model. AHT complied with this instruction. Since the initial Petition for Waiver was filed, however, AHT decided to change the operation of its appliances when they are operating in freezer mode—by eliminating any defrost cycle whatsoever. This meant that even the test proposed in its initial Petition for Waiver was insufficient to measure the energy usage of the AHT appliances when operating in freezer mode. Accordingly, AHT requested that “freezer mode” be eliminated from the models covered by its original waiver Petition.
The basic models for which a waiver is requested are set forth in Appendix I. These appliances are all multi-mode display merchandisers with transparent doors. They are capable of operating in refrigerator mode, freezer mode, and ice cream freezer mode. They are distributed in commerce under the AHT brand name. A waiver has already been requested for the testing of these appliances operated in refrigerator mode and ice cream freezer mode. This waiver is being sought for their operation in freezer mode.
The DOE test procedure that would apply to the AHT appliances took effect on March 28, 2017. But it should not apply to the models listed in Appendix I.
As noted above, AHT appliances do not need to be defrosted. As explained in the initial Petition for Waiver, the DOE test procedure understandably assumes that commercial refrigerators and freezers have cooling or evaporator coils that need to be defrosted for the equipment to function effectively. Indeed, the Technical Support Document for the test procedure essentially defines “defrosting” to mean melting ice from evaporator coils:
In addition, the ASHRAE test procedure mandated by the DOE regulations provides that the defrost adequacy assurance test “shall verify that any defrost setting and arrangement is adequate to melt all frost and ice from coils and flues and drain it out of the refrigerator.”
But as currently configured, the AHT multi-mode appliances operating in freezer mode have no defrost cycle and one is not possible. As a result, the test procedure, which provides for at least one full defrost cycle in a 24-hour period is not appropriate for these models. It would grievously overstate their energy consumption.
Accordingly, AHT asks for a waiver to test its multi-mode appliances in freezer mode without a defrost cycle. It would continue to test these appliances in refrigerator and ice cream freezer mode as set forth in its initial Petition, or as that test is modified by any initial waiver granted by the Department.
Under the applicable DOE regulations, the testing protocol that would otherwise be applicable to the freezer mode of AHT's multi-mode appliances is set forth in ASHRAE 72- 2005,
Since the freezer mode of AHT's multi-mode appliances has no defrost cycle, the proposed alternate testing procedure for the freezer mode follows the requirements of ASHRAE 72-2005 with the exception that no defrost cycles will be included in the testing protocol. As a result, no direct or indirect
AHT also requests an interim waiver for its testing and rating of the basic models listed in Appendix I. Based on its merits, AHT's Freezer Mode Petition for Waiver is likely to be granted. Further, it is essential that an interim waiver be granted, because without waiver relief, AHT will be at a competitive disadvantage in the market for these important products and would suffer economic hardship. AHT would be subject to requirements that clearly should not apply to such products.
A list of manufacturers of all other basic models distributed in commerce in the United States and known to AHT to incorporate overall design characteristic(s) similar to those found in the basic model(s) that are the subject
AHT requests expedited treatment of the Petition and Application.
The waiver and interim waiver requested herein should apply to testing and rating of the following basic models that are manufactured by AHT
The following are manufacturers of all other basic models distributed in commerce in the United States and known to AHT to incorporate overall design characteristic(s) similar to those found in the basic model(s) that are the subject of the petition for waiver.
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 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:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
7 U.S.C. 136
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors met in open session at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 31, 2018, to consider the following matters:
Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' Meetings.
Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule: Securities Transaction Settlement Cycle.
Summary reports, status reports, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors, and reports of the Office of Inspector General.
Memorandum and resolution re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Revisions to Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships with, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds.
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director Mick Mulvaney (Acting Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), seconded by Director Joseph Otting (Comptroller of the Currency), and concurred in by Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters on less than seven days' notice to the public; and that no earlier notice of the meeting than that previously provided on May 25, 2018, was practicable.
The meeting was held in the Board Room located on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW, Washington DC.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 2:25 p.m. on Thursday, May 31, 2018, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director Mick Mulvaney (Acting Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), seconded by Director Joseph M. Otting (Comptroller of the Currency), and concurred in by Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B).
Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12th Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Thursday, June 7, 2018 at the conclusion of the opening meeting.
1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules and practices.
Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 29, 2018.
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 20, 2018.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 25, 2018.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of AHRQ to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by July 5, 2018.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (Patient Safety Act), signed into law on July 29, 2005, was enacted in response to growing concern about quality and patient safety in the United States and the Institute of Medicine's 1999 report,
In order to implement the Patient Safety Act, HHS issued the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule (Patient Safety Rule) which became effective on January 19, 2009. The Patient Safety Rule establishes a framework for the reporting of quality and patient safety information—by hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other providers—to PSOs, on a privileged and confidential basis, for aggregation and analysis. In addition, the Patient Safety Rule outlines the requirements that entities must meet to become and remain listed as PSOs and the process by which the Secretary of HHS (Secretary) will accept certifications and list PSOs.
When specific statutory requirements are met, the information collected and the analyses and deliberations regarding the information receive confidentiality and privilege protections under this legislation. The Secretary delegated authority to the Director of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to enforce the confidentiality protections of the Patient Safety Act (
Pursuant to the Patient Safety Rule, an entity that seeks to be listed as a PSO by the Secretary must certify that it meets certain requirements and, upon listing, would meet other criteria (42 CFR 3.102). To remain listed for renewable three-year periods, a PSO must re-certify that it meets these obligations and would continue to meet them while listed. The Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule also impose other obligations discussed below that a PSO must meet to remain listed. In accordance with the requirements of the Patient Safety Rule (see,
With this submission, AHRQ is requesting approval of the following proposed administrative forms:
1. PSO Certification for Initial Listing Form. This form, containing certifications of eligibility and a capacity and intention to comply with statutory criteria and regulatory requirements, is to be completed, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 299b-24(a)(1) and the corresponding regulatory provisions, by an entity seeking to be listed by the Secretary as a PSO for an initial three-year period.
2. PSO Certification for Continued Listing Form. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 299b-24(a)(2) and the corresponding regulatory provisions, this form is to be completed by a listed PSO seeking continued listing as a PSO by the Secretary for each successive three-year period.
3. PSO Two Bona Fide Contracts Requirement Certification Form. To remain listed, a PSO must meet a statutory requirement in 42 U.S.C. 299b-24(b)(1)(C) that it has bona fide contracts with more than one provider, within successive 24-month periods, beginning with the date of the PSO's initial listing, for the purpose of receiving and reviewing patient safety work product. This form is to be used by a PSO to certify whether it has met this statutory requirement and the corresponding regulatory provisions.
4. PSO Disclosure Statement Form. This form provides detailed instructions to a PSO regarding the disclosure statement it must submit and provides for the required certification of the statement's accuracy by the PSO in accordance with the 42 U.S.C. 299b-24(b)(1)(E) whereby the entity shall fully disclose: (i) Any financial, reporting, or contractual relationship between the entity and any provider that contracts with the PSO; and (ii) if applicable, the fact that the PSO is not managed, not controlled, and operated independently from any provider that contracts with the PSO. In accordance with the Patient Safety Act and the Patient Safety Rule, the Secretary is required to review each such report and make public findings as to whether a PSO can fairly and accurately carry out its patient safety activities.
5. PSO Profile Form. This form gathers information on the type of providers and settings with which PSOs are working to conduct patient safety activities in order to improve patient safety. It is designed to collect a minimum level of information necessary to develop aggregate data relating to the Patient Safety Act. This information will be included in AHRQ's annual quality report, required by 42 U.S.C. 299b-2(b)(2).
6. PSO Change of Listing Information Form. The Secretary is required under 42 U.S.C. 299b-24(d) to maintain a publicly available list of PSOs. Under the Patient Safety Rule, that list includes, among other
7. PSO Voluntary Relinquishment Form. A PSO may choose to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason. Pursuant to 42 CFR 3.108(c)(2), in order for the Secretary to accept a PSO's notification of voluntary relinquishment, the notice must contain certain attestations and future contact information. This form provides an efficient manner for a PSO seeking voluntary relinquishment to provide all of the required information.
AHRQ will use these forms to obtain information necessary to carry out its authority to implement the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule. This includes obtaining initial and subsequent certifications from entities seeking to be or remain listed as PSOs and for making the statutorily-required determinations prior to and during an entity's period of listing as a PSO. This information is used by the PSO Program Office housed in AHRQ's Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety.
OCR is requesting approval of the following administrative form:
Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form. The purpose of this collection is to allow OCR to collect the minimum information needed from individuals filing patient safety confidentiality complaints with OCR so that there is a basis for initial processing of those complaints.
OCR will use the Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form to collect information for the initial assessment of an incoming complaint. The form is modeled on OCR's form for complaints alleging violation of the privacy of protected health information. Use of the form is voluntary. It may help a complainant provide the essential information. Alternatively, a complainant may choose to submit a complaint in the form of a letter or electronically. An individual who needs help to submit a complaint in writing may call OCR for assistance.
The forms described above, other than the PSO Voluntary Relinquishment Form, are revised collection instruments that were previously approved by OMB in 2008, 2011, and 2014.
In addition, AHRQ is requesting approval for a set of common definitions and reporting formats (hereafter Common Formats). AHRQ coordinates the development of the Common Formats, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 299b-23(b), that allow PSOs and providers to voluntarily collect and submit standardized information regarding patient safety events to ensure that data collected by PSOs and other entities have comparable clinical meaning. The Common Formats facilitate aggregation of comparable data at local, PSO, regional and national levels.
The information collection forms that are the subject of this notice will be implemented at different times and frequencies due to the voluntary nature of: Seeking listing and remaining listed as a PSO, filing an OCR Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form, and using the Common Formats. The burden estimates are based on the average of the forms submissions received over the past three years.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent to provide the requested information, and Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the respondents' time to provide the requested information. The total burden hours are estimated to be 100,724.88 hours annually and the total cost burden is estimated to be $3,833,588.92 annually.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ functions, including whether the information will have practical utility, and; for OCR's enforcement of confidentiality; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) 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 upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) announces the Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting on AHRQ-HS-18-001, “Patient Safety Learning Laboratories: Pursuing Safety in Diagnosis and Treatment at the Intersection of Design, Systems Engineering, and Health Services Research (R18).” Each SEP meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting.
June 13-14, 2018 (
Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Hotel & Executive Meeting, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20850.
Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, agenda or minutes of the non-confidential portions of this meeting should contact: Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20850, Telephone: (301) 427-1554.
Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as priorities dictate.
In accordance with section 10 (a)(2) of the
A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to health care research who are invited by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be available, to conduct on an as needed basis, scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ support. Individual members of the Panel do not attend regularly-scheduled meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or a long period of time. Rather, they are asked to participate in particular review meetings which require their type of expertise.
Each SEP meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting. The SEP meeting referenced above will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Grant applications for the “AHRQ-HS-18-001”, “Patient Safety Learning Laboratories: Pursuing Safety in Diagnosis and Treatment at the Intersection of Design, Systems Engineering, and Health Services Research (R18)” is to be reviewed and discussed at this meeting. 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.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project “
Comments on this notice must be received by August 3, 2018.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by emails at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. For over thirty years, results from the MEPS and its predecessor surveys (the 1977 National Medical Care Expenditure Survey, the 1980 National Medical Care Utilization and Expenditure Survey and the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey) have been used by OMB, DHHS, Congress and a wide number of health services researchers to analyze health care use, expenses and health policy.
Major changes continue to take place in the health care delivery system. The MEPS is needed to provide information about the current state of the health care system as well as to track changes over time. The MEPS permits annual estimates of use of health care and expenditures and sources of payment for that health care. It also permits tracking individual change in employment, income, health insurance and health status over two years. The use of the NHIS as a sampling frame expands the MEPS analytic capacity by providing another data point for comparisons over time.
Households selected for participation in the MEPS-HC are interviewed five times in person. These rounds of interviewing are spaced about 5 months apart. The interview will take place with a family respondent who will report for him/herself and for other family members.
The MEPS-HC has the following goal:
To achieve the goals of the MEPS-HC the following data collections are implemented:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The MEPS-MPC will contact medical providers (hospitals, physicians, home health agencies and institutions) identified by household respondents in the MEPS-HC as sources of medical care for the time period covered by the interview, and all pharmacies providing prescription drugs to household members during the covered time period. The MEPS-MPC is not designed to yield national estimates as a stand-alone survey. The sample is designed to target the types of individuals and providers for whom household reported expenditure data was expected to be insufficient. For example, Medicaid enrollees are targeted for inclusion in the MEPS-MPC because this group is expected to have limited information about payments for their medical care.
The MEPS-MPC collects event level data about medical care received by sampled persons during the relevant time period. The data collected from medical providers include:
Data collected from pharmacies include:
The MEPS-MPC has the following goal:
To achieve the goal of the MEPS-MPC the following data collections are implemented:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Dentists, optometrists, psychologists, podiatrists, chiropractors, and others not providing care under the supervision of a MD or DO are considered out of scope for the MEPS-MPC.
