Rural Utilities Service
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
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.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), a Rural Development Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), hereinafter referred to as RUS or the Agency, is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations to address its “Buy American” requirement. This will codify long-standing RUS requirements which Agency borrowers have been required to follow pursuant to statute, bulletin, and contract as early as the 1950s. RUS will rescind Bulletin 43–9:344–3, “ `Buy American' Requirement,” when this regulation becomes effective.
This rule is effective November 27, 2018.
Norris Nicholson, Electric Program, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250, Email:
This final rule is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Consultation, which may require consultation with State and local officials. A Notice of Final Rule titled Department Programs and Activities Excluded from Executive Order 12372 (50 FR 47034) exempts RUS loans and loan guarantees to governmental and nongovernmental entities from coverage under this Order.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. RUS has determined that this final rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order. In addition, all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted, no retroactive effort will be given to this rule, and, in accordance with Sec. 212(e) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. Sec. 6912(e)), administrative appeal procedures, if any, must be exhausted before an action against the Department or its agencies may be initiated.
This final 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 policies contained in this final rule do not have Tribal implications that preempt Tribal law. The Agency will continue to work directly with Tribes and Tribal applicants to improve access to Agency programs. This includes providing focused outreach to Tribes regarding implementation of this rule change. Additionally, the Agency will respond in a timely and meaningful manner to all Tribal government requests for consultation concerning this rule. For further information on the Agency's Tribal consultation efforts, please contact Rural Development's Native American Coordinator at (720) 544–2911 or
The Agency has determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the paperwork burden associated with this final rule has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the currently approved OMB Control Numbers 0572–0107. The Agency has determined that this regulatory action does not change any current data collection that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The programs described by this rule are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance programs under No. 10.850, Rural Electrification Loans and Loan Guarantees; No. 10.851, Rural Telephone Loans and Loan Guarantees; and No. 10.852, Rural Telephone Bank Loans and No. 10.886, Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees. All active CFDA programs can be found at
This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for state, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Administrator of RUS has determined that this final rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Agency is committed to the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.
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/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 for program information (
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.
The Rural Electrification Act requires that in making loans pursuant to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, the Secretary of Agriculture shall require that, to the extent practicable and the cost of which is not unreasonable, the borrower agrees to use in connection with the expenditure of such funds only such unmanufactured articles, materials, and supplies, as have been mined or produced in the United States or in any eligible country, and only such manufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been manufactured in the United States or in any eligible country, substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced or manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States or any eligible country. This regulation will codify long-standing RUS requirements which Agency borrowers have been required to follow pursuant to statute, bulletin, and contract as early as the 1950s, but which were inadvertently never codified when all existing RUS bulletins were incorporated into regulation. Nothing in this regulation will change or modify those procedures with respect to borrowers' responsibilities in complying with the Buy American requirement, such as the waiver process, but will simplify compliance by compiling all such existing requirements into a single document.
Communications equipment, Electric power, Loan programs—communications, Loan programs—energy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas, Telephone.
7 U.S.C. 903.
(a) The “Buy American” provision of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (RE Act) requires, to the extent practicable and the cost of which is not unreasonable, that RUS Borrowers use loan funds only for such manufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been manufactured in the United States or in any eligible country, substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced or manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States or any eligible country.
(b) Each RUS Borrower is responsible for assuring that its use of loan funds complies with this requirement, and that the contracts it enters into for construction, materials and equipment, and purchases with vendors contain the Buy American requirement, along with certification as to compliance, made through RUS Form 213.
For purpose of this part, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) Is manufactured in the United States or in any eligible country; and
(2) Contains components manufactured in the United States or in
Where a supplier or contractor offers or furnishes several products under a purchase order or contract, the provisions of this part apply to each product individually.
The Buy American requirement also applies to unmanufactured articles, materials, and supplies to be financed with RUS loan funds, and will be considered domestic if mined or produced in the United States or in an eligible country.
The United State Trade Representative (USTR) determines what countries are eligible countries with respect to purchases made by electric borrowers or telecommunications borrowers. A particular country may be determined to be an eligible country for purchases made by telecommunications borrowers, for electric borrowers, or both. RUS maintains the latest
A product is considered to be nondomestic for the purpose of compliance with the “Buy American” requirement if:
(a) The product is manufactured outside the United States or any eligible country; or
(b) The product is manufactured in the United States or in any eligible country, but the cost of nondomestic components used therein constitutes 50 percent or more of the cost of all components. The cost of components shall be determined on a comparable basis, so that only the cost of domestic and nondomestic components, up to the point where they are combined and manufactured into a complete product shall be considered.
(1) The determination of the cost of the nondomestic components of a product shall include:
(i) The price paid to the nondomestic source;
(ii) The cost of shipment to the port of entry into the United States;
(iii) Applicable tariffs or duties;
(iv) The cost of transportation from the port of entry to the distributor's plant or warehouse; and
(v) Profit, overhead, and commissions of domestic and nondomestic suppliers and subcontractors of the components.
(2) The following items shall not be considered in determining the cost of components, although they are proper elements in the determination of the final selling price of the product:
(i) Fabrication or processing costs, if any, of nondomestic or domestic components at the assembly plant, or any other place of fabrication in the United States or any eligible country;
(ii) Testing costs at the assembly plant or at the installation site;
(iii) Direct profit, overhead, and commissions of the domestic distributor; and
(iv) Cost of transportation from the domestic assembly point to the installation site.
Where a component is manufactured only determines whether the component is classified as domestic or nondomestic even if all the materials and subcomponents comprising the component are manufactured in ineligible countries. A component manufactured in the United States or in an eligible country shall be considered domestic when determining whether a product is classified as domestic or nondomestic. A component manufactured in an ineligible country shall be considered nondomestic.
An RUS Borrower may only use loan funds to purchase a nondomestic product if a waiver pursuant to § 1787.10 has been received by the Administrator before entering into a contract with the vendor. Should the Administrator deny the waiver request, the RUS Borrower must use its own funds for the expenditure.
Under limited circumstances the Administrator may waive the Buy American requirement with respect to a specific contract entered into between an RUS Borrower and a third party which will be paid for with loan funds, subject to §§ 1787.10 through 1787.14.
RUS borrowers may request a specific waiver of the Buy American requirement through a written, detailed explanation showing that:
(a) The cost between the nondomestic product and domestic product is unreasonable;
(b) There is a non-availability of domestic products; or
(c) It is not in the public interest or impractical for the RUS Borrower to purchase a domestic product.
By application pursuant to § 1787.10, the Administrator may waive the Buy American requirement if the cost of the domestic product is unreasonable. Given that RUS loans terms normally range from 20 to 35 years, and that
By application pursuant to § 1787.10, the Administrator may waive the Buy American requirement upon a showing that there is no domestic product available in the market in sufficient and reasonable quantities and of satisfactory quality, and that such shortage of suitable domestic alternatives jeopardizes the project being completed on budget and/or according to scheduled planning. A lack of responsive and responsible bids to a well-publicized request for bids will be presumed to meet the conditions of a non-availability waiver. With respect to contracts that are not required to be bid, sufficient evidence must be presented to the Administrator in order to make a determination.
(a) By application pursuant to § 1787.10, the Administrator may waive the Buy American requirement upon a showing that application of the requirement would be inconsistent with the public interest or impractical for the RUS Borrower. With respect to impracticality, an RUS Borrower may request a waiver upon a showing that the domestic product is incompatible or impractical to integrate with existing, significant capital infrastructure or existing, critical software already in use. Notwithstanding, the burden shall rest with the RUS Borrower to present how the use of the domestic product would create a hardship or negatively impact its project.
(b) With respect to contracts that were approved by RUS based on a bidder or offer that originally certified compliance with the Buy America requirements, but which can no longer comply with such certification, the Administrator may grant an impracticality waiver based on a showing that the original certification was made in good faith and that the product cannot now be obtained domestically due to commercial impossibility or impracticability, or without undue hardship or a negative impact to the project.
(c) In determining whether to issue any public interest waiver, the Administrator will consider all appropriate factors on a case-by-case basis, unless a general waiver has already been issued by the Administrator with respect to the product.
(a) The Administrator may issue a general waiver for all RUS Borrowers for a determinate period, if the Administrator finds that such manufactured or unmanufactured goods are in shortage regionally or nationally, so as to avoid the administrative burden of issuing individual, specific waivers.
(b) The Administrator has determined that it is in the best interest of RUS to issue a permanent general public interest waiver from the Buy America requirements for “small purchases,” which shall be published in the
This appendix shows an example of how the 6 percent differential is applied to determine award of a bid. In response to a request for bids for a digital central office a borrower receives four responsive bids to the specification, three domestic bids and one nondomestic bid. The nondomestic bid is the apparent low bid. We will consider in our analysis the nondomestic bid and the lowest domestic bid as shown in the following table.
Please note that once the product has been determined as nondomestic, the 6 percent cost differential shall be applied to all the material content in the nondomestic bid, even if the nondomestic product includes domestic components.
In this example, 6 percent of the total material content in the nondomestic bid ($895,000) equals $53,700. This cost differential is added to the total nondomestic bid as shown in the following table.
This total evaluated bid, (that is the nondomestic bid plus the 6% of the cost of its material content), is compared with all the domestic bids for award of the bid. In our example the domestic bid ($1,098,500) is lower than the nondomestic evaluated bid ($1,104,700).
The domestic bid becomes the low bid and the domestic bidder gets award of the bid. This product is classified as domestic since the cost of the domestic components used in the product constitutes more than 50 percent of the cost of all the components used.
Department of Transportation (DOT or the Department).
Final rule.
In accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, this final rule provides the 2018 inflation adjustment to civil penalty amounts that may be imposed for violations of certain DOT regulations. This rule also finalizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's and the Office of the Secretary's catch-up inflation adjustment interim final rules required by the same Act.
Effective November 27, 2018.
Alex Zektser, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202–366–9301,
This rule implements the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (FCPIAA), Public Law 101–410, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act), Public Law 114–74, 129 Stat. 599, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. The FCPIAA and the 2015 Act require federal agencies to adjust minimum and maximum civil penalty amounts for inflation to preserve their deterrent impact. The 2015 Act amended the formula and frequency of inflation adjustments. It required an initial catch-up adjustment in the form of an interim final rule, followed by annual adjustments of civil penalty amounts using a statutorily mandated formula. Section 4(b)(2) of the 2015 Act specifically directs that the annual adjustment be accomplished through final rule without notice and comment. This rule is effective immediately.
The Department's authorities over the specific civil penalty regulations being amended by this rule are provided in the preamble discussion below.
On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the 2015 Act, which amended FCPIAA, to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. The 2015 Act requires federal agencies to: (1) Adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rule (IFR); and (2) make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation.
The 2015 Act directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidance on implementing the required annual inflation adjustment no later than December 15 of each year.
This final rule is being published without notice and comment and with an immediate effective date.
The 2015 Act provides clear direction for how to adjust the civil penalties, and clearly states at section 4(b)(2) that this adjustment shall be made “notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code.” By operation of the 2015 Act, DOT must publish an annual adjustment by January 15 of every year, and the new levels take effect upon publication of the rule. NHTSA and OST are finalizing their “catch-up” adjustment interim final rules in this annual adjustment. Pursuant to the 2015 Act and notwithstanding 5 U.S.C. 553, NHTSA and OST adopt their interim final rules as final and superseded by this rule. Accordingly, DOT is publishing this final rule without prior notice and comment, and with an immediate effective date.
Additionally, the Act clearly prescribes the frequency with which civil monetary penalties must be reviewed and adjusted. NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 578.5 stating that the Administrator will review and, if necessary, adjust its civil penalties every four years is superseded by the Act. NHTSA has no discretion to review and adjust its civil penalties at different intervals, and is therefore conforming its regulations to the requirements of the Act, as discussed in section IV below. Accordingly, and pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), 553(d)(3), DOT finds that good cause exists for immediate implementation of this provision of the final rule without prior notice and comment, and with an immediate effective date.
In 2016, OST and DOT's operating administrations with civil monetary penalties promulgated the “catch up” IFR required by the 2015 Act. OST and NHTSA have not yet finalized their IFRs, and accordingly, this rule both finalizes OST and NHTSA's “catch up” IFRs and makes the annual inflation adjustment required by the 2015 Act. All other DOT operating administrations have already finalized their “catch up” IFRs and for those operating administrations, this rule makes the annual inflation adjustment required by the 2015 Act.
The Department emphasizes that this rule adjusts penalties prospectively, and therefore the penalty adjustments made by this rule will apply only to violations that take place after this rule becomes effective. This rule also does not change previously assessed or enforced penalties that DOT is actively collecting or has collected.
OST's “catch-up” IFR is finalized in this rule, and superseded by the annual inflation adjustment discussed in the next section. Additionally, OST is updating its civil monetary penalties to reflect inflation for both 2017 and 2018 in this rule. OST did not timely complete the 2017 annual adjustment for civil penalties contained in 49 U.S.C.
OST's 2018 civil penalty adjustments are summarized in the chart below.
In 2016, Congress enacted 49 U.S.C. 46320. It imposes a civil penalty of not more than $20,000 for operating an unmanned aircraft where the operator knowingly or recklessly interferes with a wildfire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency response effort. The FAA did not adjust this maximum civil penalty for inflation in 2017 because, per OMB guidance, new civil monetary penalties are not adjusted for inflation the first year they are in effect.
The FAA's 2018 adjustments are summarized in the following chart:
In addition to the civil penalties listed in the above chart, FAA regulations also provide for maximum civil penalties for violation of 49 U.S.C. 47528–47530, relating to the prohibition of operating certain aircraft not complying with stage 3 noise levels. Those civil penalties are identical to the civil penalties imposed under 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(1) and (a)(5), which are detailed in the above chart, and therefore, the noise-level civil penalties will be adjusted in the same manner as the section 46301(a)(1) and (a)(5) civil penalties.
NHTSA's “catch-up” IFR is finalized in this rule, and superseded by the annual inflation adjustment discussed in the next section. Additionally, NHTSA is updating its civil monetary penalties to reflect inflation for both 2017 and 2018 in this rule. NHTSA did not timely complete the 2017 annual adjustment for its civil penalty authority. However, consistent with the intent of the law and to ensure uniform year-over-year application of the 2015 Act, the 2018 update is being calculated as if the 2017 update had occurred. No violations will be assessed at the 2017 inflation adjustment amount. It is included in the chart below to clearly show the Department's calculations. NHTSA's 2018 civil penalty adjustments are summarized in the chart below.
FMCSA's civil penalties affected by this rule are all located in Appendices A and B to 49 CFR part 386. The 2018 adjustments to these civil penalties are summarized in the chart below.
FRA's 2018 civil penalty adjustments are summarized in the chart below.
PHMSA's 2018 civil penalty adjustments are summarized in the chart below.
MARAD's 2018 civil penalty adjustments are summarized in the chart below.
SLS' 2018 civil penalty adjustment is as follows:
Currently, 49 CFR 578.5 specifies that the NHTSA Administrator will review the amount of civil penalties set forth in 49 CFR part 578 at least once every four years and, if appropriate, adjust them by rule. Since this no longer reflects the law, NHTSA is updating this provision to conform to the 2015 Act's requirement of annual inflationary adjustments to civil penalty amounts.
This final rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies and procedures and is considered not significant under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 or DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; therefore, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
The Department has determined the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601,
If, under the APA or any rule of general applicability governing federal grants to state
As stated above, DOT has determined that good cause exists to publish this final rule without notice and comment procedures under the APA. Therefore, the RFA does not apply.
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This regulation has no substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. It does not contain any provision that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. It does not contain any new provision that preempts state law, because states are already preempted from regulating in this area under the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Because none of the measures in the rule have tribal implications or impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must publish a document in the
The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this final rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Department analyzed the final rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The Department considered whether the rule includes a federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The Department has determined that this final rule will not result in such expenditures. Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” does not apply to this action because it is nonsignificant; therefore, it is not subject to the “2 for 1” and budgeting requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air transportation, Hazardous materials transportation, Investigations, Law enforcement, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties.
Administrative procedure and review, Commercial space transportation, Enforcement, Investigations, Penalties, Rules of adjudication.
Hazardous materials transportation, Navigation (water), Penalties, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways.
Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers, Mortgages, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trusts and trustees.
Marine safety, Maritime carriers, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Harbors, Maritime carriers, National defense, Packaging and containers.
Citizenship and naturalization, Fishing vessels, Mortgages, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
Administrative practices and procedure, Hazardous materials transportation, Packaging and containers, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Definitions, General information, Regulations.
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Pipeline safety.
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials transportation, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Bridges, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Bridges, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Freight, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Railroad employees, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
Penalties, Radio, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Glazing standards, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Investigations, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Noise control, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Penalties, Railroad employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Penalties, Railroad safety.
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Highway safety, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, State and local governments.
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Railroad safety, Railroad signals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Penalties, Positive Train Control, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Bridges, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Fire prevention, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Railroad employees, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Communications, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Railroad employees, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Railroad employees, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Penalties; Railroad safety; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; and System safety.
Penalties, Railroad employees, Railroad safety, Railroads, Safety, Transportation.
Administrative procedures, Commercial motor vehicle safety, Highways and roads, Motor carriers, Penalties.
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and Rubber Products, Tires, Penalties.