The MEPS-HC and MEPS-MPC are being conducted by AHRQ through its
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the MEPS-HC and the MEPS-MPC
The MEPS-HC Core Interview will be completed by 13,338
All medical providers and pharmacies included in the MEPS-MPC will receive a screening call and the MEPS-MPC uses 7 different questionnaires; 6 for medical providers and 1 for pharmacies. Each questionnaire is relatively short and requires 2 to 19 minutes to complete. The total annual burden hours for the MEPS-MPC are estimated to be 17,388 hours. The total annual burden for the MEPS-HC and MPC is estimated to be 77,666 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annual cost burden associated with the respondents' time to participate in this information collection. The annual cost burden for the MEPS-HC is estimated to be $1,438,233; the annual cost burden for the MEPS-MPC is estimated to be $291,595. The total annual cost burden for the MEPS-HC and MPC is estimated to be $1,729,828.
The MEPS-MPC interviewer will be authorized to offer remuneration to providers who present cost as a salient objection to responding or if a flat fee is applied to any request for medical or billing records. Based on the past cycle of data collection fewer than one third of providers will request remuneration. Exhibit 3 shows the total and average per record remuneration by provider type, based on the 2016 data collection, the most recent year for which data is available. For those providers that required remuneration the average payment per medical record was $37.80, this compares to $32.98 in 2010.
Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2016 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ's health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) 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 upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Considerations for the Inclusion of Adolescent Patients in Adult Oncology Clinical Trials.” The purpose of this draft guidance is to provide the pharmaceutical industry, clinical investigators, and institutional review boards with information to facilitate the inclusion of adolescent patients (for purposes of this draft guidance defined as ages 12 to 17) in relevant adult oncology clinical trials. The draft guidance focuses on appropriate criteria for inclusion in adult trials at various stages of drug development, considerations for dosing and pharmacokinetic evaluations, safety monitoring, and ethical requirements.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by August 3, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Meredith K. Chuk, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5901-B Ammendale Rd., Beltsville, MD 20705-1266, 301-796-2320; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Considerations for the Inclusion of Adolescent Patients in Adult Oncology Clinical Trials.” The purpose of this draft guidance is to provide the pharmaceutical industry, clinical investigators, and institutional review boards with information to facilitate the inclusion of adolescent patients (for purposes of this draft guidance defined as ages 12 to 17) in relevant adult oncology clinical trials. The following topics are the focus of this guidance: (1) Appropriate criteria for inclusion in adult trials at various stages of drug development; (2) considerations for dosing and pharmacokinetic evaluations; (3) safety monitoring; and (4) ethical requirements.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Considerations for the Inclusion of Adolescent Patients in Adult Oncology Clinical Trials.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This draft guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4364-DR), dated May 8, 2018, and related determinations.
The amendment was issued on May 17, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Glen Sachtleben, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
This action terminates the appointment of Elizabeth Turner as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472 (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-4365-DR), dated May 8, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued May 8, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 8, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Hawaii resulting from severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of April 13-16, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Dolph A. Diemont, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Hawaii have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
The City and County of Honolulu and Kaua'i County for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Hawaii are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
In accordance with the National Housing Act, HUD has adjusted the Basic Statutory Mortgage Limits for Multifamily Housing Programs for Calendar Year 2018.
January 1, 2018.
Patricia M. Burke, Acting Director, Office of Multifamily Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone (202) 402-5693 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
The FHA Down Payment Simplification Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-326, approved December 4, 2002) amended the National Housing Act by adding a new Section 206A (12 U.S.C. 1712a). Under Section 206A, the following are affected:
I. Section 207(c)(3)(A) (12 U.S.C. 1713(c)(3)(A));
II. Section 213(b)(2)(A) (12 U.S.C. 1715e(b)(2)(A));
III. Section 220(d)(3)(B)(iii)(I) (12 U.S.C. 1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii)(I));
IV. Section 221(d)(4)(ii)(I) (12 U.S.C. 1715l(d)(4)(ii)(I));
V. Section 231(c)(2)(A) (12 U.S.C. 1715v(c)(2)(A)); and
VI. Section 234(e)(3)(A) (12 U.S.C. 1715y(e)(3)(A)).
The Dollar Amounts in these sections are the base per unit statutory limits for FHA's multifamily mortgage programs collectively referred to as the `Dollar Amounts.' They are adjusted annually (commencing in 2004) on the effective date of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB's) adjustment of the $400 figure in the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA) (Pub. L. 103-325, approved September 23, 1994). The adjustment of the Dollar Amounts shall be calculated using the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) as applied by the CFPB for purposes of the above-described HOEPA adjustment.
The percentage change in the CPI-U used for the HOEPA adjustment is 2.1 percent and the effective date of the HOEPA adjustment is January 1, 2018. The Dollar Amounts under Section 206A have been adjusted correspondingly and have an effective date of January 1, 2018.
The adjusted Dollar Amounts for Calendar Year 2018 are shown below:
The 2016 Multifamily Accelerated Processing (MAP) Guide established a base amount of $15,000 per unit to define substantial rehabilitation for FHA insured loan programs. Section 5.1.D.2 of the MAP guide requires that this base amount be adjusted periodically based on the percentage change published by the CFPB or other inflation cost index published by HUD. Applying the HOEPA adjustment the base amount, the 2018 base amount per dwelling unit to determine substantial rehabilitation for FHA insured loan programs is $15,636.
This issuance establishes mortgage and cost limits that do not constitute a development decision affecting the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this notice is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
New York towns undertook a similar process every three years. However, after consultation with program counsel, it was determined that a requalification process for New York towns is unnecessary because the units of general local government in New York towns do not have the same statutory notice rights (under Section 102(e) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974) as units of general local government participating in an urban county. However, those New York Towns may qualify as metropolitan cities if they are able to secure the participation of all of the villages located within their boundaries. Any New York Town that is located in an urban county may choose to leave that urban county when that county is requalifying to become a metropolitan city. That New York Town will be required to notify the urban county in advance of its decision to defer participation in the urban county's CDBG program and complete the metropolitan city qualification process.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announces a public meeting of the International Wildlife Conservation Council (Council).
Tuesday, June 19, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Eastern Time). For deadlines and directions on registering to attend, submitting written material, and giving an oral presentation, please see Public Input under
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Headquarters Building, 1875 Century Boulevard NE, Atlanta, GA 30345.
Doug Hobbs, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, by U.S. mail at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—External Affairs, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; by telephone at (703) 358-2336; or by email at
The council provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) regarding the benefits that result from United States citizens traveling to foreign nations to engage in hunting.
Formed in December 2017, the council is an advisory body whose duties include but are not limited to:
(a) Developing a plan for public engagement and education on the benefits of international hunting.
(b) Reviewing and making recommendations for changes, when needed, on all Federal programs, and/or regulations, to ensure support of hunting as:
1. An enhancement to foreign wildlife conservation and survival, and
2. An effective tool to combat illegal trafficking and poaching.
(c) Recommending strategies to benefit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's permit office in receiving timely country data and information so as to remove barriers that impact consulting with range states.
(d) Recommending removal of barriers to the importation into the United States of legally hunted wildlife.
(e) Ongoing review of import suspension/bans and providing recommendations that seek to resume the legal trade of those items, where appropriate.
(f) Reviewing seizure and forfeiture actions/practices, and providing recommendations for regulations that will lead to a reduction of unwarranted actions.
(g) Reviewing the Endangered Species Act's foreign listed species and interaction with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, with the goal of eliminating regulatory duplications.
(h) Recommending methods for streamlining/expediting processing of import permits.
The council will convene to discuss issues that include:
1. International wildlife conservation strategies;
2. U.S. ports of entry—importation security and customer service,
3. Perspectives from range countries, and
4. Other business.
The final agenda will be posted on the internet at
If you plan to attend this meeting, you must register by close of business on the date listed in Public Input. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address, and phone number to the Alternate Designated Federal Officer (see
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the Council to consider during the public meeting. Written statements must be received by the date in the table above so that the information may be made available to the Council for consideration prior to the meeting. Submit written statements to the Alternate Designated Federal Officer in the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and/or one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or rich text file).
Requests to address the council during the public comment period will be accommodated in the order the requests are received. Interested parties must contact the Alternate Designated Federal Officer in writing (preferably via email; see
Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. 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 request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
Summary minutes of the meeting will be maintained by the Designated Federal Officer. They will be available for public inspection within 90 days of the meeting.
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
Bureau of Indians Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The regulations implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act provide
Evangeline Campbell, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Chief, Division of Human Services, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 3641-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; Phone: (202) 513-7621.
The regulations implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. 1901
In any involuntary proceeding in a State court where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, and where the identity and location of the child's parent or Indian custodian or Tribe is known, the party seeking the foster-care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child must directly notify the parents, the Indian custodians, and the child's Tribe by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, of the pending child-custody proceedings and their right of intervention. Copies of these notices must be sent to the appropriate Regional Director by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal delivery. See 25 CFR 23.11.
If the identity or location of the child's parents, the child's Indian custodian, or the Tribes in which the Indian child is a member or eligible for membership cannot be ascertained, but there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, notice of the child-custody proceeding must be sent to the appropriate Bureau of Indian Affairs Regional Director (see
No notices, except for final adoption decrees, are required to be sent to the BIA Central Office in Washington, DC.
This notice presents, in two different formats, the names and addresses of current designated Tribal agents for service of notice, and includes each designated Tribal agent received by the Secretary of the Interior prior to the date of this publication. Part A, published in this notice, lists designated Tribal agents by region and alphabetically by Tribe within each region. Part A is also available electronically at
Part B is a table that lists designated Tribal agents alphabetically by the Tribal affiliation (first listing American Indian Tribes, then listing Alaska Native Tribes). Part B is only available electronically at
Each format also lists the Bureau of Indian Affairs contact(s) for each of the twelve regions.
Alaska Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Human Services, 3601 C Street, Suite 1100 Anchorage, Alaska 99503; Phone: (907) 271-4111.
Eastern Regional Director, 545 Marriott Drive, Suite 700, Nashville, TN 37214; Phone: (615) 564-6700; Fax: (615) 564-6701.
Eastern Oklahoma Regional Director, P.O. Box 8002, Muskogee, OK 74402-8002; Phone: (918) 781-4600; Fax (918) 781-4604.
Great Plains Regional Director, 115 4th Avenue SE, Aberdeen, SD 57401; Phone: (605) 226-7343; Fax: (605) 226-7446.
Midwest Regional Director, 5600 West American Blvd., Suite 500, Norman Pointe II Building, Bloomington, MN 55437; Phone: (612) 725-4500; Fax: (612) 713-4401.
Navajo Regional Director, Navajo Regional Office, P.O. Box 1060, Gallup, NM 87305; Phone: (505) 863-8314; Fax: (505) 863-8324.
Northwest Regional Director, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232; Phone: (503) 231-6702; Fax (503) 231-2201.
Pacific Regional Director, BIA, Federal Building, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2820, Sacramento, CA 95825; Phone: (916) 978-6000; Fax: (916) 978-6099.
Rocky Mountain Regional Director, 2021 4th Avenue, Billings, MT 59101; Phone: (406) 247-7943; Fax: (406) 247-7976
Southern Plains Regional Director, P.O. Box 368, Anadarko, OK 73005; Phone: (405) 247-6673 Ext. 217; Fax: (405) 247-5611.
Southwest Regional Director, 1001 Indian School Road NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104; Phone: (505) 563-3103; Fax: (505) 563-3101.
Western Regional Director, 2600 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85004; Phone: (602) 379-6600; Fax: (602) 379-4413.
Please see the following web page for a list of Tribal agents organized by Tribal affiliation:
National Park Service, Interior.
Meeting notice.
The National Park Service (NPS) is hereby giving notice of a meeting of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park Advisory Commission.
Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. (EASTERN).
Warren County Government Center, 220 North Commerce Avenue, Front Royal, VA 22630.
Further information concerning the meeting may be obtained from Karen Beck-Herzog, Site Manager, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, P.O. Box 700, Middletown, Virginia 22645, telephone (540) 868-9176, or visit the park website:
The NPS is holding the meeting pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16). The Commission was designated by Congress to provide advice to the Secretary of the Interior on the preparation and implementation of the park's general management plan and to advise on land protection (16 U.S.C. 410iii-7). Individuals who are interested in the park, the implementation of the plan, or the business of the Commission are encouraged to attend the meetings. Interested members of the public may present, either orally or through written comments, information for the Commission to consider during the public meeting. Attendees and those wishing to provide comment are strongly encouraged to preregister through the contact information provided. Scheduling of public comments during the Commission meeting will be determined by the chairperson of the Commission.
Before including your address, telephone 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 view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Commission meetings consist of the following:
16 U.S.C. 410iii-7; 5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 705(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)), instituted investigations effective August 16, 2017, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Core Pipe Products, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois, and Maass Flange Corporation, Houston, Texas. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of stainless steel flanges from China were being subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made this determination regarding subsidized imports from China pursuant to section 705(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)). It completed and filed its determination
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-589 and 731-TA-1394-1396 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of forged steel fittings from China, Italy, and Taiwan, provided for in subheading 7307.99.10, 7307.99.30, and 7307.99.50,
May 17, 2018.
Celia Feldpausch ((202) 205-2387), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Cotton Dust Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before July 5, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov website at
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Cotton Dust Standard information collection. The purpose of the Standard and its information collection requirements is to provide protection for employees from the adverse health effects associated with occupational exposure to cotton dust. An Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer subject to the Standard must monitor employee exposure, reduce employee exposure to within permissible exposure limits, provide employees with medical examinations and training, and establish and maintain employee exposure monitoring and medical records. OSH Act sections 2(b)(1), 6(b)(7), and 8(c) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Notice of Controversion of Right to Compensation,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before July 5, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OWCP, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Notice of Controversion of Right to Compensation (Form LS-207) information collection. Insurance carriers and self-insured employers use Form LS-207 to controvert claims under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) and extensions. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because the Department has provided a list of possible reasons for controversion that may be selected with a check mark. LHWCA section 901(d) authorizes this collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Notice of Payments,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before July 5, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OWCP, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA approval for the Notice of Payments (Form LS-208) information collection. Insurance carriers and self-insured employers use Form LS-208 to report Longshore and Harbors Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) benefit payments. LHWCA section 914(g) authorizes this collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Coke Oven Emissions Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before July 5, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Coke Oven Emissions Standard information collection requirements codified at regulations 29 CFR 1910.1029. The purpose of Coke Oven Emissions Standard and its information collection requirements are to provide protection for workers from the adverse health effects associated with occupational exposure to coke oven emissions. An Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer subject to the Standard must monitor worker exposure, reduce worker exposure to within permissible exposure limits, and provide workers with medical examinations and training. OSH Act sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Confined Spaces in Construction Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before July 5, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Confined Spaces in Construction Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1926 subpart AA. The Standard specifies a number of information collection requirements that are fully explained in the ICR. The Confined Spaces in Construction Standard information collections permit employers and employees to evaluate the dangers in confined spaces before entry is attempted, and ensure that adequate measures are implemented to make the spaces safe for entry. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 sections 2(b)(9), 6(b)(7), and 8(c)(1) and (3) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Notice requesting comments.
The Copyright Royalty Judges solicit comments on a motion for partial distribution of 2016 cable royalty funds.
Comments are due on or before July 5, 2018.
Interested claimants must submit timely comments, identified by docket number 17-CRB-0017-CD (2016), by only one of the following means.
Anita Blaine, Program Specialist, by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or email at
Each year cable systems must submit royalty payments to the Register of Copyrights as required by the statutory license detailed in section 111 of the Copyright Act for the retransmission to cable subscribers of over-the-air television and radio broadcast signals.
In the first instance, the Judges may authorize distribution in accordance with a negotiated settlement among all claiming parties. 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(4)(A). If all claimants do not reach agreement with respect to the royalties, the Judges must conduct a proceeding to determine
On May 18, 2018, representatives of the categorical groups of royalty claimants (Claimants)
Accordingly, this Notice seeks comments from interested claimants on whether any reasonable objection exists that would preclude the distribution of 50% of the 2016 cable royalty funds to the Claimants. Parties objecting to the partial distribution must advise the Judges of the existence and extent of all objections by the end of the comment period. The Judges will not consider any objections with respect to the partial distribution that come to their attention after the close of the comment period.
Members of the public may read the Motion of the Allocation Phase Claimants for Partial Distribution by accessing the Copyright Royalty Board's electronic filing and case management system at
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice.
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before July 5, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for NCUA, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission may be obtained by contacting Dawn Wolfgang at (703) 548-2279, emailing
The Joint Standards envision that a regulated entity, in a manner reflective of its size and other characteristics, (a) conducts annually a voluntary self-assessment of its diversity policies and practices; (b) monitors and evaluates its performance under its diversity policies and practices on an ongoing basis; (c) provides information pertaining to its self-assessment to the OMWI Director of its primary federal financial regulator; and (d) publishes information pertaining to its efforts with respect to the Joint Standards. In order to facilitate the self-assessment and information collection described in the Policy Statement, the NCUA provides NCUA Form 15004, “Annual Voluntary Credit Union Diversity Self-Assessment,” to federally insured credit unions to perform their assessment and to submit information to the NCUA.
By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on May 30, 2018.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an amendment to Materials License No. SNM-2502. The license authorizes Duke Energy Progress, LLC to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel and associated radioactive materials. The amendment changes the name of the licensee from Duke Energy Progress, Inc. to Duke Energy Progress, LLC for the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (Robinson Unit No. 2), Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.
June 4, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0103 when contacting the
•
•
•
John-Chau Nguyen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-0262; email:
The NRC has issued Amendment No. 3 to Materials License No. SNM-2502 held by Duke Energy Progress, LLC for the Robinson Unit No. 2, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, which changes the corporate name of the licensee from Duke Energy Progress, Inc. to Duke Energy Progress, LLC. The application dated July 10, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17192A078), submitted in accordance with section 72.56 of title 10 of the
Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.46, the NRC docketed, approved, and issued Amendment No. 3 for the receipt, possession, transfer, and storage of spent fuel at the Robinson Unit No. 2, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. Amendment No. 3 is effective as of the date of issuance. Amendment No. 3 complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings, as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter 1, which are set forth in Amendment No. 3. The issuance of Amendment No. 3 satisfies the criteria specified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11) for a categorical exclusion. Thus, the preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement is not required.
In accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(b)(2), the NRC has determined that Amendment No. 3 does not present a genuine issue as to whether public health and safety will be significantly affected. Therefore, the publication of a notice of proposed action and an opportunity for hearing or a notice of hearing is not required. Notice is hereby given of the right of interested persons to request a hearing on whether the action should be rescinded or modified in accordance with the procedures found in 10 CFR 2.309.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of June 4, 11, 18, 25, July 2, 9, 2018.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 11, 2018.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 25, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 2, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 9, 2018.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or you may email
OPIC's Sunshine Act notice of its Public Hearing in Conjunction with each Board meeting was published in the
Information on the hearing cancellation may be obtained from Catherine F.I. Andrade at (202) 336-8768, 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 has filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The requests(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.
3.
This notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
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 to (i) add an Add Volume Tier and (ii) increase the fee for orders that yield fee code D.
Currently, the Exchange charges a standard rate of $0.0003 per share for orders that add liquidity for securities at or above $1.00 that are appended with fee codes B, V Y, 3 or 4. The Exchange propose to adopt an Add Volume Tier, Tier 1 (new footnote 7) which would provide a reduced fee of $0.0002 per share for Members that add an ADV
The Exchange next proposes to increase the fee for orders yielding fee code D, which results from an order routed to the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) or routed using the RDOT routing strategy. Particularly, NYSE recently implemented certain pricing changes related to Tapes B and C securities, including adopting a per tape fee of $0.00280 per share to remove liquidity from the Exchange for member organizations with an Adding ADV of at least 50,000 shares for that respective Tape.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes the addition of an Add Volume Tier under footnote 7 is reasonable because it provides Members an opportunity to receive a reduced rate for orders that add liquidity and is a reasonable means to encourage Members to increase their liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange further believes that the proposed tier represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges because the thresholds necessary to achieve the tier encourages Members to add additional liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange also notes that other exchanges utilize similar volume tiers with similar criteria.
The Exchange believes the proposed increase to orders yielding fee code D is reasonable because it reflects a pass-through of the pricing increase by NYSE noted above. The Exchange further believes the proposed fee change is equitable and non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
This proposed rule change does 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 from pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, 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 changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. The Exchange
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 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to change the name of the Floor Broker Management System and to require all members that operate on the Exchange Floor, including Floor Brokers, Registered Options Traders, and Specialists, to enter and submit Floor-based trades using that system.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Rules to change the name of its electronic order entry system, the Floor Broker Management System, to the Floor Based Management System (“FBMS”). The Exchange also proposes to extend to the other members that operate on the Exchange Floor—Registered Options Traders (“ROTs”)
Presently and in most instances, the Exchange requires Floor Brokers to enter orders using the Floor Broker Management System. The Floor Broker Management System is an electronic order entry system that is accessible to Floor Brokers and their employees on the Exchange floor through desktop and tablet computers. As is described in Commentary .06 to Rule 1080, FBMS enables Floor Brokers and their employees to enter, route, and report transactions stemming from options orders received on the Exchange. It also establishes an electronic audit trail for options orders represented and executed by Floor Brokers on the Exchange. Pursuant to Rule 1063(e)(i), Floor Brokers must enter certain information into the Floor Broker Management System about each of the orders they receive when they receive them and prior to representing such orders in the trading crowd.
At the time when the Exchange introduced FBMS, the Exchange did not deem it necessary for ROTs or Specialists to use FBMS because the Exchange specifically intended to use FBMS as an electronic audit trail for Floor Brokers. Accordingly, ROTs and Specialists presently are neither required nor permitted to enter or execute orders using the Floor Broker Management System. Instead, ROTs and Specialists must record order and related execution details on paper trading tickets. ROTs and Specialists provide such matched trade tickets to Exchange DETs who then manually input the information written on the tickets into the Exchange's electronic trading system, which is included in the electronic audit trail.
The manual order entry process that ROTs and Specialists utilize has become outmoded in comparison to the Floor Broker Management System. The process of manually recording order and execution information onto tickets, submitting such tickets to Exchange DETs, and then the DETs entering the information written on such tickets into the Exchange's electronic system is less efficient than the entry of order information into the Floor Broker Management System. Also, manual trades, often, are reported with a “Late” or “Out Of Sequence” trade condition due to this manual process. The order entry system used for trade tickets executed by ROTs and Specialists is also more prone to human error than is the Floor Broker Management System insofar as the latter system automatically enforces the Exchange's priority and trade-through rules, while the former does not. Moreover, unlike the Floor Broker Management System, the existing process for ROTs and Specialists does not establish an immediate audit trail for orders due to the manual handling of orders.
To address these inefficiencies, mitigate risks, and to improve the compliance record, the Exchange proposes to modernize the order entry process for ROTs and Specialists by replacing it with the Floor Broker Management System, which will be renamed the “Floor Based Management System” or “FBMS” to reflect its broader applicability to Floor Brokers, ROTs and Specialists.
To effectuate these changes, the Exchange proposes several amendments and additions to the Exchange's Rules.
First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000(f), which sets forth the means by which options transactions may be executed on the Exchange, to expressly permit ROTs and Specialists to execute orders utilizing FBMS.
As to Snapshot, the Exchange proposes to authorize ROTs and Specialists, like Floor Brokers, to use Snapshot to provisionally execute, in the options trading crowd, multi-leg orders and simple orders in options on exchange traded funds that are included in the Options Penny Pilot, subject to the procedures for and the limitations to the use of Snapshot. These procedures and limitations for Snapshot are set forth presently in Rule 1063(e)(v), but the Exchange proposes to move them to a new Section 1069, where they will apply broadly to “members” rather than only to Floor Brokers.
The Exchange believes that the Snapshot functionality is appropriate for use by ROTs and Specialists, notwithstanding the fact that ROTs and Specialists trade on a proprietary basis, rather than on an agency basis like Floor Brokers. ROTs and Specialists are subject to the same risk as are Floor Brokers with respect to Floor-based trading—
The following is an example of how Snapshot would apply to a hypothetical trade by a ROT. In this example, a ROT enters a multi-leg order into FBMS to buy 50 MRK Mar 50 calls, buy 50 MRK Mar 53.50 calls, sell 50 MRK Mar 54 Calls, and sell 50 MRK Mar 52.50 calls for a $3.00 debit and the ROT wants specific prices entered on each leg of this trade. He enters the trading crowd, lawfully announces the order, and requests bids and offers from the trading crowd. A Market Maker in the trading crowd offers to sell 50 contracts at a $3.00 credit while the National Best Bid or Offer is $2.75 bid and $3.30 offer. At this point, the ROT will provisionally execute the trade orally in the trading crowd and contemporaneously clicking the Snapshot button. Within the 30 second time frame in which the Snapshot is active, the ROT will open the Complex Calculator, enter his specific prices and submit the trade to the Trading System using FBMS for potential execution.