18 U.S.C. 6002, 28 U.S.C. 2461 (note); 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 5121–5124, 40113–40114, 44103–44106, 44701–44703, 44709– 44710, 44713, 44725, 46101–46111, 46301, 46302 (for a violation of 49 U.S.C. 46504), 46304–46316, 46318, 46501–46502, 46504–46507, 47106, 47107, 47111, 47122, 47306, 47531– 47532; 49 CFR 1.83.
(a) This subpart provides the maximum civil monetary penalties or range of minimum and maximum civil monetary penalties for each statutory civil penalty subject to FAA jurisdiction, as adjusted for inflation.
(b) Each adjustment to a maximum civil monetary penalty or to minimum and maximum civil monetary penalties that establish a civil monetary penalty range applies to actions initiated under this part for violations occurring on or after November 27, 2018, notwithstanding references to specific civil penalty amounts elsewhere in this part.
(c) Minimum and maximum civil monetary penalties are as follows:
Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 584; Sec. 503, Pub. L. 108–176, 117 Stat. 2490; Pub. L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 890; Sec. 31001, Pub. L. 104–134.
(a)
(b)
Civil penalties payable to the U.S. Government for violations of Title 49, Chapters 401 through 421, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46301(a), are as follows:
(a) A general civil penalty of not more than $33,333 (or $1,466 for individuals or small businesses) applies to violations of statutory provisions and rules or orders issued under those provisions, other than those listed in paragraph (b) of this section, (
(b) With respect to small businesses and individuals, notwithstanding the general $1,466 civil penalty, the following civil penalty limits apply:
(1) A maximum civil penalty of $13,333 applies for violations of most provisions of Chapter 401, including the anti-discrimination provisions of sections 40127 (general provision), and 41705 (discrimination against the disabled) and rules and orders issued pursuant to those provisions (
(2) A maximum civil penalty of $6,666 applies for violations of section 41719 and rules and orders issued pursuant to that provision (
(3) A maximum civil penalty of $3,334 applies for violations of section 41712 or consumer protection rules or orders (
51 U.S.C. 50901–50923.
(a)
33 U.S.C. 981–990, 1231 and 1232, 49 CFR 1.52, unless otherwise noted.
(a) A person, as described in § 401.101(b) who violates a regulation is liable to a civil penalty of not more than $91,901.
46 U.S.C. chs. 301, 313, and 561; Pub. L. 114–74; 49 CFR 1.93.
(a) This subpart describes procedures for the administration of civil penalties that the Maritime Administration may assess under 46 U.S.C. 31309, 31330, and 56101, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 336.
(b) Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 31309, a general penalty of not more than $20,521 may be assessed for each violation of chapter 313 or 46 U.S.C. subtitle III administered by the Maritime Administration, and the regulations in this part that are promulgated thereunder, except that a person violating 46 U.S.C. 31329 and the regulations promulgated thereunder is liable for a civil penalty of not more than $51, 302 for each violation. A person that charters, sells, transfers or mortgages a vessel, or an interest therein, in violation of 46 U.S.C. 56101(e) is liable for a civil penalty of not more than $19,639 for each violation.
Pub. L. 109–304; 46 U.S.C. 50113; Pub. L. 114–74; 49 CFR 1.93.
The owner or operator of a vessel in the waterborne foreign commerce of the United States is subject to a penalty of $130.00 for each day of failure to file an AMVER report required by this part. Such penalty shall constitute a lien upon the vessel, and such vessel may be libeled in the district court of the United States in which the vessel may be found.
50 U.S.C. 4501
Pursuant 50 U.S.C. 4513 any person who willfully performs any act prohibited, or willfully fails to perform any act required, by the provisions of this regulation shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $25,928 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
46 U.S.C. 12102; 46 U.S.C. 12151; 46 U.S.C. 31322; Pub. L. 105–277, division C, title II, subtitle I, section 203 (46 U.S.C. 12102 note), section 210(e), and
(b) A fine of up to $150,404 may be assessed against the vessel owner for each day in which such vessel has engaged in fishing (as such term is defined in section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802) within the exclusive economic zone of the United States; and
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; Pub. L. 101–410 section 4; Pub. L. 104–121, sections 212–213; Pub. L. 104–134, section 31001; Pub. L. 114–74 section 4 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.
(a) A person who knowingly violates a requirement of the Federal hazardous material transportation law, an order issued thereunder, this subchapter, subchapter C of the chapter, or a special permit or approval issued under this subchapter applicable to the transportation of hazardous materials or the causing of them to be transported or shipped is liable for a civil penalty of not more than $79,976 for each violation, except the maximum civil penalty is $186,610 if the violation results in death, serious illness, or severe injury to any person or substantial destruction of property. There is no minimum civil penalty, except for a minimum civil penalty of $481 for violations relating to training. When the violation is a continuing one, each day of the violation constitutes a separate offense.
(b) A person who knowingly violates a requirement of the Federal hazardous material transportation law, an order issued thereunder, this subchapter, subchapter C of the chapter, or a special permit or approval issued under this subchapter applicable to the design, manufacture, fabrication, inspection, marking, maintenance, reconditioning, repair or testing of a package, container, or packaging component which is represented, marked, certified, or sold by that person as qualified for use in the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce is liable for a civil penalty of not more than $79,976 for each violation, except the maximum civil penalty is $186,610 if the violation results in death, serious illness, or severe injury to any person or substantial destruction of property. There is no minimum civil penalty, except for a minimum civil penalty of $481 for violations relating to training.
II. * * *
B. * * *
Under the Federal hazmat law, 49 U.S.C. 5123(a), each violation of the HMR and each day of a continuing violation (except for violations relating to packaging manufacture or qualification) is subject to a civil penalty of up to $79,976 or $186,610 for a violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018. * * *
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; Pub. L. 101–410 section 4; Pub. L. 104–134, section 31001; Pub. L. 114–74 section 4 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.
(g)
(a) Any person found to have violated a provision of 49 U.S.C. 60101,
(b) Any person found to have violated a provision of 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), or any regulation or order issued thereunder, is subject to an administrative civil penalty under 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6), as adjusted by 40 CFR 19.4.
(c) Any person found to have violated any standard or order under 49 U.S.C. 60103 is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $77,910, which may be in addition to other penalties to which such person may be subject under paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) Any person who is determined to have violated any standard or order under 49 U.S.C. 60129 is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $1,239, which may be in addition to other penalties to which such person may be subject under paragraph (a) of this section.
49 U.S.C. 5123, 5124, 20103, 20107, 20111, 20112, 20114; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
(a) A person who knowingly violates a requirement of the Federal hazardous materials transportation laws, an order issued thereunder, subchapter A or C of chapter I, subtitle B, of this title, or a special permit or approval issued under subchapter A or C of chapter I, subtitle B, of this title is liable for a civil penalty of not more than $79,976 for each violation, except that—
(1) The maximum civil penalty for a violation is $186,610 if the violation results in death, serious illness, or
(2) A minimum $481 civil penalty applies to a violation related to training.
(c) The maximum and minimum civil penalties described in paragraph (a) of this section apply to violations occurring on or after November 27, 2018.
(c) * * * In an amended notice, FRA may change the civil penalty amount proposed to be assessed up to and including the maximum penalty amount of $79,976 for each violation, except that if the violation results in death, serious illness or severe injury to any person, or substantial destruction of property, FRA may change the penalty amount proposed to be assessed up to and including the maximum penalty amount of $186,610.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Penalty Schedules; Assessment of Maximum Penalties
* * * Effective November 27, 2018, the minimum civil monetary penalty was raised from $853 to $870, the ordinary maximum civil monetary penalty was raised from $27,904 to $28,474, and the aggravated maximum civil monetary penalty was raised from $111,616 to $113,894.
* * * For each regulation or order, the schedule shows two amounts within the $870 to $28,474 range in separate columns, the first for ordinary violations, the second for willful violations (whether committed by railroads or individuals). * * *
Accordingly, under each of the schedules (ordinarily in a footnote), and regardless of the fact that a lesser amount might be shown in both columns of the schedule, FRA reserves the right to assess the statutory maximum penalty of up to $113,894 per violation where a pattern of repeated violations or a grossly negligent violation has created an imminent hazard of death or injury or has caused death or injury. * * *
The revisions read as follows:
* * * The guideline penalty amounts reflect the best judgment of the FRA Office of Railroad Safety (RRS) and of the Safety Law Division of the Office of Chief Counsel (RCC) on the relative severity of the various violations routinely encountered by FRA inspectors on a scale of amounts up to the maximum $79,976 penalty, except the maximum civil penalty is $186,610 if the violation results in death, serious illness or severe injury to any person, or substantial destruction of property, and a minimum $481 penalty applies to a violation related to training. * * *
* * * When a violation of the Federal hazardous material transportation law, an order issued thereunder, the Hazardous Materials Regulations or a special permit, approval, or order issued under those regulations results in death, serious illness or severe injury to any person, or substantial destruction of property, a maximum penalty of at least $79,976 and up to and including $186,610 shall always be assessed initially.
* * * In fact, FRA reserves the express authority to amend the NOPV to seek a penalty of up to $79,976 for each violation, and up to $186,610 for any violation resulting in death, serious illness or severe injury to any person, or substantial destruction of property, at any time prior to issuance of an order. * * *
49 U.S.C. 20102–20114 and 20142; Sec. 403, Div. A, Public Law 110–432, 122 Stat. 4885; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 21301, 31304, 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 241, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20102–20104, 20107, 20111, 20133, 20701–20702, 21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20140, 21301, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; Sec. 412, Div. A, Pub. L. 110–432, 122 Stat. 4889 (49 U.S.C. 20140, note); and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20103, note, 20107, 21301–21302, 20701–20703, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20153, 21301, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20133, 20701–20702, 21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20148 and 21301; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 103, 322(a), 20103, 20107, 20901–20902, 21301, 21302, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20103, note, 20701–20702; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 103, 20103, 20107, 21101–21109; Sec. 108, Div. A, Public Law 110–432, 122 Stat. 4860–4866, 4893–4894; 49 U.S.C. 21301, 21303, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
a. Remove the dollar amount “$853” and add in its place “$870”;
71. In appendix A to part 228, below the heading “GENERAL PROVISIONS,” amend the “Penalty” paragraph by adding a sentence at the end of the paragraph to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 103, 322(a), 20103, 20107, 20901–02, 21301, 21301, 21302, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20702; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20107, 20131, 20301–20303, 21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20301–20303, 20306, 21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 504, 522, 20103, 20107, 20501–20505, 21301, 21302, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
86. In appendix A to part 233, footnote 1, remove the dollar amount “$109,819” and add in its place “the statutory maximum amount”.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20152, 20160, 21301, 21304, 21311, 22501 note; Pub. L. 110–432, Div. A., Sec. 202, 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20157, 20301–20303, 20306, 20501–20505, 20701–20703, 21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20102–20114; Public Law 110–432, Div. A, Sec. 417; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20302–20303, 20306, 20701–20702, 21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20105–20114, 20133, 21301, 21304, and 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20135, 21301, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 21301, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20135, 20138, 20162, 20163, 21301, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20131–20155, 20162, 20301–20306, 20701–20702, 21301–21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 21301; 5 U.S.C. 553 and 559; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20106–20107, 20118–20119, 20156, 21301, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20109, note; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; 49 CFR 1.89; and sec. 410, Div. A, Pub. L. 110–432, 122 Stat. 4888.
49 U.S.C. 113; chapters 5, 51, 131–141, 145–149, 311, 313, and 315; Sec. 204, Pub. L. 104–88, 109 Stat. 803, 941 (49 U.S.C. 701 note); Sec. 217, Pub. L. 105–159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767; Sec. 206, Pub. L. 106–159, 113 Stat. 1763; subtitle B, title IV of Pub. L. 109–59; Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 599 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.87.
The Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 [Pub. L. 114–74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 599] amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 to require agencies to adjust civil penalties for inflation. Pursuant to that authority, the inflation adjusted civil penalties identified in this appendix supersede the corresponding civil penalty amounts identified in title 49, United States Code.
Violation—Failure to respond to Agency subpoena to appear and testify or produce records.
Penalty—minimum of $1,066 but not more than $10,663 per violation.
a. Violation—Operation of a commercial vehicle by a driver during the period the driver was placed out of service.
Penalty—Up to $1,848 per violation.
(For purposes of this violation, the term “driver” means an operator of a commercial motor vehicle, including an independent contractor who, while in the course of operating a commercial motor vehicle, is employed or used by another person.)
b. Violation—Requiring or permitting a driver to operate a commercial vehicle during the period the driver was placed out of service.
Penalty—Up to $18,477 per violation.
(This violation applies to motor carriers including an independent contractor who is not a “driver,” as defined under paragraph IV(a) above.)
c. Violation—Operation of a commercial motor vehicle or intermodal equipment by a driver after the vehicle or intermodal equipment was placed out-of-service and before the required repairs are made.
Penalty—$1,848 each time the vehicle or intermodal equipment is so operated.
(This violation applies to drivers as defined in IV(a) above.)
d. Violation—Requiring or permitting the operation of a commercial motor vehicle or intermodal equipment placed out-of-service before the required repairs are made.
Penalty—Up to $18,477 each time the vehicle or intermodal equipment is so operated after notice of the defect is received.
(This violation applies to intermodal equipment providers and motor carriers, including an independent owner operator who is not a “driver,” as defined in IV(a) above.)
e. Violation—Failure to return written certification of correction as required by the out-of-service order.
Penalty—Up to $924 per violation.
g. Violation—Operating in violation of an order issued under § 386.72(b) to cease all or part of the employer's commercial motor vehicle operations or to cease part of an intermodal equipment provider's operations,
Penalty—Up to $26,659 per day the operation continues after the effective date and time of the order to cease.
h. Violation—Operating in violation of an order issued under § 386.73.
Penalty—Up to $23,426 per day the operation continues after the effective date and time of the out-of-service order.
i. Violation—Conducting operations during a period of suspension under § 386.83 or § 386.84 for failure to pay penalties.
Penalty—Up to $15,040 for each day that operations are conducted during the suspension or revocation period.
j. Violation—Conducting operations during a period of suspension or revocation under §§ 385.911, 385.913, 385.1009 or 385.1011.
Penalty—Up to $23,426 for each day that operations are conducted during the suspension or revocation period.
The Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 [Pub. L. 114–74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 599] amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 to require agencies to adjust civil penalties for inflation. Pursuant to that authority, the inflation adjusted civil penalties identified in this appendix supersede the corresponding civil penalty amounts identified in title 49, United States Code.
What are the types of violations and maximum monetary penalties?
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(b)
(1) A CDL-holder who is convicted of violating an out-of-service order shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $3,096 for a first conviction and not less than $6,192 for a second or subsequent conviction;
(2) An employer of a CDL-holder who knowingly allows, requires, permits, or authorizes an employee to operate a CMV during any period in which the CDL-holder is subject to an out-of-service order, is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $5,591 or more than $30,956; and
(3) An employer of a CDL–holder who knowingly allows, requires, permits, or authorizes that CDL-holder to operate a CMV in violation of a Federal, State, or local law or regulation pertaining to railroad-highway grade crossings is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $16,048.
(d)
(e)
(1) All knowing violations of 49 U.S.C. chapter 51 or orders or regulations issued under the authority of that chapter applicable to the transportation or shipment of hazardous materials by commercial motor vehicle on the highways are subject to a civil penalty of not more than $79,976 for each violation. Each day of a continuing violation constitutes a separate offense.
(2) All knowing violations of 49 U.S.C. chapter 51 or orders or regulations issued under the authority of that chapter applicable to training related to the transportation or shipment of hazardous materials by commercial motor vehicle on the highways are subject to a civil penalty of not less than $481 and not more than $79,976 for each violation.
(3) All knowing violations of 49 U.S.C. chapter 51 or orders, regulations or exemptions under the authority of that chapter applicable to the manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, reconditioning, repair, or testing of a packaging or container that is represented, marked, certified, or sold as being qualified for use in the transportation or shipment of hazardous materials by commercial motor vehicle on the highways are subject to a civil penalty of not more than $79,976 for each violation.
(4) Whenever regulations issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. chapter 51 require compliance with the FMCSRs while transporting hazardous materials, any violations of the FMCSRs will be considered a violation of the HMRs and subject to a civil penalty of not more than $79,976.
(5) If any violation subject to the civil penalties set out in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this appendix results in death, serious
(f)
(2) A motor carrier operating a commercial motor vehicle designed or used to transport hazardous materials for which placarding of a motor vehicle is required under regulations prescribed under 49 U.S.C. chapter 51 is subject, after being placed out of service because of receiving a final “unsatisfactory” safety rating, to a civil penalty of not more than $79,976 for each offense. If the violation results in death, serious illness, or severe injury to any person or in substantial destruction of property, the civil penalty may be increased to not more than $186,610 for each offense. Each day the transportation continues in violation of a final “unsatisfactory” safety rating constitutes a separate offense.
(g)
(1) A person who operates as a motor carrier for the transportation of property in violation of the registration requirements of 49 U.S.C. 13901 is liable for a minimum penalty of $10,663 per violation.
(2) A person who knowingly operates as a broker in violation of registration requirements of 49 U.S.C. 13904 or financial security requirements of 49 U.S.C. 13906 is liable for a penalty not to exceed $10,663 for each violation.
(3) A person who operates as a motor carrier of passengers in violation of the registration requirements of 49 U.S.C. 13901 is liable for a minimum penalty of $26,659 per violation.
(4) A person who operates as a foreign motor carrier or foreign motor private carrier of property in violation of the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 13902(c) is liable for a minimum penalty of $10,663 per violation.