Second, the Exchange proposes to establish an analogue for ROTs and Specialists to Rule 1063(e)(i), which sets forth the responsibilities of Floor Brokers to enter certain order information into FBMS. Similar to Rule 1063(e)(i), new Rule 1081 will require ROTs and Specialists, prior to the negotiation
Moreover, proposed Rule 1081(d) states that when ROTs and Specialists submit orders for execution through FBMS, the order will be executed based on market conditions that exist at the time of execution
Additionally, and as discussed earlier, proposed Rule 1081 will permit ROTs and Specialists to utilize the Snapshot feature of FBMS in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in proposed Rule 1069. Proposed Rule 1081 also incorporates and adapts Commentary .01 of Rule 1063, and will provide that a ROT or Specialist that wishes to place a limit order on the limit order book cannot submit such a limit order using a paper ticket; instead, the ROT or Specialist must submit the limit order electronically through the FBMS (unless an exception to the use of FBMS applies).
The Exchange notes that, as set forth in proposed Rule 1081(a), it anticipates that it will make FBMS available to ROTs and Specialists during the Second Quarter of 2018. To facilitate the transition to FBMS, the Exchange will not require ROTs or Specialists to utilize FBMS until one month after the date on which the Commission approves the Exchange's proposal. The Exchange will notify Members via an Options Trader Alert, to be posted on the Exchange's website, at least seven calendar days prior to the date when FBMS will be available for use by ROTs and Specialists. The alert will also contain the mandatory start date.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1066, which list certain order types that are eligible for entry on FBMS, to clarify that the Rule permits all members operating on the Exchange Floor, including Floor Brokers, ROTs, and Specialists, to enter such orders on FBMS.
The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .06 to Rule 1080, which describes the functions of FBMS, to clarify that it applies to all members that operate on the Exchange Floor, including Floor Brokers, ROTs, and Specialists. It also proposes to amend a cross-reference in the Rules to a description of the features of FBMS to include a cross-reference to proposed Rule 1081.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Option Floor Procedure Advices and Order & Decorum Regulations (“Advices”), which presently govern the use of FBMS only by Floor Brokers, so that they also cover the use of FBMS by ROTs and Specialists as well. Specifically, the proposal establishes new Advices A-2 and B-7, which largely replicate Advice C-2 (governing use by Floor Brokers of FBMS) for Specialists and ROTs, respectively. The proposal also amends certain Advices to extend their references to Floor Brokers to also include ROTs and Specialists, including Advice A-2 (All-or-None Option Orders), Advice F-2 (Allocation, Time Stamping, Matching and Access to Matched Trades)
Lastly, the Exchange also proposes to update existing references in its Rulebook to the “Floor Broker Management System” so that they refer instead to the new name of the system, the “Floor Based Management System.” In addition to the Rules mentioned above, these conforming changes affect Rules 911, 1063, 1064, and 1098, and Advices A-9, B-6, B-8, C-2, and C-3.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, by providing for a uniform system of order entry on the Exchange floor, the Exchange's proposal to extend FBMS to ROTs and Specialists will help ensure fair and equal treatment for all members that operate on the Exchange floor. It will also serve the interests of investors and the public to establish an electronic order entry system for ROTs and Specialists that is more accurate, less prone to error, less time intensive (thereby helping to ensure customer trade priority), and that establishes an immediately available audit trail.
The Exchange also believes that it is consistent with the Act for ROTs and Specialists to utilize FBMS notwithstanding the fact that it designed FBMS for use by Floor Brokers, and to do so subject to the same general conditions, requirements, and exceptions which apply presently to Floor Brokers. The Exchange initially designed FBMS for use by Floor Brokers because the Exchange sought to establish an electronic audit trail mechanism for Floor Brokers, in particular; however, the Exchange never intended to specifically exclude ROTs and Specialists from FBMS and it perceives no policy basis for doing so now. Moreover, to the extent that the Exchange proposes to make FBMS available to all Floor participants, it perceives no basis for doing so on anything but the same terms. That is, the Exchange anticipates no unique risks associated with the use of FBMS by ROTs and Specialists, and it believes that the exceptions to FBMS that exist in Rule 1000(f) are each applicable to ROTs and Specialists. That said, the Exchange proposes minor alterations to the Rules that presently govern the use of FBMS by Floor Brokers to, among other things, account for the fact that ROTs and Specialists negotiate orders on the Floor on their own behalf and do not represent orders on the Floor on behalf of others.
Similarly, the Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to extend the availability of the Snapshot functionality of FBMS to ROTs and Specialists. The Exchange's rationale for providing Snapshot to Floor Brokers is equally applicable to ROTs and Specialists. ROTs and Specialists are subject to the same risk as are Floor Brokers when trading in open outcry on the Exchange Floor. This risk, which arises from the manual processes inherent in Floor-based trading, is that the Exchange's Trading System will reject a trade due to a change in market conditions that occurs between the time when the parties negotiate a lawful and valid trade on the Floor, enter the trade information into FBMS, and submit it to the Trading System. The use of Snapshot by ROTs and Specialists will promote just and equitable principles of trade and serve the interests of investors and the public by mitigating this risk and by increasing the likelihood that ROTs and Specialists will be able to
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 to extend FBMS to ROTs and Specialists is intended to modernize and otherwise improve the Exchange's internal order entry process; it is neither intended nor expected to materially affect the competitive position of the Exchange vis-a-vis other exchanges. If anything, this proposal would improve the options floor trading environment for ROTs and Specialists, thereby making the Exchange a more attractive venue for floor trading.
The Exchange also does not believe that its proposal to extend the availability of the Snapshot functionality to ROTs and Specialists will burden competition. To the contrary, the Exchange intends for this proposal to make its options trading Floor more competitive with other floor trading venues that have less stringent anti-trade-through procedures as compared to the Exchange. The proposal is also intended to make the Floor more competitive with electronic options trading venues that feature near-instantaneous and autonomous execution processes which eliminate the risks that Snapshot exists to mitigate.
The Exchange does not anticipate that its proposals will impact intra-market competition because the proposals will simply extend the benefits of FBMS and Snapshot to all categories of its Floor participants.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in 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.
Department of State.
Notice of the CAFTA-DR Environmental Affairs Council meeting and request for comments.
The Department of State and the Office of the United States Trade Representative are providing notice that the parties to the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) intend to hold the twelfth meeting of the Environmental Affairs Council (the Council) established under Chapter 17 (Environment) of that agreement in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, June 20-21, 2018.
The public session of the Council will be held on June 21, 2018, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the Intercontinental Hotel in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. We request comments and suggestions in writing no later than June 13, 2018.
Written comments or suggestions should be submitted to both:
(1) Neal Morris, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Office of Environmental Quality and Transboundary Issues by email to
(2) Laura Buffo, Director for Environment and Natural Resources, Office of the United States Trade Representative by email to
If you have access to the internet you can view and comment on this notice by going to:
Neal Morris, (202) 647-9312, or Laura Buffo, (202) 395-9424.
On June 20, the Council will meet in a government-to-government session to: (1) Review any challenges parties are facing in meeting their Environment Chapter obligations; (2) highlight environmental achievements in the past year and share lessons learned and best practices; (3) review ongoing work under the environmental cooperation program; and (4) receive a report from the CAFTA-DR Secretariat for Environmental Matters on the status of the public submissions process.
On June 21, the Council invites all interested persons to attend a public session about Chapter 17 implementation, beginning at 10:00 a.m. at the Intercontinental Hotel in Santo Domingo. At the session, the Council will welcome questions, input, and information about challenges and achievements in implementation of the Chapter and the related Environmental Cooperation Agreement (ECA). Environmental Cooperation Program implementers also will be on site to answer questions and provide more information about their particular projects and programs. If you would like to attend the public session, please notify Neal Morris and Laura Buffo at the email addresses listed under the heading
The Department of State and the Office of the United States Trade Representative also invite written comments or suggestions to be submitted by no later than June 13, 2018, regarding topics to be discussed at the Council meeting. In preparing comments, we encourage submitters to refer to Chapter 17 of CAFTA-DR and the CAFTA-DR ECA (
Article 17.5 of the CAFTA-DR establishes an Environmental Affairs Council (the Council) and, unless the CAFTA-DR parties otherwise agree, provides that it will meet annually to oversee the implementation of, and review progress under, Chapter 17. Article 17.5 further requires, unless the parties otherwise agree, that each meeting of the Council includes a session in which members of the Council have an opportunity to meet with the public to discuss matters relating to the implementation of Chapter 17.
In preparing comments, we encourage submitters to refer to:
• Chapter 17 of the CAFTA-DR and
• The ECA
These documents are available at:
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Spain: 500 Years of Spanish Painting from the Museums of Madrid,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the San Antonio Museum of Art, San Antonio, Texas, from on or about June 22, 2018, until on or about September 16, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before June 25, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0376 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Clarence Garden (202) 267-7489, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for a new information collection, which is summarized below under
Please submit comments by August 3, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 2018-0021 by any of the following methods:
Jim Sinnette, Office of Innovative Program Delivery, 202-366-1561,
The preparation of the project management plan, as required by 23 U.S.C. 106(h)(2), ensures that clearly defined roles, responsibilities, procedures and processes are in effect to provide timely information to the project decisionmakers to effectively manage the scope, costs, schedules, quality of, and the Federal requirements applicable to, the project. The project management plan serves as a guide for implementing the major project and documents assumptions and decisions regarding communication, management processes, execution and overall project control.
The preparation of the annual financial plan, as required by 23 U.S.C. 106(h)(3), ensures that the necessary financial resources are identified, available, and monitored throughout the life of the project. An annual financial plan is a comprehensive document that reflects the project's scope, schedule, cost estimate, and funding structure to provide reasonable assurance that there will be sufficient funding available to implement and complete the entire project, or a fundable phase of the project, as planned.
The project management plan is first submitted prior to the start of construction and then updated as significant changes to the project occur during construction.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that FHWA will submit the collection of information described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The
Please submit comments by July 5, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number FHWA 2018-0022, by any of the following methods:
Mark Glaze, 202 366-4053, Office of Natural Environment, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that FHWA will submit the collection of information described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The
Please submit comments by July 5, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number FHWA 2018-0020, by any of the following methods:
Michael Howell, 202-366-5707, Office of Information and Management Service, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results. Below we provide FHWA's projected average estimates for the next three years:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Under part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on March 30, 2018, Michigan State Trust for Railway Preservation, Inc. (MSTP) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 240.201(d). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2018-0033.
MSTP seeks a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 240.201(d) which states, “After December 31, 1991, no railroad shall permit or require any person to operate a locomotive in any class of locomotive or train service unless that person has been certified as a qualified locomotive engineer and issued a certificate that complies with § 240.223.” MSTP desires to conduct a “Hands on the Throttle Program,” which would allow “non-certified” individuals to operate a locomotive as a “Student Locomotive Engineer.”
MSTP is a non-profit educational corporation which owns and operates steam locomotives. The organization is located at the steam locomotive repair facility in Owosso, Michigan, and connected to the tracks of the Great Lakes Central Railway (GLC). The MSTP does not own or control any trackage, except for the track leads going to the repair shop building and museum.
As proposed, MSTP will verify that each participant possesses a valid state issued motor vehicle license, and will have a certified locomotive engineer in the cab at all times. The operations will be conducted on GLC designated tracks during daylight hours with only one locomotive movement at a time, operate at restricted speed, communication will be maintained through the GCL dispatcher, and be afforded blue flag and derail protection. The locomotive will be inspected daily, receive a new brake test per participant, and public highway grade crossings will not be involved. MSTP believes that this waiver will enable it to generate needed interest and revenue to teach steam technology to future generations. MSTP also believes these operations will not pose any safety concerns to the public at large.
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 July 19, 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
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew information collections associated with DOT's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program. These collections are: Uniform Report of DBE Awards or Commitments and Payments, the Uniform Certification Application Form, Annual Affidavit of No Change, DOT Personal Net Worth Form, and Reporting Requirements for Percentages of DBEs in Various Categories. All five collections were previously approved under one OMB Control Number to allow DOT to more efficiently administer the DBE program. The information to be collected is necessary because it helps to ensure that State and local recipients that let federally funded contracts carry out their mandated responsibility to provide a level playing field for small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. We are required to publish this notice in the
Written comments should be submitted by August 3, 2018.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0075] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Marc Pentino, Departmental Office of Civil Rights, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-6968, or at
The “Uniform Report of DBE Awards or Commitments and Payments” is necessary for the Department to be able to carry out its oversight responsibilities. It implements statutory reporting requirements and 49 CFR 26.11, and 26.47.
The “Uniform Certification Application Form” is necessary to implement 49 CFR 26.83(c)(2) and determine whether a particular firm qualifies for certification as a DBE.
The “Annual Affidavit of No Change” is mandated under 49 CFR 26.83(j) and is necessary to ensure the integrity of the DBE program that requires DBEs annually state that they remain eligible for the program.
The “Personal Net Worth Form” is necessary to implement the requirement found in 49 CFR 26.67(a)(2) that a firm applying for DBE status must certify that the personal net worth of the owners does not exceed the current maximum threshold.
The “Percentages of DBEs in Various Categories” collection is necessary to implement a long-standing statutory requirement calling on States to report annually, a list of small businesses certified as DBEs that are owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, most recently included at section 1101(b)(4)(A) and (B) of the FAST Act. Submission of this information will also satisfy 49 CFR 26.11(e).
The information collections support one of DOT's strategic objectives of mission efficiency and support. The collection also helps ensure that State and local recipients that let federally funded contracts carry out their mandated responsibility to ensure that only eligible small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals may compete for such contracts as a DBE.
The Department anticipates making minor editorial corrections to the forms published in the Code of Federal Regulations; and is seeking public comment on helping us identify any errors to enhance the quality of the collection and program integrity.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.49.
The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Cooperative Studies Scientific Evaluation Committee will hold a meeting on July 18, 2018, at the American Association of Airport Executives, 601 Madison Street, Alexandria, VA. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 3:00 p.m.
The Committee advises the Chief Research and Development Officer on the relevance and feasibility of proposed projects and the scientific validity and propriety of technical details, including protection of human subjects.
The session will be open to the public for approximately 30 minutes at the start of the meeting for the discussion of administrative matters and the general status of the program. The remaining portion of the meeting will be closed to the public for the Committee's review, discussion, and evaluation of research and development applications.
During the closed portion of the meeting, discussions and recommendations will deal with qualifications of personnel conducting the studies, staff and consultant critiques of research proposals and similar documents, and the medical records of patients who are study subjects, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As provided by section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, closing portions of this meeting is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (c)(9)(B).
The Committee will not accept oral comments from the public for the open portion of the meeting. Those who plan to attend or wish additional information should contact Dr. Grant Huang, Director, Cooperative Studies Program (10P9CS), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 443-5700 or by email at
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) prescribes final frameworks from which States may select season dates, limits, and other options for the 2018-19 migratory bird hunting seasons. The effect of this final rule is to facilitate the States' selection of hunting seasons and to further the annual establishment of the migratory bird hunting regulations. We annually prescribe frameworks, or outer limits, for dates and times when hunting may occur and the number of birds that may be taken and possessed in hunting seasons. These frameworks are necessary to allow State selections of seasons and limits and to allow recreational harvest at levels compatible with population and habitat conditions.
This rule takes effect on June 4, 2018.
States should send their season selections to: Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803. You may inspect comments received on the migratory bird hunting regulations during normal business hours at the Service's office at 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 or at
Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; (703) 358-1967.
As part of DOI's retrospective regulatory review, 2 years ago we developed a schedule for migratory game bird hunting regulations that is more efficient and provides hunting season dates much earlier than was possible under the old process. The process facilitates planning for the States and all parties interested in migratory bird hunting. Beginning in the summer of 2015, with the 2016-17 hunting seasons, we started promulgating our annual migratory game bird hunting regulations using a schedule that combines the previously used early- and late-season regulatory processes into a single process. We make decisions for harvest management based on predictions derived from long-term biological information and established harvest strategies and, therefore, can establish migratory bird hunting seasons much earlier than the system we used for many years. Under this revised process, we develop proposed hunting season frameworks for a given year in the fall of the prior year. We then finalize those frameworks a few months later, thereby enabling the State agencies to select and publish their season dates in early summer. We provided a detailed overview of the new process in the August 3, 2017,
On August 3, 2017, we published a proposal to amend title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at part 20 (82 FR 36308). The proposal provided a background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for hunting migratory game birds under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. Major steps in the 2018-19 regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and
Subsequent documents, including this document, refer only to numbered items requiring attention. Therefore, it is important to note that we omit those items requiring no attention and remaining numbered items will be discontinuous, so the list appears to be incomplete. The August 3, 2017, proposed rule also provided detailed information on the proposed 2018-19 regulatory schedule and announced the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) and Flyway Council meetings.
On October 3, 2017, we published in the
Each year we publish various species status reports that provide detailed information on the status and harvest of migratory game birds, including information on the methodologies and results. These reports are available at the address indicated under
The preliminary proposed rulemaking, which appeared in the August 3, 2017,
Regarding the availability of population and harvest data, we post all reports, recommendations, background materials, and other such information used to make decisions on the Division of Migratory Bird Management's website and the Federal Government's official regulatory website (
Regarding habitat information, biodiversity, and climate change, we note that there is an extensive discussion of habitat conditions in the Waterfowl Population Status report and that all of the reports, population models, and frameworks either directly or indirectly take into consideration factors such as these, especially habitat conditions.
Lastly, as detailed under Regulatory Flexibility Act, we analyzed the economic impacts of the annual hunting regulations on small business entities in detail as part of a 1981 cost-benefit analysis and that this analysis was revised annually from 1990-95. In 1995, we issued a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis, which was subsequently updated in 1996, 1998, 2004, 2008, and 2013, as new information became available. The primary source of information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-year intervals. When there is updated information available, we will update our analysis.
The prescribed regulatory alternative for the Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways is based on the status of mallard populations that contribute primarily to each Flyway. In the Atlantic Flyway, we set hunting regulations based on the population status of mallards breeding in eastern North America (Federal survey strata 51-54 and 56, and State surveys in New England and the mid-Atlantic region). In the Central and Mississippi Flyways, we set hunting regulations based on the status and dynamics of mid-continent mallards. Mid-continent mallards are those breeding in central North America (Federal survey strata 13-18, 20-50, and 75-77, and State surveys in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan). In the Pacific Flyway, we set hunting regulations based on the status and dynamics of western mallards. Western mallards are those breeding in Alaska and the northern Yukon Territory (as based on Federal surveys in strata 1-12), and in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California (as based on Canadian Wildlife Service and State-conducted surveys).
For the 2018-19 season, we will continue to use independent optimization to determine the optimal regulatory choice for each mallard stock. This means that we would develop regulations for eastern mallards, mid-continent mallards, and western mallards independently, based upon the breeding stock that contributes primarily to each Flyway. We detailed implementation of this AHM decision framework for western and mid-continent mallards in the July 24, 2008,
As we stated in the October 3, 2017, proposed rule (82 FR 46011), for the 2018-19 hunting season, we are continuing to use the same regulatory alternatives as those used last year. The nature of the “restrictive,” “moderate,” and “liberal” alternatives has remained essentially unchanged since 1997, except that extended framework dates have been offered in the “moderate” and “liberal” regulatory alternatives since 2002 (67 FR 47224; July 17, 2002).
The optimal AHM strategies for mid-continent, eastern, and western mallards for the 2018-19 hunting season were calculated using: (1) Harvest-management objectives specific to each mallard stock; (2) the 2018-19 regulatory alternatives; and (3) current population models and associated weights. Based on “liberal” regulatory alternatives selected for the 2017-18 hunting season, the 2017 Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey (WBPHS) results of 10.64 million mid-continent mallards and 4.33 million ponds in Prairie Canada, 0.65 million eastern mallards, and 0.98 million western mallards (0.44 million in California-Oregon and 0.54 million in Alaska), the optimal regulatory choice for all four Flyways is the “liberal” alternative. Therefore, we concur with the recommendations of the Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils regarding selection of the “liberal” regulatory alternative for the 2018-19 season and will adopt the “liberal” regulatory alternative, as described in the October 3, 2017,
The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that teal seasons in Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Kentucky be made operational beginning in 2018-19. They further recommended that Tennessee be granted an additional year of experimental status for their teal season to collect an additional year of data to support evaluations and that Iowa be allowed to retain the option to select a September 5-day duck season or an operational early teal season for the 2018-19 hunting seasons. Iowa's decision would remain in effect under current duck season frameworks.
The Central Flyway Council recommended that Nebraska's experimental September teal season be made operational for the 2018-19 hunting season.
We agree with the Atlantic Flyway's request to extend Florida's experimental teal-only season through 2018, to allow the State sufficient time to prepare a full report on the results of its study on impacts to nontarget species.
We also agree with the Mississippi Flyway's request that September teal seasons in Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Kentucky be made operational beginning in 2018-19. Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin submitted a report that summarized results from their 3-year experimental September teal season conducted during 2014-16. As established in the MOAs and discussed in our 2014 Proposed Rule (79 FR 44583), the criteria to allow September teal seasons included acceptable rates of nontarget attempt rates no greater than 25 percent and nontarget kill rates no greater than 10 percent. Results from those studies demonstrated that nontarget species attempt rates were below the acceptable rate of 25 percent (range 4.6 to 6.6 percent). Although Michigan and Wisconsin each had one year in which the nontarget harvest rate exceeded the acceptable rate of 10 percent, the harvest rate in the other 2 years of the studies in each State were well below 10 percent (range 4.0 to 6.7 for Michigan and 0.0 for both years in Wisconsin). Thus, we conclude that production (“northern”) States in the Mississippi Flyway have satisfied the experimental criteria for nontarget species harvest rates. None of the three States opened an experimental season prior to sunrise; therefore, a comparison of nontarget species attempt and harvest rates during pre- and post-sunrise periods was not made.
Furthermore, we concur that Iowa be allowed to retain the option to select either a September 5-day duck season or an operational September teal season for the 2018-19 hunting season. The Service previously agreed to allow Iowa to retain these options when the State suspended its special September 5-day duck season in order to conduct a 3-year experimental September teal season along with other production States in the Flyway. When Iowa chooses either of these options for the 2018-19 season, that decision will remain in effect for future years under current duck season frameworks. With regard to the results from the 3-year experimental September teal-only season that follows the operational September teal-wood duck season in Kentucky, the nontarget species attempt rate for both the pre-sunrise (7.7 percent) and post-sunrise (13.4 percent) periods were below the acceptable rate of 25 percent. Similarly, the nontarget species harvest rate for both the pre-sunrise (5.0 percent) and post-sunrise (6.0 percent) periods were below the acceptable rate of 10 percent. Therefore, we agree with the Mississippi Flyway Council's request to make the September teal-only season in Kentucky operational.
Finally, we agree with the Mississippi Flyway's request to extend Tennessee's experimental teal-only season through 2018, to allow the Service sufficient time to review a report recently submitted by Tennessee that contains results from a fourth experimental year conducted in September 2017. The Service will examine results from all 4 years of the study to determine whether Tennessee has met experimental criteria with regard to nontarget species attempt and harvest rates.
We also agree with the Central Flyway Council's recommendation granting operational status to Nebraska's experimental September teal season. As with the Mississippi Flyway States, Nebraska entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Service that specified sample sizes (
For the 2018-19 season, the optimal country-specific regulatory strategies were calculated using: (1) The black duck harvest objective (98 percent of long-term cumulative harvest); (2) 2018-19 country-specific regulatory alternatives; (3) current parameter estimates for mallard competition and additive mortality; and (4) 2017 survey results of 0.54 million breeding black ducks and 0.44 million breeding mallards in the core survey area. The optimal regulatory choices for the 2018-19 season are the “liberal” package in Canada and the “moderate” package in the United States.
For scaup, optimal regulatory strategies for the 2018-19 season were calculated using: (1) An objective to achieve 95 percent of long-term cumulative harvest, (2) current scaup regulatory alternatives, and (3) updated model parameters and weights. Based on a “moderate” regulatory alternative selected in 2017, and the 2017 survey results of 4.37 million scaup, the optimal regulatory choice for the 2018-19 season for all four Flyways is the “moderate” regulatory alternative.
The Central Flyway Council recommended the implementation of modified Canada goose hunting zones in North Dakota and Wyoming. Wyoming would conduct an evaluation of the 3-way splits in two zones in accordance with established criteria.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended increasing the daily bag limit for Canada geese from 4 to 6 in the Northwest Permit Zone of Oregon. They further recommended reducing the size of Oregon's Tillamook County Management Area (
We support the Central Flyway Council's recommendations. The change in North Dakota was previously addressed above in 4.A. Special Early Seasons. The changes will allow the States to better satisfy hunters' desires to hunt at certain times of the season without negatively impacting Canada goose populations. Wyoming will work together with the Service to conduct an evaluation of their change to conform to Service requirements.
We also agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation to increase the daily bag limit from 4 to 6 Canada geese in Oregon's Northwest Permit Zone. Seven subspecies of Canada geese occur in this area, but cackling Canada geese are the most abundant. The current 3-year average predicted fall population estimate (2015-17) for cackling geese is 321,475, which is substantially above the Flyway population objective of 250,000. The increase in bag limit is specifically intended to decrease abundance of cackling geese and address associated depredation complaints, and is consistent with the Council's harvest strategy for these birds. However, the bag limit increase could result in increased harvest of the 6 other subspecies of Canada geese in the area, but is not expected to be significant. Canada goose harvest in the area is expected to increase by less than 10 percent with the bag limit change, and State harvest data indicate cackling geese represent about 70 percent of the Canada goose harvest in this area. Other subspecies of Canada geese are over the Council's population objectives, have no open hunting season, occur mostly outside of the Northwest Zone, or have stable trends in abundance during the last 10 years.