(5) A person who operates as a foreign motor carrier or foreign motor private carrier without authority, before the implementation of the land transportation provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement, outside the boundaries of a commercial zone along the United States-Mexico border, is liable for a maximum penalty of $14,664 for an intentional violation and a maximum penalty of $36,662 for a pattern of intentional violations.
(6) A person who operates as a motor carrier or broker for the transportation of hazardous wastes in violation of the registration provisions of 49 U.S.C. 13901 is liable for a minimum penalty of $21,327 and a maximum penalty of $42,654 per violation.
(7) A motor carrier or freight forwarder of household goods, or their receiver or trustee, that does not comply with any regulation relating to the protection of individual shippers, is liable for a minimum penalty of $1,604 per violation.
(8) A person—
(i) Who falsifies, or authorizes an agent or other person to falsify, documents used in the transportation of household goods by motor carrier or freight forwarder to evidence the weight of a shipment or
(ii) Who charges for services which are not performed or are not reasonably necessary in the safe and adequate movement of the shipment is liable for a minimum penalty of $3,210 for the first violation and $8,025 for each subsequent violation.
(10) A person who offers, gives, solicits, or receives transportation of property by a carrier at a different rate than the rate in effect under 49 U.S.C. 13702 is liable for a maximum penalty of $160,484 per violation. When acting in the scope of his/her employment, the acts or omissions of a person acting for or employed by a carrier or shipper are considered to be the acts or omissions of that carrier or shipper, as well as that person.
(11) Any person who offers, gives, solicits, or receives a rebate or concession related to motor carrier transportation subject to jurisdiction under subchapter I of 49 U.S.C. chapter 135, or who assists or permits another person to get that transportation at less than the rate in effect under 49 U.S.C. 13702, commits a violation for which the penalty is $320 for the first violation and $401 for each subsequent violation.
(12) A freight forwarder, its officer, agent, or employee, that assists or willingly permits a person to get service under 49 U.S.C. 13531 at less than the rate in effect under 49 U.S.C. 13702 commits a violation for which the penalty is up to $803 for the first violation and up to $3,210 for each subsequent violation.
(13) A person who gets or attempts to get service from a freight forwarder under 49 U.S.C. 13531 at less than the rate in effect under 49 U.S.C. 13702 commits a violation for which the penalty is up to $803 for the first violation and up to $3,210 for each subsequent violation.
(14) A person who knowingly authorizes, consents to, or permits a violation of 49 U.S.C. 14103 relating to loading and unloading motor vehicles or who knowingly violates subsection (a) of 49 U.S.C. 14103 is liable for a penalty of not more than $16,048 per violation.
(16) A person required to make a report to the Secretary, answer a question, or make, prepare, or preserve a record under part B of subtitle IV, title 49, U.S.C., or an officer, agent, or employee of that person, is liable for a minimum penalty of $1,066 and for a maximum penalty of $8,025 per violation if it does not make the report, does not completely and truthfully answer the question within 30 days from the date the Secretary requires the answer, does not make or preserve the record in the form and manner prescribed, falsifies, destroys, or changes the report or record, files a false report or record, makes a false or incomplete entry in the record about a business-related fact, or prepares or preserves a record in violation of a regulation or order of the Secretary.
(17) A motor carrier, water carrier, freight forwarder, or broker, or their officer, receiver, trustee, lessee, employee, or other person authorized to receive information from them, who discloses information identified in 49 U.S.C. 14908 without the permission of the shipper or consignee is liable for a maximum penalty of $3,210.
(18) A person who violates a provision of part B, subtitle IV, title 49, U.S.C., or a regulation or order under part B, or who violates a condition of registration related to transportation that is subject to jurisdiction under subchapter I or III of chapter 135, or who violates a condition of registration of a foreign motor carrier or foreign motor private carrier under section 13902, is liable for a penalty of $803 for each violation if another penalty is not provided in 49 U.S.C. chapter 149.
(21) A person—
(i) Who knowingly and willfully fails, in violation of a contract, to deliver to, or unload at, the destination of a shipment of household goods in interstate commerce for which charges have been estimated by the motor carrier transporting such goods, and for which the shipper has tendered a payment in accordance with part 375, subpart G of this chapter, is liable for a civil penalty of not less than $16,048 for each violation. Each day of a continuing violation constitutes a separate offense.
(22) A broker for transportation of household goods who makes an estimate of the cost of transporting any such goods before entering into an agreement with a motor carrier to provide transportation of household goods subject to FMCSA jurisdiction is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not less than $12,383 for each violation.
(23) A person who provides transportation of household goods subject to jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. chapter 135, subchapter I, or provides broker services for such transportation, without being registered under 49 U.S.C. chapter 139 to provide such transportation or services as a motor carrier or broker, as the case may be, is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not less than $30,956 for each violation.
(h)
(i)
(1) Who by any means tries to evade regulation of motor carriers under title 49, United States Code, chapter 5, chapter 51, subchapter III of chapter 311 (except sections 31138 and 31139) or sections 31302, 31303, 31304, 31305(b), 31310(g)(1)(A), or 31502, or a regulation issued under any of those provisions, shall be fined at least $2,133 but not more than $5,332 for the first violation and at least $2,665 but not more than $7,997 for a subsequent violation.
(2) Who tries to evade regulation under part B of subtitle IV, title 49, U.S.C., for carriers or brokers is liable for a penalty of at least $2,133 for the first violation or at least $5,332 for a subsequent violation.
Pub. L. 92–513, Pub. L. 94–163, Pub. L. 98–547, Pub. L. 101–410, Pub. L. 102–388, Pub. L. 102–519, Pub. L. 104–134, Pub. L. 109–59, Pub. L. 110–140, Pub. L. 112–141, Pub. L. 114–74, Pub. L. 114–94, 49 U.S.C. 30165, 30170, 30505, 32308, 32309, 32507, 32709, 32710, 32902, 32912, 33114 and 33115; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.81, 1.95.
The civil penalties set forth in this part continue in effect until adjusted by the Administrator. The Administrator shall review the amount of these civil penalties annually and will, if appropriate, adjust them by rule.
(a)
(2)
(A) Violates section 30112(a)(1) of Title 49 United States Code by the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce, or importation of a school bus or school bus equipment (as those terms are defined in 49 U.S.C. 30125(a)); or
(B) Violates section 30112(a)(2) of Title 49 United States Code, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $12,383 for each violation. A separate violation occurs for each motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and for each failure or refusal to allow or perform an act required by this section. The maximum penalty under this paragraph for a related series of violations is $18,574,064.
(3)
(4)
(b)
(c)
(i) That does not comply with a standard prescribed under 49 U.S.C. 32502, or
(ii) For which a certificate is not provided, or for which a false or misleading certificate is provided, under 49 U.S.C. 32504.
(2) The maximum civil penalty under this paragraph (c) for a related series of violations is $3,176,131.
(d)
(2)
(e)
(f)
(2) A person that violates 49 U.S.C. Chapter 327 or a regulation prescribed or order issued thereunder, with intent to defraud, is liable for three times the actual damages or $10,663, whichever is greater.
(g)
(2) A person that violates 49 U.S.C. 33114(a)(5) is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $173,951 a day for each violation.
(i)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A330–200 series airplanes; Model A330–200 Freighter series airplanes; and Model A330–300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by revisions to certain airworthiness limitation item (ALI) documents, which specify more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations. This AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitation requirements. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 2, 2019.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 2, 2019.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 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 issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A330–200 series airplanes; Model A330–200 Freighter series airplanes; and Model A330–300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and possible failure of certain life limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018–0034, dated February 5, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus SAS Model A330–200 series airplanes; Model A330–200 Freighter series airplanes; and Model A330–300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A330 and A340 aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the A330 and A340 ALS document(s). The Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items are specified in ALS Part 1. These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness. Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.
EASA previously issued [EASA] AD 2014–0009 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017–10–24, Amendment 39–18898 (82 FR 24035, May 25, 2017) (“AD 2017–10–24”)] to require the implementation of the instructions and airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus A330 and A340 ALS Part 1 documents at Revision 07.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, improvement of safe life component selection and life extension campaigns resulted in life limitations changes, among others new or more restrictive life limitations, approved by EASA. Consequently, Airbus successively issued Revision 08 and Revision 09 of the A330 and A340 ALS Part 1, compiling all ALS Part 1 changes approved since previous Revision 07.
In addition, Airbus published Variation 9.2 to remove from ALS Part 1 some life limits connected to a deficiency in the fatigue performance of 300M high strength steel used in forgings. These life limits, applicable only for a specific batch of parts, are required by EASA AD 2017–0185.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014–0009, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the applicable ALS.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comments received. The commenter Michael Josefik indicated support for the NPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus has issued A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1, Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL–ALI), Revision 09, dated September 18, 2017. This service information describes SL–ALI for the landing gear.
Airbus has also issued A330 ALS Part 1, SL–ALI, Variation 9.2, dated November 28, 2017; and A330 ALS Part 1, SL–ALI, Variation 9.3, dated November 29, 2017. This service information describes revised life limits for certain parts. These documents are distinct because they apply to different life limited parts.
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 105 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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 January 2, 2019.
This AD affects AD 2017–10–24, Amendment 39–18898 (82 FR 24035, May 25, 2017) (“AD 2017–10–24”).
This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before November 29, 2017.
(1) Airbus SAS Model A330–201, –202, –203, –223, and –243 airplanes.
(2) Airbus SAS Model A330–223F and –243F airplanes.
(3) Airbus SAS Model A330–301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by revisions to certain airworthiness limitation item (ALI) documents, which specify more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and possible failure of certain life limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the service information identified in paragraphs
(1) Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1, Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL–ALI), Revision 09, dated September 18, 2017.
(2) Airbus A330 ALS Part 1, SL–ALI, Variation 9.2, dated November 28, 2017.
(3) Airbus A330 ALS Part 1, SL–ALI, Variation 9.3, dated November 29, 2017.
Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all of the requirements of AD 2017–10–24.
After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
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 2017–10–24 are not approved as AMOCs for this AD.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018–0034, February 5, 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.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1, Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL–ALI), Revision 09, dated September 18, 2017.
(ii) Airbus A330 ALS Part 1, SL–ALI, Variation 9.2, dated November 28, 2017.
(iii) Airbus A330 ALS Part 1, SL–ALI, Variation 9.3, dated November 29, 2017.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A330–200 Freighter, A330–200, and A330–300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a revision of a certain airworthiness limitations item (ALI) document, which specifies new or more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations, and a determination that those maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 2, 2019.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 2, 2019.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 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 issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A330–200 Freighter, A330–200, and A330–300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018–0068, dated March 26, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A330–200 Freighter, A330–200, and A330–300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A330 and A340 aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the A330 and A340 [Airworthiness Limitations Section] ALS document(s). The Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI) are specified in the ALS Part 2. These instructions have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness.
Failure to comply with these instructions could result in an unsafe condition [
Previously, EASA issued AD 2016–0152 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017–19–13, Amendment 39–19043 (82 FR 43837, September 20, 2017) (“AD 2017–19–13”)] for A330 and A340 aeroplanes to require accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as described in ALS Part 2 Revision 01 (A330 aeroplanes) and Revision 02 (A340 aeroplanes).
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus published Revision 02 of the ALS Part 2 for A330 aeroplanes, including new and/or more restrictive items.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD takes over the requirements from EASA AD 2016–0152 for A330 aeroplanes, and requires accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as described in the ALS. EASA AD 2016–0152 has been revised accordingly, removing A330 aeroplanes from the Applicability.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.
American Airlines requested that we clarify the applicability of the AMOC approved in letter AIR–676–18–111 R1, dated January 29, 2018, or remove the previously approved AMOC from the proposed AD. The commenter stated that, as currently written, paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of the proposed AD is confusing because it states that the AMOC approved in letter AIR–676–18–111 R1, dated January 29, 2018, previously approved for AD 2017–19–13, would still be approved for the corresponding provisions of the final rule. The commenter explained that this AMOC is limited to a specific organization and is not applicable to all operators.
We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided by the commenter. AMOC letter AIR–676–18–111 R1, dated January 29, 2018, was issued specifically to Singapore Technologies Aerospace Limited and is not a global AMOC. We have revised paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of this AD to clarify that the AMOC granted in letter AIR–676–18–111 R1, dated January 29, 2018, is approved as an AMOC for Model A330–300 series airplanes modified from a passenger to freighter configuration under the provisions of FAA Supplemental Type Certificate ST04038NY.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
Airbus SAS has issued Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT–ALI), Revision 02, Issue 2, dated November 22, 2017. This service information describes maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations applicable to the DT–ALI. 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 105 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
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
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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 January 2, 2019.
This AD affects AD 2017–19–13, Amendment 39–19043 (82 FR 43837, September 20, 2017) (“AD 2017–19–13”).
This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before November 22, 2017.
(1) Model A330–223F and –243F airplanes.
(2) Model A330–201, –202, –203, –223, and –243 airplanes.
(3) Model A330–301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a revision of a certain airworthiness limitations item (ALI) document, which specifies new or more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations, and a determination that those maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT–ALI), Revision 02, Issue 2, dated November 22, 2017. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the tasks is at the applicable times specified in Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT–ALI), Revision 02, Issue 2, dated November 22, 2017, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Accomplishing the action required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2017–19–13.
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) The AMOC specified in letter AIR–676–18–111 R1, dated January 29, 2018, approved previously for AD 2017–19–13, is approved as an AMOC for the corresponding provisions of this AD for Model A330–300 series airplanes that have been modified from a passenger to freighter configuration under the provisions of FAA Supplemental Type Certificate ST04038NY.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018–0068, dated March 26, 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.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT–ALI),
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 747–8 and 747–8F series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that flightcrew oxygen masks did not function as designed during flight testing. This AD requires an inspection to determine if certain oxygen masks/regulators are installed, and replacement if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 2, 2019.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 2, 2019.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; telephone 562–797–1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206–231–3570; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 747–8 and 747–8F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address flightcrew oxygen masks/regulators that do not deploy correctly, which could result in a delay for the flightcrew to put on the masks, which may lead to hypoxia and loss of useful consciousness, potentially resulting in loss of control of the airplane.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Zodiac Aerospace recommended that we revise paragraphs (g) and (h) to include training for proper mask-packing as an alternative to replacement. The commenter stated that if operators have followed proper packing procedures, no equipment change should be required.
Although we acknowledge Zodiac's recommendation, we note that the supplier had previously provided mask-packing training to Boeing, and that trained, certified mask packers had packed the masks that failed. We have determined that mandating a design change is necessary to effectively mitigate the unsafe condition. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the proposed AD to provide that subsequent changes or modifications may be handled by normal operator procedures without requiring approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) as long as oxygen mask/regulator part number (P/N) MLD20–626–l is not reintroduced as part of the subsequent change. Boeing considered paragraph (i)(3) of the proposed AD to be too restrictive because operators would be burdened with requests for AMOCs for each subsequent change or modification.
We partially agree with the commenter. We agree that options are warranted for operators because the proposed AD was highly restrictive, given the limited nature of the unsafe condition. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to provide alternative actions to correct the unsafe condition, thereby reducing the need for AMOC requests. We also removed the requirement to inspect for the oxygen mask stowage box because that inspection is no longer needed based on these alternative actions.
However, we disagree with revising or deleting paragraph (i)(3) of this AD because the requirement refers to the dependent relationship between the new mask/regulator part number and the new oxygen mask stowage box part number required by the service information. The installation of oxygen mask/regulator P/N MLD20–726–1 with
The commenter, DLH/LHT (Deutsche Lufthansa/Lufthansa-Technik), requested that we revise the proposed applicability to include P/N MLC20–626–1 as another affected oxygen mask/regulator in the proposed AD. The commenter stated that P/N MLC20–626–1 is identical to P/N MLD20–626–1, except for the goggles, and that this is why the oxygen mask/regulator shows both of these part numbers on the identification label. The commenter reasoned that an operator tracking the mask under the affected part number only would not be subject to the proposed AD.
We do not agree with the request. We are evaluating the associated risks of P/N MLC20–626–1 in relation to the unsafe condition identified in this AD; however, it is not in the interest of public safety to delay this action further. We might consider additional rulemaking to address our findings. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–35–2133, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacing certain oxygen masks/regulators and stowage boxes. 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 18 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities 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 January 2, 2019.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747–8 and 747–8F series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.
This AD was prompted by a report that flightcrew oxygen masks did not function as designed during flight testing. We are issuing this AD to address flightcrew oxygen masks/regulators that do not deploy correctly, which could result in a delay for the flightcrew to put on the masks, which may lead to hypoxia and loss of useful consciousness, potentially resulting in loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness, or an original export certificate of airworthiness, issued on or before the effective date of this AD: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect for oxygen mask/regulator part number (P/N) MLD20–626–1. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of the part number inspection if the part number of the oxygen mask/regulator can be conclusively determined from that review. If any oxygen mask/regulator P/N MLD20–626–1 is found, within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD.
(1) Do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–35–2133, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2017, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD.
(2) Except as specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD: Remove oxygen mask/regulator P/N MLD20–626–1 and install any new or serviceable oxygen mask/regulator that is not P/N MLD20–626–1 and that is FAA approved for installation on the airplane.
Guidance for the installation procedures can be found in Boeing Model 747 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 35–11–18.
(3) Except as specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD: Remove the oxygen mask/regulator P/N MLD20–626–1 and the installed oxygen mask stowage box combination, and install any new or serviceable oxygen mask/regulator and stowage box combination that does not include oxygen mask/regulator P/N MLD20–626–1, and that is FAA approved for installation on the airplane.
Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–35–2133, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2017, refers to or specifies installing a new (or changed) part, for this AD, a new or serviceable (or changed) part is acceptable.
(1) For airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness, or an original export certificate of airworthiness, issued on or before the effective date of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an oxygen mask/regulator P/N MLD20–626–1 on any airplane, except that prior to 72 months after the effective date of this AD, installation of P/N MLD20–626–1 is acceptable for unscheduled maintenance as a replacement only for another P/N MLD20–626–1, and only into a stowage box having P/N MXP806–1. If an oxygen mask/regulator having a part number other than P/N MLD20–626–1 is installed, it may not be replaced with P/N MLD20–626–1. For the purposes of this AD, unscheduled maintenance is defined as maintenance that was not planned for or scheduled in advance, such as changing a defective or unserviceable oxygen mask at dispatch.
(2) For airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or an original export certificate of airworthiness issued after the effective date of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install oxygen mask/regulator P/N MLD20–626–1 on any airplane.
(3) For all airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install oxygen mask/regulator P/N MLD20–726–1 in combination with any stowage box part number that is not P/N MXP806–7 on any airplane.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206–231–3570; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–35–2133, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2017.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; telephone 562–797–1717; internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that filters, which are integral to certain T-unions in the landing gear hydraulic control system, disconnected from their housing and, in some cases, migrated. This AD requires replacing certain T-unions with an integral filter with T-unions without an integral filter. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 2, 2019.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 2, 2019.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88–6280–350; fax +31 (0)88–6280–111; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206–231–3226.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address flow reduction along the hydraulic circuit and the possible inability to completely extend one or both of the main landing gear legs, which could result in damage to the airplane during landing, and consequent injury to occupants.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018–0076, dated April 6, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 airplanes. The MCAI states:
With [Fokker Service Bulletins] SBF100–32–095 and SBF28–32–154, Fokker Services introduced the option of installing a T-union with an integral filter into the landing gear hydraulic control system. On some F28 Mark 0070 and Mark 0100 aeroplanes, the affected part was installed on the production line. Since introduction, occurrences were reported where the T-union filter disconnected from its housing, and in some cases migrated. In one occurrence, the migrated filter caused a flow reduction and inability to retract one of the main landing gear (MLG) legs.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to flow reduction along the hydraulic circuit and inability to completely extend one of the MLG legs, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane during landing, and consequent injury to occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services issued the applicable SB [Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28–32–166; and Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–32–170] to provide instructions to replace the affected parts with improved parts. Fokker Services also cancelled the SBs that introduced the affected parts.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires replacement of the affected parts with T-unions without an integral filter. This [EASA] AD also prohibits the installation of affected parts.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletin SBF28–32–166, dated February 21, 2018; and Service Bulletin SBF100–32–170, dated February 21, 2018. This service information describes procedures for removal of certain T-unions with an integral filter and installation of T-unions without an integral filter. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models 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
We estimate that this AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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 January 2, 2019.
None.
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070, 0100, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by reports that filters, which are integral to certain T-unions in the landing gear hydraulic control system, disconnected from their housing and, in some cases, migrated. We are issuing this AD to address flow reduction along the hydraulic circuit and the possible inability to completely extend one or both of the main landing gear legs, which could result in damage to the airplane during landing, and consequent injury to occupants.
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)(3) inclusive apply.
(1) An affected part is any hydraulic T-union with an integral filter, having part number (P/N) QA07596 or P/N QA07597, installed on the production line or introduced in-service by Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–32–095 or Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28–32–154, as applicable.
(2) Group 1 airplanes are those that have an affected part installed.
(3) Group 2 airplanes are those that do not have an affected part installed.
For Group 1 airplanes, within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the airplane in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28–32–166, dated February 21, 2018; or Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–32–170, dated February 21, 2018; as applicable. The corresponding part numbers of affected (old) parts and replacement (new) parts are specified in figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD.
No person may install an affected part on any airplane, as of the time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Group 1 airplanes: After modification of the airplane as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
(2) For Group 2 airplanes: From the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018–0076, 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 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.
(i) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF28–32–166, dated February 21, 2018.
(ii) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–32–170, dated February 21, 2018.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88–6280–350; fax +31 (0)88–6280–111; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are revising airworthiness directive (AD) 2018–20–03 for certain Hoffmann GmbH & Co. KG (Hoffmann) model HO–V 62 propellers. AD 2018–20–03 required removal of the affected propeller blades and installation of modified propeller blades marked with a change letter “A” or “B” suffix. This AD requires the removal and replacement of the affected propeller blades and installation of modified propeller blades marked with a change letter “A” or “B” suffix. This AD was prompted by a determination that the applicability and installation prohibition paragraphs of AD 2018–20–03 were incorrect. We inadvertently included all Hoffmann model HO–V 62 propeller blades that did not have a change letter “A” or “B” suffix added to the serial number (S/N) and marked on the blade in the applicability and installation prohibition paragraphs of AD 2018–20–03. Only Hoffmann model HO–V 62 propellers with certain S/Ns without a change letter “A” or “B” suffix are affected. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective December 12, 2018.
We must receive any comments on this AD by January 11, 2019.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Hoffmann Propeller GmbH & Co. KG, Sales and Service, Küpferlingstrasse 9, 83022 Rosenheim, Germany; phone: +49 (0) 8031 1878 0; fax: +49 (0) 8031 1878 78; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Maureen Maisttison, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Ave, Burlington, MA, 01803; phone: 781–238–7076; fax: 781–238–7898; email:
We issued AD 2018–20–03, Amendment 39–19437 (83 FR 50821, October 10, 2018), (“AD 2018–20–03”), for Hoffmann model HO–V 62 propellers. AD 2018–20–03 required removal of the affected propeller blades and installation of modified propeller blades marked with a change letter “A” or “B” suffix. AD 2018–20–03 resulted from the failure of the propeller blade lag screws. We issued AD 2018–20–03 to prevent failure of the propeller.
Since we issued AD 2018–20–03, we determined that we inadvertently included all Hoffmann S/N model HO–V 62 propeller blades without a change letter “A” or “B” suffix in the applicability and installation prohibition paragraphs of this AD. This AD corrects the applicability and installation prohibition paragraphs to affect only Hoffmann model HO–V 62 propeller blades with S/N 1 to 6049, inclusive. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We reviewed Hoffmann Propeller GmbH & Co. KG Service Bulletin (SB) E34 Rev. B, dated September 18, 2017. The SB describes the instructions for the removal and installation of the propeller blades. 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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires removal of the affected propeller blades and installation of modified propeller blades marked with a change letter “A” or “B” suffix.
We are revising AD 2018–20–03 to correct the applicability and installation prohibition paragraphs, which were overly inclusive. We also reduced the compliance time in this AD to align more closely with the effective compliance time in AD 2018–20–03. We previously provided notice and an opportunity to comment on the substance of this rulemaking and received no comments. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 50 propellers installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate that 25 propellers will need to be replaced between overhaul and 25 propellers will need to be replaced at overhaul to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective December 12, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2018–20–03, Amendment 39–19437 (83 FR 50821, October 10, 2018).
This AD applies to Hoffmann GmbH & Co. KG (Hoffmann) model HO–V 62 propellers with a propeller blade serial number (S/N) 1 to 6049, inclusive. Hoffmann model HO–V 62 propeller blades marked with the change letter “A” or “B” suffix to the S/N are not affected by this AD.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6110, Propeller Assembly.
This AD was prompted by the failure of the propeller blade lag screws. We are issuing the AD to prevent failure of the propeller. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the release of the propeller blade, damage to the aircraft, and injury and/or loss of life.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 15 days after the effective date of this AD, remove the affected propeller blades and install modified Hoffmann propeller blades marked with a change letter “A” or “B” suffix to the S/N marked on the blade.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install a Hoffmann model HO–V 62 propeller with a propeller blade S/N 1 to 6049 if it is not marked with a change letter “A” or “B” suffix to the S/N marked on the blade.
(1) The Manager, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Maureen Maisttison, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Ave., Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781–238–7076; fax: 781–238–7898; email:
(2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2017–0220, dated November 10, 2017, for more information. You may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50, MYSTERE-FALCON 900, and FALCON 900EX airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracked reinforcing straps (doublers) on the ailerons of airplanes equipped with blended winglets. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the upper and lower reinforcing straps on the ailerons, and replacement if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 2, 2019.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 2, 2019.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Aviation Partners, Inc., 7299 Perimeter Road South, Seattle, WA 98108–3812; phone: 206–762–1171; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Michael Bumbaugh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206–231–3522; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50, MYSTERE-FALCON 900, and FALCON 900EX airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address cracking of aileron reinforcing straps, which could lead to fatigue cracking of the ailerons and subsequent loss of control of the airplane.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comment received. The commenter, Sean Sullivan, indicated support for the NPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9–17–001, Revision B, dated December 20, 2017. This service information describes procedures for detailed inspections for any signs of cracking of the external upper and lower reinforcing straps on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) ailerons.
We also reviewed Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9–17–002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacing the external upper and lower reinforcing straps on the LH and RH ailerons.
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 70 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. 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 promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities 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 January 2, 2019.
None.
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE–FALCON 50, MYSTERE–FALCON 900, and FALCON 900EX airplanes equipped with blended winglets installed in accordance with the supplemental type certificate (STC) specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Model MYSTERE–FALCON 50 airplanes: STC ST02241SE.
(2) For Model MYSTERE–FALCON 900 and FALCON 900EX airplanes: STC ST02188SE.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracked reinforcing straps (doublers) on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) ailerons of airplanes equipped with blended winglets. We are issuing this AD to address cracking of aileron reinforcing straps, which could lead to fatigue cracking of the ailerons and subsequent loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 8 months or 400 flight hours (FH), whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8 months or 400 FH, whichever occurs first: Do a detailed inspection for cracking of the upper and lower reinforcing straps of the LH and RH ailerons, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9–17–001, Revision B, dated December 20, 2017. If any cracked aileron reinforcing strap is found, before further flight: Replace the reinforcing strap with a new part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9–17–002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017.
Replacement of any aileron reinforcing strap with a new part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9–17–002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that part only.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9–17–001, dated March 3, 2017; or Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9–17–001, Revision A, dated April 4, 2017.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the replacement specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9–17–002, dated March 7, 2017.
(1) Although Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9–17–001, Revision B, dated December 20, 2017; and Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9–17–002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017; specify to submit certain
(2) Although Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9–17–002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017, specifies salvaging and returning a damaged strap to Aviation Partners, Inc., this AD does not include that requirement.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Michael Bumbaugh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206–231–3522; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9–17–001, Revision B, dated December 20, 2017.
(ii) Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9–17–002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Aviation Partners, Inc., 7299 Perimeter Road South, Seattle, WA 98108–3812; phone: 206–762–1171; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Whenever the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgates a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each state to make a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission establishing that the SIP provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS, commonly referred to as infrastructure requirements. The EPA is approving the Alaska SIP as meeting specific infrastructure requirements for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective December 27, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2017–0597. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357 or
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
On March 10, 2016, Alaska submitted a SIP submission to address the infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2012 PM
We received 13 adverse comments, all of which appear to be from citizens living in North Pole, Alaska, part of the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) nonattainment area.
Most of these commenters did not provide details about how their concerns warrant approval or disapproval of specific infrastructure SIP elements. The EPA does not consider comments on the advisability of FNSB control measures in the existing SIP to be within the scope of issues subject to public comment in this infrastructure SIP action. The provisions in question were previously approved into the SIP as part of the FNSB
One commenter did include detailed information supporting their assertion that the EPA should not approve certain infrastructure SIP elements in this action, and we have responded to the commenter's assertions below.
One commenter stated that CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits, but the “FNSB has set a standard for home wood burning devices that is much more strict than the EPA requires.” The commenter included a link to the ADEC web page comparing the EPA's 2015 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Residential Wood Heaters to Alaska regulations addressing solid fuel-fired heating device emission standards, specifically, regulations set forth in Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) at 18 AAC 50.077 and 18 AAC 50.079.
The EPA disagrees with this comment for a number of reasons. First, CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA. In the context of an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS, however, the EPA is not evaluating the substantive merit of existing control measures in the SIP, unlike the evaluation of such measures in a nonattainment plan SIP submission. For an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA interprets section 110(a)(2)(A) to require states to make a submission that identifies the existing measures in their SIPs that are relevant to the NAAQS at issue, as the first step in their planning for implementation of a new or revised NAAQS.
The EPA's longstanding position is that infrastructure SIPs are statewide planning SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce a NAAQS in general, and are not detailed attainment and maintenance plans for an individual area of a state.
Second, the EPA disagrees because the comment is not germane to this action on the State's infrastructure SIP submission. The commenter's assertions focus on control measures already established by the State in 18 AAC 50.077 and 18 AAC 50.079 to attain the 2006 24-hour PM
Third, the EPA does not agree that it is appropriate to compare the stringency of an NSPS with the stringency of other forms of control measures that may be necessary for a given source category. The NSPS for woodstoves focuses on emission reductions achievable through redesign of new woodstoves to reduce emissions. By contrast, potential SIP control measures can, and may be required to, achieve emission reductions by other means such as requirements to burn dry wood, opacity standards, curtailment programs, or other mechanism to reduce emissions from both new and existing sources, perhaps over and above what may result from the NSPS alone. The commenter incorrectly presumes that an NSPS is necessarily the proper point of comparison for the validity of SIP provisions to address emissions from woodstoves.
Fourth, the EPA disagrees with the premise that states cannot regulate a source category more stringently than may be required in a Federal regulation. In enacting section 110 of the CAA, Congress gave states the lead in developing plans to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. The EPA's role is to review and approve state choices if they meet the
Finally, we note that Alaska's infrastructure SIP submission established that the State has a program for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2012 PM
We continue to find that the Alaska infrastructure SIP submission meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for purposes of the 2012 PM
The commenter asserted that the regulatory monitor at Hurst Road in North Pole, Alaska “routinely records the highest levels of PM
The EPA disagrees that the relative levels of ambient PM
With respect to monitor siting, Alaska regularly assesses the adequacy of the State monitoring network and submits that assessment to the EPA for review. The most recent Alaska network assessment is available at
In the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) to require that SIPs provide for the performance of air quality modeling as may be prescribed by the EPA, and the submission of that modeling data by states to the EPA as required or upon request. In our proposed action, we stated that Alaska's SIP meets the infrastructure SIP requirements for modeling because, as stated in the submission, Alaska incorporates the EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models into the SIP at 18 AAC 50.040 and requires its use based on 18 AAC 50.215
Beyond alleging that “the FNSB is using faulty air quality parameters,” the commenter did not specify why they felt the Alaska SIP failed to meet CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2012 PM
The commenter alleged that the FNSB cannot enforce wood burning curtailment as a practical matter and pointed to public statements that the FNSB has found “very low compliance” but has issued “only one citation.” The commenter concluded that the program is unenforceable and that the State has failed to meet CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to enforcement.
In the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to require, among other things, a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures. As stated in the infrastructure SIP submission, Alaska statute provides ADEC authority to enforce air quality regulations, permits, and orders promulgated pursuant to AS 46.03 and AS 46.14. ADEC staffs and maintains an enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP requirements. ADEC has emergency order authority when there is an imminent or present danger to health or welfare or potential for irreversible or irreparable damage to natural resources or the environment. Enforcement cases may be referred to the State Department of Law. Therefore, we proposed to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) related to enforcement for the 2012 PM
The commenter asserted that the FNSB burn curtailment program is unenforceable and that the EPA should therefore disapprove the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). The EPA disagrees that the amount or type of enforcement of a SIP provision necessarily affects the approvability of an infrastructure SIP submission. In the context of evaluating an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA is focused upon the facial sufficiency of the State's SIP and does not evaluate issues related to the State's implementation of the SIP. The EPA has other authority to take action, in the event the State is actually failing to implement its SIP, such as the issuance of a finding of failure to implement or a SIP call. In this instance, the comment also relates to the State's exercise of enforcement discretion, rather than to the facial sufficiency of the State's SIP with respect to enforcement authority.
As stated in our proposal, the SIP contains the required statutory authority to enforce air quality regulations, permits, and orders.
The commenter stated that “the emergency episode plan for FNSB is not sustainable” and specifically referred to a voter initiative to remove wood
In the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) to require two things: (1) States must have general emergency authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, and (2) if the area has high ambient PM
In the March 10, 2016, infrastructure submission, with respect to general emergency authority, Alaska cited to Alaska Statute (AS) 46.03.820
On January 23, 2018, the EPA proposed to find that AS 46.03.820
We are approving the Alaska SIP as meeting the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2012 PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 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 (Public Law 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide 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).
The SIP is 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 it 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 28, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revision and additions read as follows:
(e) * * *
Federal Communications Commission
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) eliminate or revise expired and outdated cable rate regulation rules and close a related dormant docket.
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Katie Costello,
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 18–148, adopted and released on October 23, 2018. The full text of these documents is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS (
In the Report and Order, we eliminate and revise rules that have become obsolete due to the sunset of rate regulation for cable programming service tiers, are unnecessary given changes in industry practices, or have become obsolete due to changes in Commission policy. For the reasons stated below, we find good cause to modify § 76.923(i) without notice and comment because the modification in question merely codifies an existing uncodified rule. We also eliminate the hard copies of Forms 328 and 329 located at the end of § 76.985 of our rules. We are not changing the text of § 76.985 by deleting these hard copies, and they are unnecessary because Form 329 is no longer in use and Form 328 is available electronically. Finally, we eliminate §§ 76.986, 76.987, 76.922(g)(7) and 76.922(n) of the rules and close proceedings related to uniform regional rate structures, which are moot due to the sunset of cable programming service tier (CPST) regulation.