More specific to these other Canada goose subspecies, the current 3-year average breeding population estimate (2015-17) for Aleutian Canada geese is 167,451, which is substantially above the Flyway population objective of 60,000 geese. The current 3-year average breeding population estimate (2015-17) for the Pacific Population of western Canada geese is 313,200 and exceeds area-specific Flyway objectives. The hunting season on dusky Canada geese, a subspecies of management concern, is currently closed in this area. The potential for increased incidental take of dusky geese is expected to be small, and monitoring programs are in place to evaluate population status. Vancouver Canada geese are relatively nonmigratory, occur primarily in remote estuarine areas of southeast Alaska and northern British Columbia (
We also agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation to reduce the size of the Tillamook County Management Area (
Monitoring data indicate that these birds almost exclusively use two pastures/hayfields within the goose hunting closure area. The closure area includes both non-goose habitat and pastures/hayfields the Semidi Islands geese do not use. The closure area has been reduced four times (2002, 2005, 2007, and 2011) since establishment to focus protection on areas Semidi Islands geese use and address depredation complaints resulting from increasing abundance of several populations of Canada and white-fronted geese in the area. This fifth reduction in the goose
Under the new regulatory schedule, neither the expected 2018 brant production information (available summer 2018) nor the 2018 MWS count (conducted in January 2018) is typically available at the time of the proposed frameworks (early December to mid-January). However, the 2018 MWS is typically completed and winter brant data is available by the expected publication of the final frameworks. Therefore, in the September 24, 2015,
• If the MWS count is <100,000 Atlantic brant, the season would be closed.
• If the MWS count is between 100,000 and 115,000 brant, States could select a 30-day season with a 1-bird daily bag limit.
• If the MWS count is between 115,000 and 130,000 brant, States could select a 30-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
• If the MWS count is between 130,000 and 150,000 brant, States could select a 50-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
• If the MWS count is between 150,000 and 200,000 brant, States could select a 60-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
• If the MWS count is >200,000 brant, States could select a 60-day season with a 3-bird daily bag limit.
Under all the above open-season alternatives, seasons would be between the Saturday nearest September 24 and January 31. Further, States could split their seasons into two segments.
The recently completed 2018 MWS Atlantic brant count was 169,749 brant. Thus, utilizing the above Atlantic brant hunt strategies, the appropriate Atlantic brant hunting season for the 2018-19 season is a 60-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
We also agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation to create a new hunting area for RMP cranes in Idaho to include a portion of Oneida County. The new hunting area is consistent with the hunting area requirements in the Pacific and Central Flyway Council's RMP crane management plan. Because this is a shared population between the Pacific and Central Flyways, the same recommendation should have come from the Central Flyway Council. Although we did not receive a formal recommendation from them, the Central Flyway Council has indicated to the Service that it supports the recommendation.
Regarding the RMP crane harvest, as we discussed in the March 28, 2016, final rule (81 FR 17302), the current harvest strategy used to calculate the allowable harvest of RMP cranes does not fit well within the new regulatory process, similar to the Atlantic brant issue discussed above under 6. Brant. Currently, results of the fall abundance and recruitment surveys of RMP sandhill cranes, upon which the annual allowable harvest is based, will continue to be released between December 1 and January 31 each year, which is after the date for which proposed frameworks will be formulated in the new regulatory process. If the usual procedures for determining allowable harvest were used, data 2 to 4 years old would be used to determine the annual allocation for RMP sandhill cranes. Due to the variability in fall abundance and recruitment for this population, and their impact on the annual harvest allocations, we agree that relying on data that is 2 to 4 years old is not ideal. Thus, we agree that the formula to determine the annual allowable harvest for RMP sandhill cranes published in the March 28, 2016, final rule should be used under the new regulatory schedule and propose to utilize it as such. The formula uses information on abundance and recruitment collected annually through operational monitoring programs, as well as constant values based on past research or monitoring for survival of fledglings to breeding age and harvest retrieval rate. The formula is:
The 2017 fall RMP sandhill crane abundance estimate was 19,592 cranes, resulting in a 3-year (2015-17) average of 22,062 cranes, essentially unchanged from the previous 3-year average, which was 22,087 cranes. The RMP crane recruitment estimate was 7.93 percent young in the fall population, resulting in a 3-year (2015-17) average of 9.37 percent, a decrease from the previous 3-year average, which was 10.16 percent. Using the above formula and the above most recent 3-year average abundance and recruitment estimates, the allowable harvest for the 2018-19 season is 2,168 cranes.
In 2011, we implemented a harvest strategy for woodcock (76 FR 19876, April 8, 2011). The harvest strategy provides a transparent framework for making regulatory decisions for woodcock season length and bag limits while we work to improve monitoring and assessment protocols for this species. Utilizing the criteria developed for the strategy, the 3-year average for the Singing Ground Survey indices and associated confidence intervals fall within the “moderate package” for both the Eastern and Central Management Regions. As such, a “moderate season” for both management regions for the 2018-19 season is appropriate.
Specifics of the harvest strategy can be found at
The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommended the use of the “standard” season package of a 15-bird daily bag limit and a 90-day season for the 2018-19 mourning dove season in the States within the Central Management Unit.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended use of the “standard” season framework for States in the Western Management Unit (WMU) population of mourning doves.
This action is not subject to Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to routine hunting and fishing activities.
The programmatic document, “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013, addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We published a notice of availability in the
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has reviewed this rule and has determined that this rule is significant because it would have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
An economic analysis was prepared for the 2018-19 season. This analysis was based on data from the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see discussion in Regulatory Flexibility Act section below). This analysis estimated consumer surplus for
The annual migratory bird hunting regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule would establish hunting seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1).
This final rule contains a collection of information that we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
• 1018-0019, “North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey” (expires 5/31/2018).
• 1018-0023, “Migratory Bird Surveys” (expires 6/30/2017). Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.
OMB also reviewed and approved the new reporting and recordkeeping requirements identified below and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0171, “Establishment of Annual Migratory Bird Hunting Seasons, 50 CFR part 20”:
(1) Information Requested to Establish Annual Migratory Bird Hunting Seasons:
(A) Tribes that wish to use the guidelines to establish special hunting regulations for the annual migratory game bird hunting season are required to submit a proposal that includes:
(i) The requested migratory game bird hunting season dates and other details regarding the proposed regulations;
(ii) Harvest anticipated under the proposed regulations; and
(iii) Tribal capabilities to enforce migratory game bird hunting regulations.
For those situations where it could be shown that failure to limit Tribal harvest could seriously impact the migratory game bird resource, we also request information on the methods employed to monitor harvest and any potential steps taken to limit level of harvest. A tribe that desires the earliest possible opening of the migratory game bird season for nontribal members should specify this request in its proposal, rather than request a date that might not be within the final Federal frameworks. Similarly, unless a tribe wishes to set more restrictive regulations than Federal regulations will permit for nontribal members, the proposal should request the same daily bag and possession limits and season length for migratory game birds that Federal regulations are likely to permit the States in the Flyway in which the reservation is located
(B) State and U.S. territory governments that wish to establish annual migratory game bird hunting seasons are required to provide the requested dates and other details for hunting seasons in their respective States or Territories. The information is provided to the Service in a nonform format, usually via letter or spreadsheet, in response to solicitations for the information sent to the State governments each year via an emailed letter and as part of the first final rule (for the frameworks).
(2) Reports: The following reports are requested from the States and are submitted either annually or every-three years as explained in the following text.
(A) Reports from Experimental Hunting Seasons and Season Structure Changes:
Atlantic Flyway Council:
Mississippi Flyway Council:
Central Flyway Council:
• Nebraska—Experimental teal season (Yearly updates and Final report)
• New Mexico—Experimental sandhill crane season in Estancia Valley (Yearly updates and Final report)
• Wyoming—Split (3-way) season for Canada geese (Final report only)
Pacific Flyway Council:
• California—Zones and split season for white-fronted geese (Final report only)
(B) Additional State-specific Annual Reports (unless otherwise indicated these are annual reports):
State specific:
• Arizona—Sandhill crane racial composition of the harvest conducted at 3-year intervals.
• North Carolina and Virginia—Tundra swan harvest and hunter participation data.
• Montana (Central Flyway portion), North Dakota, and South Dakota—Tundra swan harvest and hunter participation data.
• Montana (Pacific Flyway portion)—Swan harvest-monitoring program to measure species composition.
• Montana (Pacific Flyway portion), Utah, and Nevada—Swan harvest-
Reports and monitoring are used for a variety of reasons. Some are used to monitor species composition of the harvest for those areas where species intermingling can confound harvest management and potential overharvest of one species can be a management concern. Others are used to determine overall harvest for those species and/or areas that are not sampled well by our overall harvest surveys due to either the limited nature/area of the hunt or season or where the harvest needs to closely monitored. Experimental season reports are used to determine whether the experimental season is achieving its intended goals and objectives, without causing unintended harm to other species and ultimately whether the experimental season should proceed to operational status. Most experimental seasons are 3-year trials with yearly reports and a final report. Most of the other reports and monitoring are conducted either annually or at 3-year intervals.
During the proposed rule stage, we solicited comments on the above information collection requirements. We received two comments in response to the proposed rule but neither addressed the information collection requirements. We have discussed other comments received in the preamble above.
You may send comments on this information collection to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or
We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This rule would not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this rule would allow hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on the use of private and public property.
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources. We have consulted with Tribes affected by this rule.
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Indian tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting, by its nature, operates under a time constraint as seasons must be established each year or hunting seasons remain closed. However, we intend that the public be provided extensive opportunity for public input and involvement in compliance with Administrative Procedure Act requirements. Thus, when the preliminary proposed rulemaking was published, we established what we concluded were the longest periods possible for public comment and the most opportunities for public involvement. We also provided notification of our participation in multiple Flyway Council meetings, opportunities for additional public review and comment on all Flyway Council proposals for regulatory change, and opportunities for additional public review during the SRC meeting. Therefore, sufficient public notice and opportunity for involvement have been given to affected persons regarding the migratory bird hunting frameworks for the 2018-19 hunting seasons. Further, after establishment of the final frameworks, States need sufficient time
For the reasons cited above, we find that “good cause” exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and these frameworks will take effect immediately upon publication.
Therefore, under authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (July 3, 1918), as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-711), we prescribe final frameworks setting forth the species to be hunted, the daily bag and possession limits, the shooting hours, the season lengths, the earliest opening and latest closing season dates, and hunting areas, from which State conservation agency officials will select hunting season dates and other options. Upon receipt of season selections from these officials, we will publish a final rulemaking amending 50 CFR part 20 to reflect seasons, limits, and shooting hours for the United States for the 2018-19 seasons. The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2018-19 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 742 a-j.
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and delegated authorities, the Department of the Interior approved the following frameworks for season lengths, shooting hours, bag and possession limits, and outside dates within which States may select seasons for hunting migratory game birds between the dates of September 1, 2018, and March 10, 2019. These frameworks are summarized below.
These Federally authorized, State-issued permits are issued to individuals, and only the individual whose name and address appears on the permit at the time of issuance is authorized to take migratory birds at levels specified in the permit, in accordance with provisions of both Federal and State regulations governing the hunting season. The permit must be carried by the permittee when exercising its provisions and must be presented to any law enforcement officer upon request. The permit is not transferrable or assignable to another individual, and may not be sold, bartered, traded, or otherwise provided to another person. If the permit is altered or defaced in any way, the permit becomes invalid.
Other geographic descriptions are contained in a later portion of this document.
For the purpose of the hunting regulations listed below, the collective terms “dark” and “light” geese include the following species:
In the Atlantic Flyway States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, where Sunday hunting is prohibited Statewide by State law, all Sundays are closed to the take of all migratory game birds.
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia may select a Special Sea Duck Season in designated Special Sea Duck Areas. If a Special Sea Duck Season is selected, scoters, eiders, and long-tailed ducks may be taken in the designated Special Sea Duck Area(s) only during the Special Sea Duck Season dates; scoters, eiders, and long-tailed ducks may be taken outside of Special Sea Duck Area(s) during the regular duck season, in accordance with the frameworks for ducks, mergansers, and coots specified above.
A Canada goose season of up to 15 days during September 1-15 may be selected for the Eastern Unit of Maryland. Seasons not to exceed 30 days during September 1-30 may be selected for Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, New York (Long Island Zone only), North Carolina, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. Seasons may not exceed 25 days during September 1-25 in the remainder of the Flyway. Areas open to the hunting of Canada geese must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
A 50-day season may be held between November 15 and February 5, with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
An 80-day season may be held between October 1 and March 10, with a 5-bird daily bag limit. The season may be split into 3 segments.
An 80-day season may be held between October 1 and March 10, with a 5-bird daily bag limit. The season may be split into 3 segments.
A 60-day season may be held Statewide between October 1 and January 31, with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
A 60-day season may be held Statewide between October 1 and January 31 with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
A 60-day season may be held between October 1 and January 31, with a 2-bird daily bag limit. A special late season may be held in designated areas from January 15 to February 15, with a 5-bird daily bag limit.
In designated areas, an 80-day season may be held between October 1 and March 10, with a 5-bird daily bag limit. The season may be split into 3 segments.
An 80-day season may be held between October 1 and March 10, with a 5-bird daily bag limit. The season may be split into 3 segments in each zone.
In Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, the season may be split into two segments in each zone.
In Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, the season may be split into three segments.
In Colorado, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming, the regular season may be split into two segments.
In Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming, States may select seasons not to exceed 107 days. The daily bag limit for dark geese is 5 in the aggregate.
In the Western Goose Zone of Texas, the season may not exceed 95 days. The daily bag limit for Canada geese (or any other dark goose species except white-fronted geese) is 5. The daily bag limit for white-fronted geese is 2.
Montana and New Mexico may split their seasons into three segments.
A Canada goose season of up to 15 days during September 1-20 may be selected. The daily bag limit may not exceed 5 Canada geese, except in Pacific County, Washington, where the daily bag limit may not exceed 15 Canada geese. Areas open to hunting of Canada geese in each State must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
The daily bag limit for Canada geese is 10.
The daily bag limit for light geese is 6 on or before the last Sunday in January (January 27).
A Canada goose and brant season may be selected in the Wasatch Front Zone with outside dates between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 22) and the first Sunday in February (February 3).
The daily bag limit for light geese is 6.
In Oregon and Washington permit zones, the hunting season is closed on dusky Canada geese. A dusky Canada goose is any dark-breasted Canada goose (Munsell 10 YR color value five or less) with a bill length between 40 and 50 millimeters. Hunting of geese will only be by hunters possessing a State-issued permit authorizing them to do so. Shooting hours for geese may begin no earlier than sunrise. Regular Canada goose seasons in the permit zones of Oregon and Washington remain subject to the Memorandum of Understanding entered into with the Service regarding monitoring the impacts of take during the regular Canada goose season on the dusky Canada goose population.
In portions of the Pacific Flyway (Montana, Nevada, and Utah), an open season for taking a limited number of swans may be selected. Permits will be issued by the State and will authorize each permittee to take no more than 1 swan per season with each permit. Nevada may issue up to 2 permits per hunter. Montana and Utah may issue only 1 permit per hunter. Each State's season may open no earlier than the Saturday nearest October 1 (September 29). These seasons are also subject to the following conditions:
In addition, the States of Utah and Nevada must implement a harvest-monitoring program to measure the species composition of the swan harvest. The harvest-monitoring program must require that all harvested swans or their species-determinant parts be examined by either State or Federal biologists for the purpose of species classification. The States should use appropriate measures to maximize hunter compliance in providing bagged swans for examination. Further, the States of Montana, Nevada, and Utah must achieve at least an 80-percent hunter compliance rate, or subsequent permits will be reduced by 10 percent. All three States must provide to the Service by June 30, 2019, a report detailing harvest, hunter participation, reporting compliance, and monitoring of swan populations in the designated hunt areas.
In portions of the Atlantic Flyway (North Carolina and Virginia) and the Central Flyway (North Dakota, South Dakota [east of the Missouri River], and that portion of Montana in the Central Flyway), an open season for taking a limited number of tundra swans may be selected. Permits will be issued by the States that authorize the take of no more than 1 tundra swan per permit. A second permit may be issued to hunters from unused permits remaining after the first drawing. The States must obtain harvest and hunter participation data. These seasons are also subject to the following conditions:
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming may select seasons for hunting sandhill cranes within the range of the Rocky Mountains Population (RMP) subject to the following conditions:
A. In Utah, 100 percent of the harvest will be assigned to the RMP quota;
B. In Arizona, monitoring the racial composition of the harvest must be conducted at 3-year intervals unless 100% of the harvest will be assigned to the RMP quota;
C. In Idaho, 100 percent of the harvest will be assigned to the RMP quota; and
D. In New Mexico, the season in the Estancia Valley is experimental, with a requirement to monitor the level and racial composition of the harvest; greater sandhill cranes in the harvest will be assigned to the RMP quota.
A. The hunting season may be split into not more than two periods, except in that portion of Texas in which the special white-winged dove season is allowed, where a limited take of mourning and white-tipped doves may also occur during that special season (see Special White-winged Dove Area in Texas).
B. A season may be selected for the North and Central Zones between September 1 and January 25; and for the South Zone between September 14 and January 25.
C. Except as noted above, regulations for bag and possession limits, season length, and shooting hours must be uniform within each hunting zone.
In addition, Texas may select a hunting season of not more than 4 days for the Special White-winged Dove Area of the South Zone between September 1 and September 19. The daily bag limit may not exceed 15 white-winged, mourning, and white-tipped doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 2 may be mourning doves and no more than 2 may be white-tipped doves.
In addition to the basic duck limits, Alaska may select sea duck limits of 10 daily, singly or in the aggregate, including no more than 6 each of either harlequin or long-tailed ducks. Sea ducks include scoters, common and king eiders, harlequin ducks, long-tailed ducks, and common and red-breasted mergansers.
A. In Units 5 and 6, the taking of Canada geese is permitted from September 28 through December 16.
B. On Middleton Island in Unit 6, a special, permit-only Canada goose season may be offered. A mandatory goose identification class is required. Hunters must check in and check out. The bag limit is 1 daily and 1 in possession. The season will close if incidental harvest includes 5 dusky Canada geese. A dusky Canada goose is any dark-breasted Canada goose (Munsell 10 YR color value five or less) with a bill length between 40 and 50 millimeters.
C. In Units 9, 10, 17, and 18, the daily bag limit is 6 Canada geese.
A. In Units 9, 10, and 17, the daily bag limit is 6 white-fronted geese.
B. In Unit 18, the daily bag limit is 10 white-fronted geese.
A. All seasons are by permit only.
B. No more than 1 emperor goose may be authorized per permit.
C. Total harvest may not exceed 1,000 emperor geese.
D. In State Game Management Unit 18, the Kodiak Island Road Area is closed to hunting. The Kodiak Island Road Area consists of all lands and water (including exposed tidelands) east of a line extending from Crag Point in the north to the west end of Saltery Cove in the south and all lands and water south of a line extending from Termination Point along the north side of Cascade Lake extending to Anton Larsen Bay. Marine waters adjacent to the closed area are closed to harvest within 500 feet from the water's edge. The offshore islands are open to harvest, for example: Woody, Long, Gull, and Puffin islands.
A. All seasons are by permit only.
B. All season framework dates are September 1-October 31.
C. In Unit 17, no more than 200 permits may be issued during this operational season. No more than 3 tundra swans may be authorized per permit, with no more than 1 permit issued per hunter per season.
D. In Unit 18, no more than 500 permits may be issued during the operational season. No more than 3 tundra swans may be authorized per permit. No more than 1 permit may be issued per hunter per season.
E. In Unit 22, no more than 300 permits may be issued during the operational season. No more than 3 tundra swans may be authorized per permit. No more than 1 permit may be issued per hunter per season.
F. In Unit 23, no more than 300 permits may be issued during the operational season. No more than 3 tundra swans may be authorized per permit. No more than 1 permit may be issued per hunter per season.
Mourning doves may be taken in Hawaii in accordance with shooting hours and other regulations set by the State of Hawaii, and subject to the applicable provisions of 50 CFR part 20.
In accordance with 50 CFR 21.29, falconry is a permitted means of taking migratory game birds in any State except for Hawaii. States may select an extended season for taking migratory game birds in accordance with the following:
Same zones as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks but in addition:
Same zones as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks.
A. That portion of the State lying east and north of a line beginning at the junction of U.S. Highway 81 and the Texas-Oklahoma State line, then southeast along U.S. Highway 81 to its junction with U.S. Highway 287 in Montague County, then southeast along U.S. Highway 287 to its junction with I-35W in Fort Worth, then southwest along I-35 to its junction with U.S. Highway 290 East in Austin, then east along U.S. Highway 290 to its junction with Interstate Loop 610 in Harris County, then south and east along Interstate Loop 610 to its junction with Interstate Highway 45 in Houston, then south on Interstate Highway 45 to State Highway 342, then to the shore of the Gulf of Mexico, and then north and east along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico to the Texas-Louisiana State line.
B. That portion of the State lying within the boundaries of a line beginning at the Kleberg-Nueces County line and the shore of the Gulf of Mexico, then west along the County line to Park Road 22 in Nueces County, then north and west along Park Road 22 to its junction with State Highway 358 in Corpus Christi, then west and north along State Highway 358 to its junction with State Highway 286, then north along State Highway 286 to its junction with Interstate Highway 37, then east along Interstate Highway 37 to its junction with U.S. Highway 181, then north and west along U.S. Highway 181 to its junction with U.S. Highway 77 in Sinton, then north and east along U.S. Highway 77 to its junction with U.S. Highway 87 in Victoria, then south and east along U.S. Highway 87 to its junction with State Highway 35 at Port Lavaca, then north and east along State Highway 35 to the south end of the Lavaca Bay Causeway, then south and east along the shore of Lavaca Bay to its junction with the Port Lavaca Ship Channel, then south and east along the Lavaca Bay Ship Channel to the Gulf of Mexico, and then south and west along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico to the Kleberg-Nueces County line.
Special Season Open Areas
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This rule establishes initial air quality designations for certain areas in the United States, including areas of Indian country, for the 2015 primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone. On November 6, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated about 85 percent of the country as attainment/unclassifiable and three counties as unclassifiable. In this action, the EPA is designating all remaining areas, except for eight counties in the San Antonio, Texas metropolitan area. Areas are being designated as either nonattainment, attainment/unclassifiable, or unclassifiable. Areas designated as nonattainment are also being classified by operation of law according to the severity of their air quality problems. The classification categories are Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, and Extreme. In addition, five nonattainment areas in California are being voluntarily reclassified to a higher classification.
The effective date of this rule is August 3, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID NO. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0548. All documents in the docket are listed in the index at
In addition, the EPA has established a website for this rulemaking at
Denise Scott, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone number (919) 541-4280 or by email at:
The public may inspect the rule and state-specific technical support information at the following locations:
The following is an outline of the preamble.
The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble.
The purpose of this action is to announce and promulgate initial area designations for certain areas of the country with respect to the 2015 primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone, in accordance with the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d). The EPA is designating areas as either nonattainment, attainment/unclassifiable, or unclassifiable. In addition, this action announces the classification for nonattainment areas, which occurs by operation of law at the time of designation and is based on the severity of each area's ozone air quality problems. This action also reclassifies five areas in California to a higher classification. The classification categories are Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, and Extreme. The EPA established the air quality thresholds that define the classifications in a separate rule titled, “Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area Classifications Approach” (Classifications Rule) (83 FR 10376; March 9, 2018).
The list of all areas being designated in this action appear in the regulatory tables included at the end of this final rule. These tables, which will amend 40 CFR part 81, identify the designation and the classification for each nonattainment area.
In this action, the EPA is designating 51 areas as nonattainment. Consistent with the EPA's “Policy for Establishing Separate Air Quality Designations for Areas of Indian Country” (December 20, 2011), the EPA is designating certain lands of the Pechanga Tribe and the Morongo Tribe in Southern California as separate nonattainment areas.
The EPA is basing the designations on the most recent 3 years of certified ozone air quality monitoring data and on an evaluation of factors to assess contributions to nonattainment in nearby areas. State areas designated as nonattainment are subject to planning and emission reduction requirements as specified in CAA part D. Requirements vary according to an area's classification. On November 17, 2016, the EPA proposed an implementation rule to assist states in the development of state implementation plans for attaining the ozone standards (81 FR 81276). The EPA expects to finalize this rule as soon as possible after finalizing the nonattainment area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Ground-level ozone is a gas that is formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
On October 1, 2015, the EPA revised both the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.070 parts per
The primary ozone standards provide protection for children, older adults, and people with asthma or other lung diseases, and other at-risk populations against an array of adverse health effects that include reduced lung function, increased respiratory symptoms and pulmonary inflammation; effects that contribute to emergency department visits or hospital admissions; and mortality. The secondary ozone standards protect against adverse effects to the public welfare, including those related to impacts on sensitive vegetation and forested ecosystems.
When the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required to designate all areas in the country as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable, pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. Section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA defines a nonattainment area as, “any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant.” If an area meets either prong of this definition, states should recommend and the EPA is obligated to designate the area as “nonattainment.” CAA section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) defines an attainment area as any area that does not meet the definition of nonattainment and that meets the NAAQS. CAA section 107(d)(1)(A)(iii) provides that any area that the EPA cannot designate on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the standards should be designated as “unclassifiable.” Historically for ozone, the EPA has designated most areas that do not meet the definition of nonattainment as “unclassifiable/attainment.” This category includes areas that have air quality monitoring data meeting the NAAQS and areas that do not have monitors but for which the EPA has no evidence that the areas may be violating the NAAQS or contributing to a nearby violation. In the designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the EPA has reversed the order of the label to be attainment/unclassifiable to better convey the definition of the designation category and so that the category is more easily distinguished from the separate unclassifiable category. In a few instances, based on circumstances where some monitoring data are available but are not sufficient for a determination that an area is or is not attaining the NAAQS, the EPA has designated an area as “unclassifiable.”