The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which consists of all such firms having $12.5 million or less in annual receipts. This category includes, among others, cable
For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 2(a), 3, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 601(3), 602, and 623 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 153, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 521, 522, 543, this Report and Order IS ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 2(a), 3, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 601(3), 602, and 623 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 153, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 521, 522, 543, the Commission's rules ARE AMENDED as set forth below. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CS Docket No. 96–157 IS TERMINATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Cable television, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 76 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.
(e)
(1) Using the most reliable sources publicly available, the Commission periodically will determine and give public notice of the subscriber count that will serve as the 1 percent threshold until a new number is calculated.
(2) For a discussion of passive interests with respect to small cable operators, see Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order in CS Docket No. 96–85, FCC 99–57 (released March 29, 1999).
(3) If two or more entities unaffiliated with each other each hold an equity interest in the small cable operator, the equity interests of the unaffiliated entities will not be aggregated with each other for the purpose of determining whether an entity meets or passes the 20 percent affiliation threshold.
(c) The written certification described in paragraph (b) of this section shall be made by completing and filing FCC Form 328. FCC Form 328 can be obtained from the internet at
(i) * * * Equipment sales by an operator will be unregulated where the operator offers subscribers the same equipment under regulated leased rates.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is closing the commercial fishery for blacktip sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region. This action is necessary because, as of reports received by November 16, 2018, the commercial landings of blacktip sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region for the 2018 fishing season have reached 97 percent of the available commercial quota. Therefore, NMFS is closing the blacktip shark fishery in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region. This closure will affect anyone commercially fishing for blacktip sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region.
The commercial fishery for blacktip sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region is closed effective 11:30 p.m. local time November 25, 2018, until the end of the 2018 fishing season on December 31, 2018, or until and if NMFS announces via a notice in the
Lauren Latchford or Karyl Brewster-Geisz 301–427–8503; fax 301–713–1917.
The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP), its amendments, and implementing regulations (50 CFR part 635) issued under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
Under § 635.5(b)(1), dealers must electronically submit reports on sharks that are first received from a vessel on a weekly basis through a NMFS-approved electronic reporting system. Reports must be received by no later than midnight, local time, of the first Tuesday following the end of the reporting week unless the dealer is otherwise notified by NMFS.
Under § 635.28(b)(2), when NMFS calculates that the landings for any species and/or management group that has a non-linked quota has reached or is projected to reach a threshold of 80 percent of the available quota, NMFS will file for publication, with the Office of the Federal Register, a notice of closure for that species and/or management group that will be effective no fewer than four days from date of filing.
From the effective date and time of the closure until and if NMFS announces, via a notice in the
On November 22, 2017 (82 FR 55512), NMFS announced that for 2018, the commercial eastern Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark sub-regional quota was 37.7 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) (83,158 lb dw). Dealer reports received through November 16, 2018, indicate that 97 percent (36.7 mt dw) of the available eastern Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark sub-regional quota has been landed. Based on these dealer reports, landings have exceeded 80 percent of the eastern Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark sub-regional quota. Therefore, the blacktip shark fishery meets the closure threshold. Accordingly, NMFS is closing the blacktip shark fishery in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region as of 11:30 p.m. local time November 25, 2018.
All other shark species or management groups in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region that are currently open will remain open, including the commercial eastern Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS, eastern Gulf of Mexico hammerhead sharks, Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose small coastal sharks, blue sharks, smoothhound sharks, and pelagic sharks other than porbeagle or blue sharks.
The boundary between the Gulf of Mexico region and the Atlantic region is defined at § 635.27(b)(1) as a line beginning on the East Coast of Florida at the mainland at 25°20.4′ N lat, proceeding due east. Any water and
During the closure, retention of blacktip sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region is prohibited for persons fishing aboard vessels issued a commercial shark limited access permit under § 635.4. However, persons aboard a commercially permitted vessel that is also properly permitted to operate as a charter vessel or headboat for HMS, has a shark endorsement, and is engaged in a for-hire trip could fish under the recreational retention limits for sharks and “no sale” provisions (§ 635.22 (c)). Similarly, persons aboard a commercially permitted vessel that possesses a valid shark research permit under § 635.32 and has a NMFS-approved observer onboard may continue to harvest and sell blacktip sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region pursuant to the terms and conditions of the shark research permit.
During this closure, a shark dealer issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 may not purchase or receive blacktip sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region from a vessel issued an Atlantic shark limited access permit (LAP), except that a permitted shark dealer or processor may possess blacktip sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region that were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered prior to the effective date of the closure and were held in storage consistent with § 635.28(b)(6). Additionally, a permitted shark dealer or processor may possess blacktip sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region that were harvested by a vessel issued a valid shark research fishery permit per § 635.32 with a NMFS-approved observer onboard during the trip the sharks were taken on as long as the blacktip research fishery quota remains open. Similarly, a shark dealer issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 may, in accordance with relevant state regulations, purchase or receive blacktip sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region if the sharks were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered from a vessel that fishes only in state waters and that has not been issued an Atlantic Shark LAP, HMS Angling permit, or HMS Charter/Headboat permit pursuant to § 635.4.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that providing prior notice and public comment for this action is impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the fishery is currently underway and any delay in this action would result in overharvest of the quotas for these species and management groups and thus would be inconsistent with fishery management requirements and objectives. The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments and fishery closures to respond to the unpredictable nature of availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of the species, and the regional variations. NMFS is not able to give notice sooner nor would sooner notice be practicable given the structure of the regulations, which close the fisheries under specified regulatory criteria or thresholds, and closure determinations need to be based on near real-time data to balance fishing opportunities against the management goal of preventing quota overharvests. Similarly, affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action is contrary to the public interest because if a quota is exceeded, the stock may be negatively affected and fishermen ultimately could experience reductions in the available quota and a lack of fishing opportunities in future seasons. For these reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This action is required under § 635.28(b)(2) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; fishing season notification.
This final rule establishes the 2019 opening date for all Atlantic shark fisheries, including the fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean. This final rule also establishes the quotas for the 2019 fishing year based on harvest levels during 2018, and the large coastal shark (LCS) retention limits for directed shark limited access permit holders. NMFS may increase or decrease these retention limits for directed shark limited access permit holders during the year, in accordance with existing regulations, to provide, to the extent practicable, equitable fishing opportunities for commercial shark fishermen in all regions and areas. These actions could affect fishing opportunities for commercial shark fishermen in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea.
This rule is effective on January 1, 2019. The 2019 Atlantic commercial shark fishing year opening dates and quotas are provided in Table 1 under
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Management Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Lauren Latchford, Chanté Davis, or Karyl Brewster-Geisz at 301–427–8503.
The Atlantic commercial shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. For the Atlantic commercial shark fisheries, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments established, among other things, commercial shark retention limits, commercial quotas for species and management groups, and accounting measures for under- and overharvests for the shark fisheries. The FMP also established adaptive management measures such as flexible opening dates for the fishing season and inseason adjustments to shark trip limits, which provide management flexibility in furtherance of equitable fishing opportunities, to the extent practicable, for commercial shark fishermen in all regions and areas.
On September 11, 2018 (83 FR 45866), NMFS published a proposed rule that
NMFS received eight written and oral comments regarding the proposed opening dates, retention limits, and potential inseason retention limit adjustments as it applied to LCS in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic regions. Those comments, along with the Agency's responses, are summarized below. After considering all the comments, NMFS is opening the fishing year for all shark management groups on January 1, 2019, as proposed. NMFS is changing the retention limit for directed shark limited access permit holders in the blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead management groups for the entire Gulf of Mexico region to 45 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip in this final rule. The proposed rule would have set the retention limit at 36 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip. The aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups in the Atlantic region will start the fishing year with a retention limit of 25 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip for directed shark limited access permit holders, as proposed. The retention limit for incidental shark limited access permit holders for all regions has not changed from the proposed rule and remains at 3 LCS other than sandbar sharks per trip and a combined total of 16 small coastal sharks (SCS) and pelagic sharks, combined per trip consistent with § 635.24(a)(3) and (4). Additionally, the retention limit for blacknose sharks for all permit holders in the Atlantic region south of 34
This final rule serves as notification of the 2019 opening date for the Atlantic commercial shark fisheries and 2019 retention limits and quotas, based on shark landings data updated as of October 15, 2018 and criteria set in existing regulations at 50 CFR, Part 635. In setting the opening date, NMFS considered the “opening commercial fishing season” criteria at § 635.27(b)(3). This criteria includes the following factors: Available annual quotas for the current fishing season; estimated season length and average weekly catch rates from previous years; length of the season and fishermen participation in past years; impacts to accomplishing objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments; temporal variation in behavior or biology of target species (
While this action adjusts certain quotas as allowable, this action does not establish or change the annual baseline commercial quotas established under the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments for any shark management group. The baselines quotas were established under previous actions, and any changes to those baseline quotas would be performed through a separate action. Rather, this action adjusts the annual commercial quotas for 2019 based on over- and/or underharvests that occurred in 2018, consistent with existing regulations, and establishes the opening dates for the fisheries. Based on updated landings information as of October 15, 2018, only the adjusted blacktip quota in the Gulf of Mexico region has changed from the proposed rule. All other quotas remain the same as proposed.
NMFS received eight written and oral comments on the proposed rule from fishermen, dealers, and other interested parties. All written comments can be found at
Regarding the comment about adequate enforcement, NMFS takes enforcement of these regulations seriously. If suspected illegal activities are observed in any fishery and/or region, specific information regarding such incidents can be reported to NOAA Office of Law Enforcement through the national enforcement hotline at 1–800–853–1964. All commercial shark landings and quotas are monitored with the HMS electronic dealer reporting system, which has been in use since 2013. This system monitors data on a weekly basis, and provides information on each dealer transaction, including all shark landings to the species level, and ensures that quotas are not exceeded. In addition, NMFS can verify and detect falsified reporting by dealers and fishermen by cross-checking dealer reports to fishermen's logbooks.
As described above, and as a result of public comment and additional analyses, NMFS made changes from the proposed rule. Specifically, NMFS changed the retention limit for directed shark limited access permit holders at the start of the commercial shark fishing year for the blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark management groups in the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico sub-regions from 36 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip to 45 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip. NMFS changed the retention limit after considering public comment and the 2018 landings data. NMFS noted in the proposed rule that retention limits might change in response to public comment. The default retention limit is within the allowable range and consistent with the limits established in recent years. NMFS expects that a retention limit of 45 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip will provide equitable fishing opportunities throughout the sub regions, to the extent practicable, and retains its discretion to make inseason adjustments to retention limits, in accordance with existing regulations and in furtherance of the goals and objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments.
Additionally, based on updated landings information, NMFS changed the final blacktip shark quota in both Gulf of Mexico sub-regions. As NMFS explained in the proposed rule (83 FR 45866; Sept 11, 2018), shark management group quotas in this final rule are based on dealer reports received as of mid-October. Specifically, the final adjustments are based on updated landings through October 15, 2018. Updated landing reports indicate an additional 11.5 metric tons (mt) of blacktip shark was landed in the Gulf of Mexico in 2018. Accordingly, the regional underharvest for the Gulf of Mexico region is now only 26.9 mt dressed weight (dw) (59,355 pounds (lb) dw). Since more blacktip sharks were landed, the final adjustment is lower than the proposed adjustment of 38.4 mt dw (84,702 lb dw).
Therefore, the sub-regional quota adjustments are also lower than the adjustments in the proposed rule. The underharvest is divided between the
This final rule adjusts the 2019 commercial quotas due to overharvests and/or underharvests in 2018 and previous fishing years, based on landings data through October 15, 2018. The 2018 annual quotas by species and management group are summarized in Table 1. Any dealer reports that are received by NMFS after October 15, 2018 will be used to adjust the 2020 quotas, if necessary. A description of the quota calculations is provided in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. Any changes are described in the “Changes from the Proposed Rule” section.
NMFS considered the seven “opening commercial fishing season” criteria listed in § 635.27(b)(3), as discussed above and as described in the proposed rule (83 FR 45866; September 11, 2018). These include, among other things: the available annual quotas based on any over- and/or underharvests experienced during the previous seasons; the estimated season length based on available quotas and catch rates from previous years; the length of the season in the previous years and whether fishermen were able to participate in the fishery in those years; and the effects of catch rates in one part of a region precluding vessels in another part of that region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the different species and/or management quotas.
Regarding the LCS retention limit, as shown in Table 2, directed shark limited access permit holders fishing on the Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark management groups will start the commercial fishing year at 45 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip. Directed shark limited access permits fishing on the Atlantic aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups will start the commercial fishing year at 25 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip. These retention limits could be changed throughout the year based on consideration of the inseason trip limit adjustment criteria at § 635.24(a)(8).
Specifically, in the Atlantic region, NMFS will closely monitor the quota at the beginning of the year. If it appears that the quota is being harvested too
All of the shark management groups will remain open until December 31, 2019, or until NMFS determines that the landings for any shark management group have reached, or are projected to reach, 80 percent of the available overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota, if the fishery's landings are not projected to reach 100 percent of the applicable quota before the end of the season, or when the quota-linked management group is closed. For the blacktip shark management group, regulations at § 635.28(b)(5)(i) through (v) authorize NMFS to close the management group before landings reach, or are expected to reach 80 percent of the available overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota after considering the following criteria and other relevant factors: Season length based on available sub-regional quota and average sub-regional catch rates; variability in regional and/or sub-regional seasonal distribution, abundance, and migratory patterns; effects on accomplishing the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and its amendments; amount of remaining shark quotas in the relevant sub-region; and regional and/or sub-regional catch rates of the relevant shark species or management groups. Additionally, NMFS has previously established non-linked and linked quotas; linked quotas are explicitly designed to concurrently close multiple shark management groups that are caught together to prevent incidental catch mortality from exceeding the total allowable catch. The linked and non-linked quotas are shown in Table 2. If NMFS determines that a shark species or management group must be closed, then NMFS will publish a notice in the
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the final rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 because they contain no implementing regulations.
In compliance with section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for this final rule. The FRFA analyzes the anticipated economic impacts of the final actions and any significant economic impacts on small entities. The FRFA is below.
Section 604(a)(1) of the RFA requires an explanation of the purpose of the rulemaking. The purpose of this final rulemaking is, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, to establish the 2018 Atlantic commercial shark fishing quotas, retention limits, and fishing seasons. Without this rule, the Atlantic commercial shark fisheries would close on December 31, 2018, and would not reopen until another action was taken. This final rule will be implemented according to the regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments. Thus, NMFS expects few, if any, economic impacts to fishermen other than those already analyzed in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments. While there may be some direct negative economic impacts associated with the opening dates for fishermen in certain areas, there could also be positive effects for other fishermen in the region. The opening dates were chosen to allow for an equitable distribution of the available quotas among all fishermen across regions and states, to the extent practicable.
Section 604(a)(2) of the RFA requires NMFS to summarize significant issues raised by the public in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), provide a summary of NMFS' assessment of such issues, and provide a statement of any changes made as a result of the comments. The IRFA was done as part of the proposed rule for the 2019 Atlantic Commercial Shark Season Specifications. NMFS did not receive any comments specific to the IRFA or on economics more generally.
Section 604(a)(3) of the RFA requires NMFS to the respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response to the proposed rule and provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule as a result of the comments. NMFS did not receive any comments from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration on the proposed rule.
Section 604(a)(4) of the RFA requires NMFS to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. Provision is made under SBA's regulations for an agency to develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation with Advocacy and an opportunity for public comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). Under this provision, NMFS may establish size standards that differ from those established by the SBA Office of Size Standards, but only for use by NMFS and only for the purpose of conducting an analysis of economic effects in fulfillment of the agency's obligations under the RFA. To utilize this provision, NMFS must publish such size standards in the
As of October 2018, the final rule would apply to the approximately 220 directed commercial shark permit holders, 268 incidental commercial shark permit holders, 163 smoothhound shark permit holders, and 108 commercial shark dealers. Not all permit holders are active in the fishery in any given year. Active directed commercial shark permit holders are defined as those with valid permits that landed one shark based on HMS electronic dealer reports. Of the 488 directed and incidental commercial shark permit holders, only 24 permit holders landed sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region and only 89 landed sharks in the Atlantic region. Of the 163 smoothhound shark permit holders, only 66 permit holders landed smoothhound sharks in the Atlantic region and one permit holder landed smoothhound sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region. NMFS has determined that the final rule would not likely affect any small governmental jurisdictions.
Section 604(a)(5) of the RFA requires NMFS to describe the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the final rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which would be subject to the requirements of the report or record. None of the actions in this final rule would result in additional reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements beyond those already analyzed in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments.
Section 604(a)(6) of the RFA requires NMFS to describe the steps taken to minimize the economic impact on small entities, consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes. Additionally, the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)–(4)) lists four general categories of “significant” alternatives that would assist an agency in the development of significant alternatives that would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities. These categories of alternatives are: (1) Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) exemptions from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
In order to meet the objectives of this rule, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only for small entities because all the entities affected are small entities. Thus, there are no alternatives discussed that fall under the first, second, and fourth categories described above. NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards that would satisfy the aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act; therefore, there are no alternatives considered under the third category.
This rulemaking does not establish management measures to be implemented, but rather implements previously adopted and analyzed measures as adjustments, as specified in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments and the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 2011 shark quota specifications rule (75 FR 76302; December 8, 2010). Thus, in this
Based on the 2017 ex-vessel meat and fin prices (Table 3), fully harvesting the unadjusted 2019 Atlantic shark commercial baseline quotas could result in total fleet revenues of $7,650,107. For the Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group, NMFS will increase the baseline sub-regional quotas due to the underharvests in 2018. The increase for the western Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group would result in a $43,249 gain in total revenues for fishermen in that sub-region, while the increase for the eastern Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group would result in a $5,339 gain in total revenues for fishermen in that sub-region. For the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic smoothhound shark management groups, NMFS will increase the baseline quotas due to the underharvest in 2018. This would cause a potential gain in revenue of $281,329 for the fleet in the Gulf of Mexico region and a potential gain in revenue of $1,004,973 for the fleet in the Atlantic region.
All of these changes in gross revenues are similar to the changes in gross revenues analyzed in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments. The FRFAs for those amendments concluded that the economic impacts on these small entities are expected to be minimal. In the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments and the EA for the 2011 shark quota specifications rule, NMFS stated it would be conducting annual rulemakings and considering the potential economic impacts of adjusting the quotas for under- and overharvests at that time.
For this final rule, NMFS reviewed the “opening commercial fishing season” criteria at § 635.27(b)(3)(i) through (vii) to determine when opening each fishery will provide equitable opportunities for fishermen, to the extent practicable, while also considering the ecological needs of the different species. The 2018 fishing year and previous years' over- and/or underharvests were examined for the different species/complexes to determine the effects of the 2019 final quotas on fishermen across regional fishing areas. NMFS examined season lengths and previous catch rates to ensure equitable fishing opportunities for fishermen. Lastly, NMFS examined the seasonal variation of the different species/complexes and the effects on fishing opportunities. In addition to these criteria, NMFS also considered updated landings data and public comment on the proposed rule before arriving at the final opening dates for the 2019 Atlantic shark management groups. For the 2019 fishing year, NMFS is opening the shark management groups on January 1, 2019. The direct and indirect economic impacts will be neutral on a short- and long-term basis for the Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark, Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS, Gulf of Mexico hammerhead shark, Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose shark SCS, Atlantic non-blacknose shark SCS, Atlantic blacknose shark, sandbar shark, blue shark, porbeagle shark, and pelagic shark (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) management groups, because NMFS did not change the opening dates of these fisheries from the status quo of January 1.
Opening the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups in the Atlantic region on January 1 will result in short-term, direct, moderate, beneficial economic impacts, as fishermen and dealers in the southern portion of the Atlantic region will be able to fish for and sell aggregated LCS
Based on past public comments, some Atlantic fishermen in the southern and northern parts of the region prefer a January 1 opening for the fishery as long as the majority of the quota is available later in the year. Along with the inseason retention limit adjustment criteria in § 635.24(a)(8), NMFS monitors the quota through the HMS electronic reporting system on a real-time basis. This allows NMFS the flexibility to further provide equitable fishing opportunities for fishermen across all regions, to the extent practicable. The direct impacts to shark fishermen in the Atlantic region of reducing the retention limit depend on the needed reduction in the retention limit and the timing of such a reduction. Therefore, such a reduction in the retention limit for directed shark limited access permit holders is only anticipated to have minor adverse direct economic impacts to fishermen in the short-term; long-term impacts are not anticipated as these reductions would not be permanent.
In the northern portion of the Atlantic region, a January 1 opening for the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups, with inseason trip limit adjustments to ensure quota is available later in the season, will have direct, minor, beneficial economic impacts in the short-term for fishermen as they will potentially have access to the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark quotas earlier than in past seasons. Fishermen in this area have stated that, depending on the weather, some aggregated LCS species might be available to retain in January. Thus, fishermen will be able to target or retain aggregated LCS while targeting non-blacknose SCS. There will be indirect, minor, beneficial economic impacts in the short- and long-term for shark dealers and other entities that deal with shark products in this region as they will also have access to aggregated LCS products earlier than in past seasons. Thus, opening the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups in January and using inseason trip limit adjustments to ensure the fishery is open later in the year in 2019 will cause beneficial cumulative economic impacts, because it allows for a more equitable distribution of the quotas among constituents in this region, consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, NMFS has prepared a listserv summarizing fishery information and regulations for Atlantic shark fisheries for 2019. This listserv also serves as the small entity compliance guide. Copies of the compliance guide are available from NMFS (see
16 U.S.C. 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reallocation.
NMFS is exchanging unused rock sole Community Development Quota (CDQ) for yellowfin sole CDQ acceptable biological catch (ABC) reserves in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area. This action is necessary to allow the 2018 total allowable catch of yellowfin sole in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area to be harvested.
Effective November 27, 2018 through December 31, 2018.
Steve Whitney, 907–586–7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2018 rock sole and yellowfin sole CDQ reserves specified in the BSAI are 4,540 metric tons (mt) and 17,023 mt as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018) and revised by flatfish exchange (83 FR 50036, October 4, 2018). The 2018 rock sole and yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves are 10,772 mt and 12,670 mt as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018) and revised by flatfish exchange (83 FR 50036, October 4, 2018).
The Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation has requested that NMFS exchange 400 mt of rock sole CDQ reserves for 400 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves under § 679.31(d). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.31(d), NMFS exchanges 400 mt of rock sole CDQ reserves for 400 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves in the BSAI. This action also decreases and increases the TACs and CDQ ABC reserves by the corresponding amounts. Tables 11 and 13 of the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018) and revised by flatfish exchange (83 FR 50036, October 4, 2018), are further revised as follows:
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the flatfish exchange by the Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation in the BSAI. Since these fisheries are currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of November 19, 2018.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Area Navigation (RNAV) Route T–331 in the western United States. The modification is necessary due to the planned decommissioning of Clovis, CA, VOR portion of the VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid (NAVAID), which provides navigation guidance for portions of affected ATS route V–23. The decommissioning has rendered portions of V–23 unusable and amending T–331 helps overcome affected portions of V–23. The Clovis, CA, VOR is being decommissioned as part of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Comments must be received on or before January 11, 2019.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1(800) 647–5527, or (202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2018–0985; Airspace Docket No. 18–AWP–19 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Kenneth Ready, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA–2018–0985; Airspace Docket No. 18–AWP–19) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA–2018–0985; Airspace Docket No. 18–AWP–19.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is planning decommissioning activities for the Clovis, CA, VOR in 2019 as one of the candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the final policy statement notice, “Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational Network),” published in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying RNAV route T–331. The proposed route change is outlined below.
T–331: T–331 currently extends between the NTELL, CA, waypoint (WP) and the FONIA, ND, FIX. The FAA proposes to extend the route to the southeast by 15 miles to connect to the FRAME, CA, FIX, which is the new proposed starting point of the RNAV route. The extension is needed for navigation in the low altitude structure as V–23 is being gapped in a separate rulemaking action due to the decommissioning of the Clovis, CA, VOR. Additionally, five WPs (ESSOH, CA, HIXUP, NV, WAHNZ, ID, SPECT, MT, and TRUED, MT) and one FIX (CUTVA, NV) are being removed from the current legal description as they are unnecessary to the RNAV route description required by policy. The unaffected portion of the existing route will remain as charted.
United States RNAV Routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV Route listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Area Navigation (RNAV) Route T–333 in the western United States. The modification is necessary due to the planned decommissioning of Priest, CA, VOR navigation aid (NAVAID), which provides navigation guidance for portions of affected ATS route V–485. The decommissioning has rendered portions of V–485 unusable and amending T–333 will overcome affected portions of V–485. The Priest, CA, VOR is being decommissioned as part of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Comments must be received on or before January 11, 2019.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1(800) 647–5527, or (202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2018–0986; Airspace Docket No. 18–AWP–20 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Kenneth Ready, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA–2018–0986; Airspace Docket No. 18–AWP–20) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA–2018–0986; Airspace Docket No. 18–AWP–20.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is planning decommissioning activities for the Priest, CA, VOR in 2019 as one of the candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the final policy statement notice, “Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational Network),” published in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying RNAV route T–333. The proposed route change is outlined below.
United States RNAV Routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV Route listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Marion County Regional Airport, Flippin, AR, and Baxter County Airport, Mountain Home, AR, which is contained within the Flippin, AR, airspace legal description. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of the decommissioning of the Flippin VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which provided navigation information for the instrument
Comments must be received on or before January 11, 2019.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–9826, or (800) 647–5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2018–0952; Airspace Docket No. 18–ASW–16, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222–5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Marion County Regional Airport, Flippin, AR, and Baxter County Airport, Mountain Home, AR, to support instrument flight rule operations at these airports.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2018–0952/Airspace Docket No. 18–ASW–16.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:
Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Marion County Regional Airport, Flippin, AR, to within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile radius); removing the Flippin VOR/DME from the airspace legal description; removing the extension east of the airport; removing the city associated with the airport from the airspace legal description to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Baxter County Airport (previously Baxter County Regional Airport), Mountain Home, AR, by removing the extension south of the airport associated with the Flippin VOR/DME; removing the city associated with the airport from the airspace legal description to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L; and updating the name of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Flippin VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of the VOR MON Program.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Publication of list of rules scheduled for review.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing a list of rules to be reviewed pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The list is published to provide the public with notice that these rules are scheduled for review by the agency and to invite public comment on whether the rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded to minimize any significant economic impact of the rules upon a substantial number of such small entities.
Comments should be submitted by December 27, 2018.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090.
Leila Bham, Office of the General Counsel, 202–551–5532.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), codified at 5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires an agency to review its rules that have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within ten years of the publication of such rules as final rules. 5 U.S.C. 610(a). The purpose of the review is “to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded . . . to minimize any significant economic impact of the rules upon a substantial number of such small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 610(a). The RFA sets forth specific considerations that must be addressed in the review of each rule:
• The continued need for the rule;
• the nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public;
• the complexity of the rule;
• the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with state and local governmental rules; and
• the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. 5 U.S.C. 610(c).
The Securities and Exchange Commission, as a matter of policy, reviews all final rules that it published for notice and comment to assess not only their continued compliance with the RFA, but also to assess generally
The Commission particularly solicits public comment on whether the rules listed below affect small businesses in new or different ways than when they were first adopted. The rules and forms listed below are scheduled for review by staff of the Commission.
By the Commission.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for certain waters of Spa Creek. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters of Spa Creek at Annapolis, MD, during a fireworks display on December 31, 2018. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before December 12, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG–2018–1021 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 410–576–2674, email
On October 17, 2018, Pyrotecnico, Inc., of New Castle, PA, notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 11:55 p.m. on December 31, 2018 to 12:30 a.m. on January 1, 2019, sponsored by the City of Annapolis, MD. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge in Spa Creek, in Annapolis, MD. Additional details were received on November 5, 2018. Hazards from the fireworks display include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within 400 feet of the fireworks barge.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels on the navigable waters within 400 feet of the fireworks barge on Spa Creek before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The COTP proposes to establish a temporary safety zone in Spa Creek from 11 p.m. on December 31, 2018 through 1 a.m. on January 1, 2019. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 400 feet of the fireworks barge in Spa Creek within 400 feet of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°58′32.48″ N, longitude 076°28′57.55″ W, located at Annapolis, MD. The duration of the safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Although vessel traffic will not be able to safely transit around this safety zone, the impact would be for 2 hours during the evening when vessel traffic in Spa Creek is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF–FM marine channel 16 about the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting two hours that would prohibit entry within a portion of Spa Creek. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; and; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative by telephone at 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).
(3) Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
(e)
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Proposed rule; Withdrawal.
This document withdraws a proposed rule published in the
The proposed rule published on October 2, 2013 (78 FR 60810) is withdrawn as of November 27, 2018.
Division of Transplantation, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 8W63, Rockville, MD 20852.
Frank L. Holloman, MPA, Acting Division Director, Division of Transplantation, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 8W63, Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 443–7577.
On March 1, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” to implement and enforce regulatory reform (82 FR 12285 2/24/2017). Executive Order 13777 directed each Federal agency to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to identify regulations that are “outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective.” In accordance with guidance from Executive Orders 13777 and 13771 (January 30, 2017, titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review”), HHS's Task Force identified the proposed change in definition of “human organ” as a candidate for withdrawal at this time.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission seek comment on whether to replace and simplify the Commission's cable rate-regulation framework. We also seek comment on decisions to deregulate rates charged for equipment used to receive service tiers that have been deregulated, deregulate some small systems owned by small cable companies and clarify that the rate regulations do not apply to services provided to commercial entities. Lastly, we seek comment on our decision to
Submit comments on or before December 27, 2018; reply comments on or before January 28, 2019. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before January 28, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket Nos. 17–105 and 02–144, by any of the following methods:
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Katie Costello,
This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 18–148, adopted and released on October 23, 2018. The full text of these documents is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS (
In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
We first seek comment on whether to make fundamental changes to our existing cable rate regulatory regime based on recent developments in the competitive and regulatory landscape. Alternatively, we seek comment on ways to streamline and update our existing rules and forms to better serve cable operators and LFAs while still protecting subscribers from unreasonable prices. In this regard, we seek comment on whether to exempt from rate regulation equipment used to receive CPST service and also small cable systems owned by small cable operators, and we tentatively find that “commercial cable service” is exempt from rate regulation. We seek comment on ways to greatly simplify the process cable operators use to set their initial regulated Basic Service Tier (BST) rates and to justify subsequent rate increases. We seek comment on whether these changes would be consistent with section 623 of the Act, including the statutory purpose to protect subscribers from “rates for the basic service tier that exceed the rates that would be charged for the basic service tier if such cable system were subject to effective competition,” and whether they would reduce the burdens that cable operators and LFAs bear under our current rate regulation rules.
We note that the Commission sought comment in 2002 in MB Docket No. 02–144 on many of the proposals that we seek comment on in this
Cable television; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 76 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.
(b) * * *
(3) In any case in which a stay of rate regulation has been granted, if the petition for reconsideration is denied, the cable operator may be required to refund any rates or portion of rates above the permitted tier charge or permitted equipment charge in accordance with § 76.942.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(ii) For newly regulated cable systems, including cable systems that are re-regulated following a change in regulatory status, the initial date of regulation for the basic service tier shall be the date on which notice is given by the local franchising authority that the basic service tier is subject to regulation under the generally applicable rate rules.
(iii) For purposes of this section, rates in effect on the initial date of regulation shall be the rates charged to subscribers for service received on that date.
(c)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(B) In all events, a system must adjust its rates every twelve months to reflect any net decreases in external costs that have not previously been accounted for in the system's rates.
(C) Any rate increase made to reflect increases or projected increases in external costs must also fully account for all other changes and projected changes in external costs, inflation and the number of channels on regulated tiers that occurred or will occur during the same period. Rate adjustments made to reflect changes in external costs shall be based on any changes, plus projections, in those external costs that occurred or will occur in the relevant time periods since the periods used in the operator's most recent previous FCC Form 1240.
(iii)
(B) An operator may make rate adjustments for the addition of required channels to the basic service tier that are required under federal or local law at any time such additions occur, subject to the filing requirements of § 76.933(c)(5), regardless of whether such additions occur outside of the annual filing cycle. Required channels may include must-carry, local origination, public, educational and governmental access and leased access channels. Should the operator elect not to pass through the costs immediately, it may accrue the costs of the additional channels plus interest, as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(3)
(i) Where an operator has underestimated costs, future rates may be increased to permit recovery of the accrued costs plus 11.25% interest between the date the costs are incurred and the date the operator is entitled to make its rate adjustment.
(ii) If an operator has underestimated its cost changes and elects not to recover these accrued costs with interest on the date the operator is entitled to make its annual rate adjustment, the interest will cease to accrue as of the date the operator is entitled to make the annual rate adjustment, but the operator will not lose its ability to recover such costs and interest. An operator may recover accrued costs between the date such costs are incurred and the date the operator actually implements its rate adjustment.
(d)
(i) State and local taxes applicable to the provision of cable television service;
(ii) Franchise fees;
(iii) Costs of complying with franchise requirements, including costs of providing public, educational, and governmental access channels as required by the franchising authority;
(iv) Retransmission consent fees and copyright fees incurred for the carriage of broadcast signals;
(v) Other programming costs;
(vi) Commission cable television system regulatory fees imposed pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159; and
(vii) Headend equipment costs necessary for the carriage of digital broadcast signals.
(2) The permitted charge for a regulated tier shall be adjusted on account of programming costs, copyright fees and retransmission consent fees only for the program channels or broadcast signals offered on that tier.
(3) Adjustments for external costs in the true-up portion of the FCC Form 1240 may be made on the basis of actual changes in external costs only. The starting date for adjustments to external costs for newly regulated or re-regulated systems shall be the implementation date of the actual rate in effect as of the initial date of regulation or re-regulation.
(4) Changes in franchise fees shall not result in an adjustment to permitted charges, but rather shall be calculated separately as part of the maximum monthly charge per subscriber for a tier of regulated programming service.
(5) Adjustments to permitted charges to reflect changes in the costs of programming purchased from affiliated programmers, as defined in § 76.901, shall be permitted as long as the price charged to the affiliated system reflects either prevailing company prices offered in the marketplace to third parties (where the affiliated program supplier has established such prices) or the fair market value of the programming.