Section 107(d)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to issue initial area designations within 2 years of promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. However, if the Administrator has insufficient information to make these designations within that time frame, the EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for designation decisions by up to 1 additional year.
By not later than 1 year after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, each state governor is required to recommend air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for areas, to the EPA. (
The terms “contributes to” and “nearby” in the definition of a nonattainment area are not defined in the statute and the EPA has discretion to interpret these ambiguous terms, based on considerations such as the nature of a specific pollutant, the types of sources that may contribute to violations, the form of the relevant NAAQS, and any other relevant information. The EPA does not interpret the statute to require the agency to establish bright line tests or thresholds for what constitutes “contribution” or “nearby” for purposes of designations.
Section 301(d) of the CAA authorizes the EPA to approve eligible Indian tribes to implement provisions of the CAA on Indian reservations and other areas within the tribes' jurisdiction. The Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) (40 CFR part 49), which implements section 301(d) of the CAA, sets forth the criteria and process for tribes to apply to the EPA for eligibility to administer CAA programs. The designations process contained in section 107(d) of the CAA is included among those provisions determined to be appropriate by the EPA for treatment of tribes in the same manner as states. Under the TAR, tribes generally are not subject to the same submission schedules imposed by the CAA on states. As authorized by the TAR, tribes may seek eligibility to submit designation recommendations to the EPA.
On February 25, 2016, the EPA issued guidance for states and tribal agencies to use for purposes of making designation recommendations as required by CAA section 107(d)(1)(A). (
On November 6, 2017, the EPA designated as attainment/unclassifiable 2,646 counties,
On December 4, 2017, a coalition of environmental and health organizations filed suit against the Administrator claiming that EPA failed to meet its mandatory obligation to designate all areas of the United States for the 2015 ozone NAAQS by October 1, 2017.
On or about December 22, 2017, the EPA sent 120-day letters to Governors and tribal leaders notifying them of the EPA's preliminary response to their designation recommendations for all areas of the country not designated in the November 2017 action, with the exception of eight counties in the San Antonio metropolitan area. For the areas addressed in the 120-day letters, the EPA requested that states and tribes submit any additional information that they wanted the EPA to consider in making final designation decisions by February 28, 2018, including any certified 2017 air quality monitoring data.
Although not required by section 107(d)(2)(B) of the CAA, the EPA also provided a 30-day public comment period on the designation recommendations from states and tribes and the EPA's intended designations addressed in the 120-day letters to states and tribes. The EPA announced the public comment period in the
State and tribal recommendations and the EPA's preliminary responses are posted on EPA's website at
The final ozone designations in this action are based primarily on air quality monitoring data from the years 2014-2016, which were the most recent data that states were required to certify at the time the EPA notified the states of its intended modifications to their recommendations. Under 40 CFR 58.16, states are required to report all monitored ozone air quality data and associated quality assurance data within 90 days after the end of each quarterly reporting period, and under 40 CFR part 58.15(a)(2) states are required to submit annual summary reports and a data certification letter to the EPA by May 1 for ozone air quality data collected in the previous calendar year. Thus, at the time of the 120-day letters, the most recent certification obligation was for air quality data from 2016. In the 120-day notification letters to states, the EPA indicated that in order for the EPA to consider air quality data for the period 2015-2017 in the final designation decisions for any area, a state must submit certified, quality assured 2015-2017 air quality monitoring data for the area to the EPA by February 28, 2018. Several states chose to submit early certified air quality data for areas within their states. For those areas, the EPA is basing the final designation decisions on air quality data from 2015-2017.
In accordance with CAA section 181(a)(1), each area designated as nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS is classified by operation of law at the same time as the area is designated by the EPA. Under Subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA, state planning and emissions control requirements for ozone are determined, in part, by a nonattainment area's classification. The ozone nonattainment areas are classified based on the severity of their ozone levels (as determined based on the area's “design value,” which represents air quality in the area for the most recent 3 years).
The CAA provides states with a mechanism for addressing nonattainment areas that may not be able to attain by the attainment date for their classification. Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(3), a state may voluntarily request that the EPA reclassify a nonattainment area to a higher classification. The EPA may not deny and must approve any such voluntary reclassification requests. Once an area is reclassified to a higher classification, it becomes subject to the associated additional planning and control requirements for that higher classification, and must attain the standard no later than the maximum attainment date for that classification. Six nonattainment areas in California were granted voluntary reclassifications to a higher classification for both the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA proposed to interpret the voluntary reclassification requests for the 1997 ozone NAAQS to also apply for the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS, unless the state expressly requested otherwise. As part of the proposal for the Classifications Rule for the 2015 NAAQS, the EPA proposed to again apply previous voluntary reclassifications for potential nonattainment areas in California for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, unless the state of California explicitly requested otherwise in their comments on that proposal (November 17, 2016; 81 FR 81285).
Consistent with the comments received from the state of California on the November 2016 proposal, the EPA is applying previous voluntary reclassifications for five of the six California areas originally proposed. The following areas are voluntarily reclassified to a higher classification for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: Ventura County, CA—Serious; Riverside County (Coachella Valley), CA—Severe-15; Los Angeles-San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert), CA—Severe-15; Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA—Extreme; and San Joaquin Valley, CA—Extreme. These classifications are reflected in the tables at the end of this final rule.
Under CAA section 181(a)(4), an ozone nonattainment area may be reclassified to a higher or lower classification (also known as a classification bump up or a bump down) “if an area classified under paragraph (1) (Table 1) would have been classified in another category if the design value in the area were 5 percent greater or 5 percent less than the level on which such classification was based.” That section also states that, “In making such adjustment, the Administrator may consider the number of exceedances of the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone in the area, the level of pollution transport between the area and other affected areas, including both intrastate and interstate transport, and the mix of sources and air pollutants in the area.”
As noted in the preamble to the rule designating and classifying areas following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, the provisions of section 181(a)(4) grant the Administrator broad discretion in
For ozone areas designated in 1991, the EPA approved reclassifications when the area met the first requirement (a request by the state to EPA) and at least some of the other criteria, and did not violate any of the criteria (emissions reductions, trends, etc.). The EPA established the same method and criteria for the purpose of evaluating any reclassification requests under CAA section 181(a)(4) for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA intends to continue to use this same approach for purposes of evaluating any requests for a reclassification for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. For reclassifications downwards, states may only request a reclassification to the next lower classification, and air quality data from prior years cannot be used as justification to be reclassified to an even lower classification.
For an area to be eligible to be reclassified to a lower classification under section 181(a)(4), the area's design value must be within 5 percent of the upper limit for the next lower classification. For example, an area with a Moderate design value of no more than 0.085 ppm would be eligible to request a reclassification to Marginal because 0.085 ppm is 5 percent more than the upper limit of 0.081 ppm for the Marginal classification. Accordingly, areas with the following design values may be eligible to request a reclassification to the next lower classification: Moderate areas with a design value of 0.085 ppm or less; Serious areas with a design value of 0.097 ppm or less; Severe areas with a design value of 0.110 ppm or less; and for Extreme areas with a design value of 0.171 ppm or less.
An ozone nonattainment area may also be reclassified under section 181(a)(4) to the next higher classification. As with 5 percent reclassifications to a lower classification, the EPA does not intend to exercise its authority to reclassify areas to a higher classification on the EPA's own initiative. Rather, the EPA intends to rely on the state to submit a request for such a reclassification. Under this CAA provision, areas with the following design values are eligible to request a reclassification to the next higher classification: Marginal areas with a design value of 0.076 ppm or more; Moderate areas with a design value of 0.088 ppm or more; and Serious areas with a design value of 0.099 ppm or more. Note, as discussed Section IX of this preamble, under a separate CAA provision, a state may voluntarily request that the EPA reclassify a nonattainment area to a higher classification at any time and the EPA must approve the request.
A Governor or eligible tribal governing body of any area who wishes to pursue a reclassification should submit all requests and supporting documentation to the EPA Regional Office by July 5, 2018. This relatively short time frame is necessary because CAA section 181(a)(4) only authorizes the Administrator to make such reclassifications within 90 days after the initial classification. The EPA will make its decision by September 4, 2018.
CAA section 182(h) sets out general criteria for determining whether an area qualifies as a Rural Transport Area (RTA). The statute defines a RTA as an area which is designated nonattainment and neither includes nor is adjacent to any part of a metropolitan statistical area or consolidated metropolitan statistical area as defined at the time of the 1990 CAA amendments. In such cases, the Administrator has discretion to treat the area as a RTA based on a finding that the emissions within the area do not make a significant contribution to the ozone concentrations measured in the area or in other areas. The EPA provided guidance on requesting RTA treatment in the February 25, 2016, memorandum “Area Designations for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” A RTA, regardless of its nonattainment classification, is treated as meeting the applicable requirements of CAA section 182 (generally relating to submissions required for ozone nonattainment areas) if the area meets the submission requirements of a Marginal area.
Two states requested that the EPA find a nonattainment area in their state to meet the criteria for treatment as a RTA. In a letter dated October 3, 2016, California requested that the EPA make a RTA determination for the Tuscan Buttes nonattainment area. In a letter dated April 20, 2017, Wisconsin requested that the EPA make a RTA determination for the Door County nonattainment area. The EPA has determined that the final nonattainment areas for Tuscan Buttes, California and Door County, Wisconsin, meet the criteria for treatment as RTAs under CAA section 182(h). Documentation supporting these determinations are contained in the final TSDs for California (section 20.0) and Wisconsin (section 3.4), which are available in the public docket for this final action. This determination is reflected in the
All state areas listed in the tables at the end of this document are designated as indicated, and include Indian country geographically located within such areas, except as otherwise noted. Information pertaining to areas of Indian country in these tables is intended for CAA planning purposes only and is not an EPA determination of Indian country land status or any Indian country boundary. The EPA lacks the authority to establish Indian country land status, and is making no determination of Indian country boundaries in the tables. Consistent with the EPA's Tribal Designation Guidance, and at the request of the tribes, the EPA is designating certain lands of the Pechanga Tribe and the Morongo Tribe in Southern California as separate nonattainment areas.
Information providing the basis for this action is provided in the docket for this rulemaking. The applicable EPA guidance memoranda and copies of correspondence regarding this process between the EPA and the states, tribes, and other parties are available for review at the EPA Docket Center listed above in the addresses section of this document, and on the EPA's ozone designation website at
When the EPA establishes a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to designate all areas of the U.S. as either nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable. This final action addresses designation determinations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. In addition, nonattainment areas are being classified according to the severity of their ozone air quality problems. Area designations address environmental justice concerns by ensuring that the public is properly informed about the air quality in an area. In locations where air quality does not meet the NAAQS, the CAA requires relevant state authorities to initiate appropriate air quality management actions to ensure that all those residing, working, attending school, or otherwise present in those areas are protected, regardless of minority and economic status.
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget because it responds to the CAA requirement to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because actions such as air quality designations after promulgating a new revised NAAQS are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action fulfills the non-discretionary duty for the EPA to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS and does not contain any information collection activities.
This designation action under CAA section 107(d) is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. Section 107(d)(2)(B) of the CAA explicitly provides that designations are exempt from the notice-and-comment provisions of the APA. In addition, designations under CAA section 107(d) are not among the list of actions that are subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of CAA section 307(d).
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The division of responsibility between the federal government and the states for purposes of implementing the NAAQS is established under the CAA.
This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.
The EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. At the beginning of the designations process, letters were sent to all tribes who were expected to be impacted by designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. These letters not only informed the tribes of the overall designations process, but also offered the tribes consultation to ensure early communication and coordination. Additionally, letters were sent to potentially affected tribes indicating the EPA's intended designations for their areas of Indian country. To the extent possible, the EPA included the tribes' input into the final decision-making process for designations of their areas of Indian country for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this determination is contained in Section XIII of this preamble, “Environmental Justice Concerns.”
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the U.S. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions for review of final actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for: (i) “any nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally applicable, “if such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”
This rule that designates areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is “nationally applicable” within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). This rule establishes designations for areas across the U.S. for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. At the core of this rulemaking is the EPA's interpretation of the designation provisions in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA, and its application of that interpretation to areas across the country.
For these reasons, the Administrator also is determining that the final designations are of nationwide scope and effect for the purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1). This is particularly appropriate because, in the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's determination that an action is of “nationwide scope or effect” would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or effect beyond a single judicial circuit. H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03. Here, the scope and effect of this rulemaking extends to numerous judicial circuits since the designations apply to areas across the country. In these circumstances, CAA section 307(b)(1) and its legislative history calls for the Administrator to find the rule to be of “nationwide scope or effect” and for venue to be in the District of Columbia Circuit.
Thus, any petitions for review of these final designations must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date of this final action is published in the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,