(i) For purposes of this section, entities are affiliated if either entity has an attributable interest in the other or if a third party has an attributable interest in both entities.
(ii) Attributable interest shall be defined by reference to the criteria set forth in Notes 1 through 5 to § 76.501 provided, however, that:
(A) The limited partner and LLC/LLP/RLLP insulation provisions of Note 2(f) shall not apply; and
(B) The provisions of Note 2(a) regarding five (5) percent interests shall include all voting or nonvoting stock or limited partnership equity interests of five (5) percent or more.
(6) Adjustments to permitted charges on account of increases in costs of programming shall be further adjusted
(7) In calculating programming expense, operators may add a mark-up of 7.5% for increases in programming costs. Operators shall reduce rates to reflect decreases in programming costs and remove the 7.5% mark-up, if any, taken on the removed costs.
(e)
(2)
(ii) For channels added to the BST after the initial date of regulation or May 14, 1994, whichever is later, operators shall remove the actual per channel adjustment taken for that channel when it was added to the BST.
(iii) When removing channels results in a total BST channel count that is less than the number of channels that were on the BST as of the initial date of regulation or May 14, 1994, whichever is later, operators shall also reduce the price of the BST by any “residual” associated with the channel removal. For purposes of this calculation, the per channel residual is the permitted charge for the BST, minus the external costs and any per channel adjustments included in the permitted charge, divided by the total number of channels on the BST as of the initial date of regulation or May 14, 1994, whichever is later.
(3)
(4)
(f) Permitted charges for a tier shall be determined in accordance with forms and associated instructions established by the Commission.
(g)
(2) A rate increase on account of upgrades shall not be assessed on customers until the upgrade is complete and providing benefits to customers of regulated services.
(3) Cable operators seeking an upgrade rate increase have the burden of demonstrating the amount of the net increase in costs, taking into account current depreciation expense, likely changes in maintenance and other costs, changes in regulated revenues and expected economies of scale.
(4) Cable operators seeking a rate increase for network upgrades shall allocate net cost increases in conformance with the cost allocation rules as set forth in § 76.924.
(5) Cable operators that undertake significant upgrades shall be permitted to increase rates by adding the benchmark/price cap rate to the rate increment necessary to recover the net increase in cost attributable to the upgrade.
(h)
(1) Total revenues from cable operations, measured at the highest level of the cable operator's cable service organization, will not be sufficient to enable the operator to attract capital or maintain credit necessary to enable the operator to continue to provide cable service;
(2) The cable operator has prudent and efficient management; and
(3) Adjusted charges on account of hardship will not result in total charges for regulated cable services that are excessive in comparison to charges of similarly situated systems.
(a) * * *
(1) The equipment regulated under this section consists of all equipment in a subscriber's home, provided and maintained by the operator, that is used to receive the basic service tier and video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis, if any, except if such equipment is additionally used to receive other tiers of programming service. Such equipment shall include, but is not limited to:
(i) Converter boxes;
(ii) Remote control units; and
(iii) Inside wiring.
(n)
(1) When the operator sets its initial regulated equipment rates;
(2) On the same date it files its FCC Form 1240. If an operator elects not to file an FCC Form 1240 for a particular year, the operator must file a Form 1205 on the anniversary date of its last Form 1205 filing; and
(3) When seeking to adjust its rates to reflect the offering of new types of customer equipment other than in conjunction with an annual filing of Form 1205, 60 days before it seeks to adjust its rates to reflect the offering of new types of customer equipment.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(c)
(d) * * * (1) Cable operators making cost of service showings shall report all investments, expenses, and revenue and income adjustments accounted for at the franchise, system, regional and/or company level(s) to the summary accounts listed below.
(2) [Removed and Reserved]
(e)
(i) Basic service cost category. The basic service category, shall include the cost of providing basic service as defined by § 76.901(a). The basic service cost category may only include allowable costs as defined by § 76.922.
(ii) Cable programming services cost category. The cable programming services category shall include the cost of providing cable programming services as defined by § 76.901(b). The cable programming service cost category may include only allowable costs as defined in § 76.922.
(iii) All other services cost category. The all other services cost category shall include the costs of providing all other services that are not included in the basic service or cable programming services cost categories as defined in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(2) Cable operators seeking an adjustment due to changes in external costs identified in FCC Form 1240 shall allocate such costs among the equipment basket, as specified in § 76.923, and the following service cost categories:
(i) The basic service category as defined by paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section;
(ii) The cable programming services category as defined by paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section;
(iii) The all other services cost category as defined by paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section.
A cable operator shall file its rate justifications for the basic service tier and associated equipment with a franchising authority within 30 days of receiving written notification from the franchising authority that the franchising authority has been certified by the Commission to regulate rates for the basic service tier, or within 30 days from the date the franchising authority notifies the operator that the operator will be subject to the generally applicable rate rules because the operator's regulatory status has changed. Basic service and equipment rate filings for existing rates or proposed rate increases (including increases that result from reductions in the number of channels on a tier) must use the appropriate official FCC form, a copy thereof, or a copy generated by FCC software. Failure to file on the official FCC form, a copy thereof, or a copy generated by FCC software, may result in the imposition of sanctions specified in § 76.937(d). A cable operator shall include rate cards and channel line-ups with its filing and include an explanation of any discrepancy in the figures provided in these documents and its rate filing.
(a) A cable operator that submits for review its existing rates for the basic service tier and associated equipment costs may continue the existing rates in effect pending franchising authority review and subject to the refund liability provisions of § 76.942.
(b) A cable operator that submits for review a proposed change in its existing rates for the basic service tier and associated equipment costs, including a rate increase resulting from a network upgrade pursuant to § 76.922(g), shall do so no later than 90 days prior to the effective date of the proposed rates.
(c)(1) The franchising authority will have 90 days from the date of the rate filing to review it. However, if the franchising authority or its designee concludes that the operator has submitted a facially incomplete filing, the franchising authority's deadline for issuing a decision, the date on which a rate increase may go into effect if no decision is issued, and the period for which refunds are payable will be tolled while the franchising authority is waiting for this information, provided that, in order to toll these effective dates, the franchising authority or its designee must notify the operator of the incomplete filing within 45 days of the date the filing is made.
(2) If there is a material change in an operator's circumstances during the 90 day review period and the change affects the operator's rate filing, the operator may file an amendment to its rate filing prior to the end of the 90 day review period. If the operator files such an amendment, the franchising authority will have at least 30 days to review the filing. Therefore, if the amendment is filed more than 60 days after the operator made its initial filing, the operator's proposed rate change may not go into effect any earlier than 30 days after the filing of its amendment. However, if the operator files its amended application on or prior to the sixtieth day of the 90 day review period, the operator may implement its proposed rate adjustment, as modified by the amendment, 90 days after its initial filing.
(3) If a franchising authority has taken no action within the 90 day review period, then the existing rates may continue in effect or the proposed rates may go into effect at the end of the review period, subject to a prospective rate reduction and refund if the franchising authority subsequently issues a written decision disapproving any portion of such rates, provided, however, that in order to order a prospective rate reduction and refund, if an operator inquires as to whether the franchising authority intends to issue a rate order after the 90 day review period, the franchising authority or its designee must notify the operator of its intent in this regard within 15 days of the operator's inquiry. If the franchising authority has not issued its rate order by the end of the 90 day review period, the franchising authority will have 12 months from the date the operator filed for the rate adjustment to issue its rate order. In the event that the franchising authority does not act within the 12-month period, it may not at a later date order a refund or a prospective rate reduction with respect to the rate filing.
(4) At the time an operator files its rate justifications with the franchising authority, the operator may give customers notice of the proposed rate changes. Such notice should state that the proposed rate change is subject to approval by the franchising authority. If the operator is only permitted a smaller increase than was provided for in the notice, the operator must provide an explanation to subscribers on the bill in which the rate adjustment is implemented. If the operator is not permitted to implement any of the rate increase that was provided for in the notice, the operator must provide an
(5) If an operator files for a rate adjustment for the addition of channels to the basic service tier that the operator is required by federal or local law to carry, the franchising authority has 60 days to review the requested rate. The proposed rate shall take effect at the end of this 60 day period unless the franchising authority rejects the proposed rate as unreasonable. The franchising authority shall be subject to the requirements described in paragraph (c)(1)–(3) of this section for ordering refunds and prospective rate reductions, except that the initial review period is 60 rather than 90 days.
(6) When the franchising authority is regulating basic service tier rates, a cable operator may increase its rates for basic service to reflect the imposition of, or increase in, franchise fees or cable television system regulatory fees imposed pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 159. The increased rate attributable to Commission cable television system regulatory fees or franchise fees shall be subject to subsequent review and refund if the franchising authority determines that the increase in basic tier rates exceeds the increase in regulatory fees or in franchise fees allocable to the basic tier. This determination shall be appealable to the Commission pursuant to § 76.944. When the Commission is regulating basic service tier rates pursuant to § 76.945, an increase in those rates resulting from franchise fees or Commission regulatory fees shall be reviewed by the Commission pursuant to the mechanisms set forth in § 76.945.
(d) If an operator files an FCC Form 1205 for the purpose of setting the rate for a new type of equipment under § 76.923(o), the franchising authority has 60 days to review the requested rate. The proposed rate shall take effect at the end of this 60 day period unless the franchising authority rejects the proposed rate as unreasonable. The franchising authority shall be subject to the requirements described in paragraph (c)(1)–(3) of this section for ordering refunds and prospective rate reductions, except that the initial review period is 60 rather than 90 days.
(a) For purposes of rules governing the regulatory status of small systems, the size of a system or company shall be determined by reference to its size as of the date the system files with its franchising authority or the Commission the documentation necessary to qualify for the relief sought. Where relief is dependent upon the size of both the system and the company, the operator must measure the size of both the system and the company as of the same date. A small system shall be considered affiliated with a cable company if the company holds a 20 percent or greater equity interest in the system or exercises
(b) A franchising authority that has been certified, pursuant to § 76.910, to regulate rates for basic service and associated equipment may permit a small system as defined in § 76.901 to certify that the small system's rates for basic service and associated equipment comply with § 76.922, the Commission's substantive rate regulations.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f) For rules governing small cable operators, see § 76.990 of this subpart.
In order to regulate basic tier rates or associated equipment costs, a franchising authority must have procedural laws or regulations applicable to rate regulation proceedings that provide a reasonable opportunity for consideration of the views of interested parties. Such rules must take into account the time periods that franchising authorities have to review rates under § 76.933.
The revision reads as follows:
(d) A franchising authority or the Commission may order a cable operator that has filed a facially incomplete form to file supplemental information, and the franchising authority's deadline to rule on the reasonableness of the proposed rates will be tolled pending the receipt of such information. A franchising authority may set reasonable deadlines for the filing of such information, and may find the cable operator in default and mandate appropriate relief, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, for the cable operator's failure to comply with the deadline or otherwise provide complete information in good faith.
A franchising authority may require the production of proprietary information to make a rate determination in those cases where cable operators have submitted initial rates for review, or have proposed rate increases. The franchising authority shall state a justification for each item of information requested and, where related to an FCC form filing, indicate the question or section of the form to which the request specifically relates. Upon request to the franchising authority, the parties to a rate proceeding shall have access to such information, subject to the franchising authority's procedures governing non-disclosure by the parties. Public access to such proprietary information shall be governed by applicable state or local law.
Cable operators shall comply with franchising authorities' and the Commission's requests for information, orders, and decisions. Any information submitted to a franchising authority or
(a) A franchising authority (or the Commission, pursuant to § 76.945) may order a cable operator to refund to subscribers that portion of previously paid rates determined to be in excess of the permitted tier charge or above the actual cost of equipment. Before ordering a cable operator to refund previously paid rates to subscribers, a franchising authority (or the Commission) must give the operator notice and opportunity to comment.
(b) The refund period shall run as follows:
(1) From the date the operator implements the rate under review until it reduces the rate in compliance with a valid rate order or justifies that rate or a higher rate in its next rate filing, whichever is sooner, however, the refund period shall not begin before the initial date of regulation.
(2) For rates in effect and justified on rate forms filed before the effective date of this rule, as amended, the refund period shall be determined by the rules in effect at the time of filing.
(3) Refund liability shall be calculated on the reasonableness of the rates as determined by the rules in effect during the period under review by the franchising authority or the Commission.
(c) The cable operator, in its discretion, may implement a refund in the following manner:
(1) By returning overcharges to those subscribers who actually paid the overcharges, either through direct payment or as a specifically identified credit to those subscribers' bills; or
(2) By means of a prospective percentage reduction in the rates for the basic service tier or associated equipment to cover the cumulative overcharge. The refund shall be reflected as a specifically identified, one-time credit on prospective bills to the class of subscribers that currently subscribe to the cable system.
(d) Refunds shall include interest computed at applicable rates published by the Internal Revenue Service for tax refunds and additional tax payments.
(e) Once an operator has implemented a rate refund to subscribers in accordance with a refund order by the franchising authority (or the Commission pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section), the franchising authority must return to the cable operator an amount equal to that portion of the franchise fee that was paid on the total amount of the refund to subscribers. The franchising authority must promptly return the franchise fee overcharge either in an immediate lump sum payment, or the cable operator may deduct it from the cable system's future franchise fee payments. The franchising authority has the discretion to determine a reasonable repayment period, but interest shall accrue on any outstanding portion of the franchise fee starting on the date the operator has completed implementation of the refund order. In determining the amount of the refund, the franchise fee overcharge should be offset against franchise fees the operator holds on behalf of the franchising authority for lump sum payment. The interest rate on any refund owed to the operator presumptively shall be 11.25%.
(c) An operator that uses the annual rate adjustment method under § 76.922(c) may include in its next true up under § 76.922(c)(3) any amounts to which the operator would have been entitled but for a franchising authority decision that is not upheld on appeal.
(a) Upon assumption of rate regulation authority, the Commission will notify the cable operator and require the cable operator to file its basic rate schedule with the Commission within 30 days, with a copy to the local franchising authority.
(b) Basic service and equipment rate schedule filings for existing rates or proposed rate increases or adjustments (including increases that result from reductions in the number of channels in a tier) must use the official FCC form, a copy thereof, or a copy generated by FCC software. Failure to file on the official FCC form or a copy may result in the imposition of sanctions specified in § 76.937(c).
(c) Filings for existing rates or proposed rate increases or adjustments must be made 90 days prior to the proposed effective date and can become effective on the proposed effective date unless the Commission issues an order deferring the effective date or denying the rate proposal. Petitions opposing such filings must be filed within 15 days of public notice of the filing by the cable operator and be accompanied by a certificate that service was made on the cable operator and the local franchising authority. The cable operator may file an opposition within five days of the filing of the petition, certifying to service on both the petitioner and the local franchising authority.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) A small cable operator is exempt from rate regulation on its basic service tier if that tier was the only service tier subject to rate regulation as of December 31, 1994, in any franchise area in which that operator services 50,000 or fewer subscribers.
(b) * * *
(2) Once the operator has certified its eligibility for deregulation on the basic service tier, the local franchising authority shall not prohibit the operator from taking a rate increase and shall not order the operator to make any refunds unless and until the local franchising authority has rejected the certification in a final order that is no longer subject to appeal or that the Commission has affirmed. The operator shall be liable for refunds for revenues gained (beyond revenues that could be gained under regulation) as a result of any rate increase taken during the period in which it erroneously claimed to be deregulated, plus interest, in the event the operator is later found not to be deregulated. The limits on refund liability will not be applicable during that period to ensure that the filing of an invalid small operator certification does not reduce any refund liability that the operator would otherwise incur.
(c)
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Proposed rule; Correction.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is issuing a correction to GSAR Case 2015–G506; Adoption of Construction Project Delivery Method Involving Early Industry Engagement—Construction Manager as Constructor (CMc). The document heading carried an incorrect Regulatory Information Number (RIN) in the header. This document carries the correct RIN.
Comments for the proposed rule published November 8, 2018 continue to be accepted on or before January 7, 2019 to be considered in the formulation of the final rule.
Submit comments identified by GSAR Case 2015–G503 by any of the following methods:
•
•
For clarification about content, contact Mr. Tony O. Hubbard, General Services Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, by phone at 202–357–5810 or by email at
On November 8, 2018, at 83 FR 55838, GSA published a proposed rule to amend the GSAR to revise sections of GSAR Part 536, Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts, and corresponding clauses in GSAR Part 552, Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses to incorporate CMc contracting. The document's heading contained the incorrect RIN, “RIN 3090–AI81”. This correct RIN is “RIN 3090–AJ64” and is contained in the heading of this correction.
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
This rule proposes to approve and implement measures submitted by the New England Fishery Management Council in Framework Adjustment 6 to the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan and revise the 2018–2019 specifications. This action would reduce the management uncertainty buffer between the annual catch limit and the annual catch target from 25 to 10 percent, which would result in increasing the annual catch target and total allowable landings for the 2018–2019 fishing years by 20 percent. This action is necessary to allow the skate wing total allowable landing to be achieved while minimizing the need to restrict fishing operations through incidental possession limits. This action intends to extend the directed fishing time for both the skate wing and bait fisheries.
Public comments must be received by December 12, 2018.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA–NMFS–2018–0123, by either of the following methods:
1. Go to
2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and
3. Enter or attach your comments.
New England Fishery Management Council staff prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for Northeast Skate Complex Framework Adjustment 6 that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives. The EA provides an analysis of the biological, economic, and social impacts of the proposed measures and other considered alternatives and economic analysis. Copies of the Framework 6 EA are available on request from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. This document is also available from the following internet addresses:
Emily Gilbert, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281–9244.
The Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan (FMP), developed by the New England Fishery Management Council and implemented in 2003, manages a complex of seven skate species (barndoor, clearnose, little, rosette, smooth, thorny, and winter skate) off the New England and mid-Atlantic coasts. Skates are harvested and managed in two different fisheries: One for food (the wing fishery) and one for lobster and crab bait (the bait fishery).
The fishing year for skates is from May 1 to April 30. The directed wing fishery is managed using possession limits in two separate seasons. The bait fishery has possession limits in three separate seasons (Table 1). When catch approaches the seasonal total allowable landings (TAL), a lower, more restrictive incidental limit is implemented to slow harvest and help ensure that seasonal quotas are not exceeded.
In recent years, a combination of lower overall catch limits and strong fishery participation has caused the incidental limits in both the wing and bait fisheries to be triggered with several months remaining in the fishing year. To address this issue for the bait fishery, the Council developed and NMFS implemented Framework Adjustment 4 in March 2018 to better control the catch of skate bait throughout the fishing year (83 FR 6133; February 13, 2018). Similarly, in January 2018, the Council initiated Framework Adjustment 6 to adjust measures to extend the directed skate wing fishing year and reduce negative impacts when skate wing incidental limits are triggered. The Council took final action on Framework 6 at its June 2018 meeting.
This action would adjust the management uncertainty buffer between the annual catch limit (ACL) and annual catch target (ACT) in the skate FMP. The current uncertainty buffer between the ACL and ACT is 25 percent (
The proposed modification to the management uncertainty buffer would result in adjustments to the 2018–2019 specifications implemented through Framework Adjustment 5 (83 FR 48985; September 28, 2018). NMFS is proposing the following revised specifications for the 2018–2019 fishing years as recommended by the Council in Framework 6:
1. The acceptable biological catch and ACL would remain at 31,327 mt;
2. An ACT of 28,194 mt (90 percent of the ACL);
3. A TAL of the 15,788 mt for the entire skate fishery;
4. A TAL of 10,499 mt for the wing fishery, that is divided in two seasons according to the current regulations at 50 CFR 648.322. In season 1 (May 1–August 31) the TAL would be 5,984 mt (57 percent), and the remainder of the TAL allocated to Season 2 (September 1–April 30). As the 2018 fishing year started on May 1, the wing TALs would be retroactively increased. The regulations for the skate fishery allow for unused wing TAL from Season 1 to be rolled-over to Season 2. NMFS estimates that 4,490 mt of wings were landed in Season 1, and therefore 497 mt can be rolled over to Season 2 in 2018. Given this, the Season 2 wing TAL in 2018 would be approximately 5,012 mt.
5. A TAL of 5,289 mt for the bait fishery that is divided into three seasons according to the current regulations at § 648.322. In Season 1 (May 1–July 31) the TAL would be 1,629 mt (30.8 percent); in Season 2 (August 1–October 31) the TAL would be 1,962 mt (37.1 percent), and the remainder (1,698 mt)
The Council reviewed the proposed regulations and deemed them necessary and appropriate to implement consistent with section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, Framework 6, provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows.
The purpose of this action is to allow the skate wing TAL to be achieved while minimizing the need to restrict fishing operations through incidental possession limits. As proposed, this action would reduce the management uncertainty buffer between the skate ACL and the ACT from 25 to 10 percent, which would result in increasing the ACT and TAL for the 2018–2019 fishing years by 20 percent. This action, if implemented, is expected to extend the directed fishing year for both the skate wing and bait fisheries and allow higher magnitude landings for a longer portion of the fishing year.
The action would impact vessels or affiliated groups that hold Federal skate permits and participate in skate fisheries. The Council's analysis of 2017 data, the most recent complete set of data available, indicates that the skate fishery had 288 affiliated groups with single permits, and another 91 vessels belonged to affiliated groups that hold 2 or more permits. It is difficult to quantitatively analyze the economic impacts of increasing TALs, as economic impacts would have to be compared against 2015 fishing year data (the last year in which the incidental possession limit was not imposed) when TALs were higher than the proposed revised 2018 levels under Framework 6. Therefore, a qualitative analysis is described below.
For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11.0 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The determination as to whether the entity is large or small is based on a 3-year average of annual revenue.
Affiliate data are assembled by NMFS, as of June 1st each year, for analysis required by the RFA. During fishing year 2017, 334 regulated entities landed skates; 330 entities were small and 4 were large. All 334 entities could be directly regulated by this proposed action.
This action, which proposes to increase the ACT and TALs for the 2018–2019 fishing years by 20 percent, is expected to result in increased revenues and economic benefits. This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The effects of this action on the regulated small entities in this analysis are expected to be positive. Under the proposed action, small entities would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to large entities, and the regulations would not reduce profits for any small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
This rule would not establish any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(4) Based on the annual review described above and/or the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report described in paragraph (b) of this section, recommendations for acceptable biological catch (ABC) from the Scientific and Statistical Committee, and any other relevant information, the Skate PDT shall recommend to the Skate Committee and Council the following annual specifications for harvest of skates: An annual catch limit (ACL) for the skate complex set less than or equal to ABC; an annual catch target (ACT) for the skate complex set less than or equal to 90 percent of the ACL; and total allowable landings (TAL) necessary to meet the objectives of the FMP in each fishing year (May 1–April 30), specified for a period of up to 2 fishing years.
(b) * * *
(1) If the ACL is determined to have been exceeded in any given year, based upon, but not limited to, available landings and discard information, the percent buffer between ACL and ACT shall be increased by 1 percent for each 1-percent ACL overage in the second fishing year following the fishing year in which the ACL overage occurred, through either the specifications or framework adjustment process described under §§ 648.320 and 648.321.
Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable November 27, 2018.
Nancy Decker at (202) 482–0196, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of
On October 11, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of aluminum wire and cable from the People's Republic of China.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if a petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), a petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reason for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On November 14, 2018, Encore Wire Corporation, a petitioner in this investigation, submitted a timely request pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) to postpone fully the preliminary determination. Encore stated that the purpose of its request was to provide Commerce with sufficient time to receive and analyze the questionnaire responses of the mandatory respondents.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the reason for requesting a postponement of the preliminary determination and the record does not present any compelling reasons to deny the request. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to February 19, 2019.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(l).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS announces a public meeting of the False Killer Whale Take Reduction Team (FKWTRT) on November 29, 2018 in order to provide recommendations on amendments to the False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan (FKWTRP). The meeting will be held via conference call. Members of the public may submit written comments; the comments must be received within 14 days of the completion of the meeting.
The meeting of the FKWTRT will be held via conference call on November 29, 2018, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (or until business is concluded).
The public meeting will be conducted via conference call. For details on how to call in to the conference line, please contact Kevin Brindock, Comments may be submitted to the address provided in
Kevin Brindock, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818; telephone: 808–725–5146; facsimile: 808–725–5146; email:
Section 118(f)(1) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) requires NMFS to develop and implement take reduction plans designed to assist in the recovery or prevent the depletion of each strategic stock that interacts with Category I and II fisheries. In accordance with Section 118(f)(6) of the MMPA, NMFS established the FKWTRT (75 FR 2853, January 19, 2010) to develop a draft take reduction plan to assist in the recovery and prevent the depletion of the Hawaii pelagic stock and Hawaii insular stock of false killer whales. On November 29, 2012, NMFS published regulations implementing provisions of the False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan (FKWTRP; 77 FR 71260) to reduce the level of incidental mortality and serious injury (M&SI) of these two stocks of false killer whales in the Hawaii longline fisheries. In accordance with Section 118(f)(7), NMFS convenes periodically the FKWTRT to monitor the effectiveness and implementation of the FKWTRP, and to recommend amendments that may be necessary to meet that objectives of the FKWTRP. More information can be found on the FKWTRT website:
The purpose of the November 29, 2018, conference call is to review current information and develop consensus recommendations for the FKWTRP to reduce M&SI of false killer whales and meet the goals of the FKWTRP and the MMPA.
The conference call is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to Kevin Brindock at 808–725–5146 at least seven working days prior to the meeting.
16 U.S.C. 1361
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a one-day meeting of its Ad Hoc Reef Fish Headboat Advisory Panel.
The meeting will convene on Tuesday, December 11, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT.
The meeting will take place at the Gulf Council Office.
Dr. Assane Diagne, Economist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council;
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on
The meeting will be webcast over the internet. A link to the webcast will be available on the Council's website,
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Advisory Panel for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Advisory Panel will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda 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 Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting (webinar).
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) and the National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) will hold a meeting via webinar to discuss data issues and solicit participants' knowledge to inform new stock assessments for cabezon. The webinar meeting is open to the public.
The Pacific Council and NWFSC webinar will be held Friday, December 14, 2018, from 10 a.m. to noon, Pacific Standard Time or until business for the day has been completed.
The Pacific Council and NWFSC meeting will be held by webinar. To attend the webinar, (1) join the meeting by visiting this link
Public listening stations will also be available at the following locations:
• Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220;
• Room FSH 203, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195; and
• Barry Fisher Room, Guin Library, Hatfield Marine Science Center, 2030 Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365.
Mr. John DeVore, Staff Officer, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (503) 820–2413.
The purpose of the Pacific Council and NWFSC webinar meeting is to review available data and solicit knowledge from participants that may inform the next assessments of West Coast cabezon scheduled to be conducted next year.
No management actions will be decided by participants in the Pacific Council and NWFSC webinar meeting. Information gathered during the webinar may be used to inform next year's assessments of cabezon on the West Coast.
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820–2411 at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel (NTAP) of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold a meeting.
The meeting will be held on Monday, December 17, beginning at 9 a.m. and conclude by 4:30 p.m. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) office located on 28 Tarzwell Dr., Narragansett, RI 02882 and available via webinar (
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526–5255.
The purpose of this meeting is to: (1) Review results of the Nov. 19th Working Group meeting, (2) update on the status of the flume tank experiments, (3) update on evaluation of effect of wingspread on assessment results, (4) update on results of the 2018 fall survey, (5) update on the project to collect and evaluate fishery ecological knowledge of Gulf of Maine flatfish distribution shifts and their impacts on the availability to fishery independent surveys and (6) discuss other business and next steps for the NTAP.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office (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 SEDAR 59 Assessment Scoping webinar.
The SEDAR 59 assessment of the South Atlantic stock of Greater Amberjack will consist of a series of webinars. See
A SEDAR 59 Assessment Scoping webinar will be held on Friday, December 14, 2018, from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m.
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571–4366; 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. The product of the SEDAR webinar series will be a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses, and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species 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 Assessment Scoping webinar are as follows:
Participants will review data and discuss data issues, as necessary, and initial modeling issues.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce (NOAA).
Notice of availability.
NMFS announces the approval of an application from the state of Oregon (state) for lethal removal of individually identifiable predatory California sea lions (CSL;
Additional information about our determination may be obtained by visiting the NMFS West Coast Region's website:
Mr. Robert Anderson at the above address, by phone at (503) 231–2226, or by email at,
Section 120 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361,
On October 6, 2017, NMFS received an application signed by the director of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) on the state's behalf, requesting authorization under section 120 of the MMPA to intentionally take, by lethal methods, individually identifiable predatory CSL in the vicinity of Willamette Falls, which were then having a significant negative impact on the recovery of threatened UWR spring-run Chinook salmon and UWR winter steelhead. As required under the MMPA, NMFS convened a Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force (Task Force). The role of the Task Force is to recommend to NMFS approval or denial of the state's application along with recommendations of the proposed location, time, and method of such taking, criteria for evaluating the success of the action, and the duration of the intentional lethal taking authority. The Task Force must also suggest non-lethal alternatives, if available and practicable, including a recommended course of action.
Pursuant to the MMPA, NMFS determined that the state's application contained sufficient information to warrant convening the Task Force. On November 9, 2017, NMFS published a notice in the
As required under section 7(a)(2) under the ESA, NMFS completed informal consultation, and in accordance with NEPA, NMFS completed an environmental assessment with a finding of no significant impact. In considering a state's application to lethally remove pinnipeds, NMFS is also required, pursuant to section 120(b)(1) of the MMPA, to determine that individually identifiable pinnipeds are having a significant negative impact on the decline or recovery of at-risk salmonid fishery stocks. Based on these requirements, considerations, and analyses, NMFS has determined that the requirements of section 120 of the MMPA have been met and it is therefore reasonable to issue an authorization to the state for the lethal removal of individually identifiable predatory CSL through 2023.
Office of the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group will take place.
Day 1—Closed to the public Thursday, November 29, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Day 2—Closed to the public Friday, November 30, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Dougherty Conference Center, Building 432, 906 SAC Boulevard, Offutt AFB, Nebraska 68113.
John Trefz, (402) 294–4102 (Voice), (402) 294–3128 (Facsimile),
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Designated Federal Officer, the U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102–3.150(a) concerning the meeting on November 29, 2018 thru November 30, 2018 of the U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the DoD, pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102–3.140 and 102–3.150.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 28, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Health Agency, TRICARE Health Plan (J–10), Attn: Mr. Mark Ellis, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Falls Church, VA 22042 or call (703)–681–0039.
Respondents are individuals who are or were beneficiaries of the Military Health System (MHS) and who desire to enroll in the CHCBP following their loss of entitlement to health care coverage in the MHS. These beneficiaries include the active duty service member or former service member (who, for purposes of this notice shall be referred to as “service member”), an unmarried former spouse of a service member, an unmarried child of a service member who ceases to meet requirements for being considered a dependent, and a child placed for adoption or legal custody with the service member. In order to be eligible for health care coverage under CHCBP, an individual must first enroll in CHCBP. DD Form is used as the information collection instrument for that enrollment. The CHCBP is a legislatively mandated program and it is anticipated that the program will continue indefinitely.
Department of Defense.
Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Department of Defense Wage Committee (“the Committee”).
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703–692–5952.
The Committee's charter is being renewed pursuant to 5 CFR 5343(c) and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., App) and 41 CFR 102–3.50(c). The Committee's charter and contact information for the Committee's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be found at
The Committee, as directed by 5 CFR532.3209, 532.227 and the Office of Personnel Management Operating Manual, Federal Wage System, Appropriated and Non-Appropriated Funds, S3–2 Agency Level, provides the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense, through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)), independent advice and recommendations on all matters relating to the conduct of wage surveys and the establishment of wage schedules for all appropriated fund and non-appropriated fund wage areas of blue-collar employees within the Department of Defense (DoD). a. The Committee considers and makes recommendations to the DoD on any matter involved in developing specifications for a wage survey on which the DoD proposes not to accept the recommendations of a local ware survey committee and any matters on which a minority report has been filed; b. Upon completion of a wage survey, the Committee considers the survey data, the local wage survey committee's report and recommendations, and the statistical analyses and proposed pay schedules derived from them, as well as any other data or recommendations pertinent to the survey, and recommends wage schedules to the pay-fixing authority; and c. A majority of the Committee constitutes a decision and recommendation of the Committee, but a member of the minority may file a report with the Committee's recommendations.
The Committee, pursuant to 5 CFR532.227, is composed of five members, a chair and four additional members. One member shall be designated by each of the two labor organizations having the largest number of wage employees covered by exclusive recognition in the DoD. The other two members will have management backgrounds. All members of the Committee are appointed to provide advice on the basis of their best judgment and without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Except for reimbursement of official Committee-related travel and per diem, Committee members serve without compensation.
The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Committee membership about the Committee's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Committee. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the Committee, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Notice of members of Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board.
This notice announces the membership of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB).
These appointments are applicable on November 27, 2018.
Send comments concerning this notice to: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004–2001.
Deborah Biscieglia by telephone at (202) 694–7041 or by email at
5 U.S.C. 4314 (c)(1) through (5) requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more performance review boards. Sec. 4314(c)(4) requires that the appointment of PRB members be published in the
The DNFSB is a small, independent Federal agency; therefore, the members of the DNFSB SES Performance Review Board listed in this notice are drawn from the SES ranks of other agencies. The following persons comprise a standing roster to serve as members of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board SES Performance Review Board:
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 28, 2019.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Patrick Carr, 202–708–8196.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 27, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Karen Holliday, 202–245–7318.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Section 302 (b)(2)(C) of the Act requires that data on the employment of scholars are accurate, including tracking of scholars' employment status and location of former scholars supported under the RLTT grants in order to ensure that scholars are meeting the payback requirements.
In addition to meeting the requirement that all scholars be tracked, the data collected will provide performance data relevant to the rehabilitation fields and degrees pursued by RSA scholars, as well as the funds owed and the rehabilitation work completed by them. These data are used to assess program effectiveness and efficiency, and to meet the reporting requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
RSA is requesting a revision of the currently approved collection for grantees (Institutions of Higher Education) to submit an Annual Payback Report through the online RSA Management Information System (MIS). To collect the needed data, RSA created the revised Payback Information Management System (PIMS). Through the PIMS grantees, scholars and employers report data electronically.
Office of Technology Transitions, Department of Energy (DOE).
Request for Information (RFI).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on its Request for Information (RFI) regarding the Technology Commercialization Fund (TCF). The purpose of this RFI is to seek input on how the Office of Technology Transitions (OTT) might improve the TCF through changes to the program and its structure.
Responses to the RFI must be received by January 11, 2019.
Interested parties are to submit comments electronically to
If clicking on the above link gives you an error message, you must CUT AND PASTE the URL into your browser to reach the web page.
For general questions, please contact
The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to seek input about how OTT might improve the TCF through changes to the program and its structure. OTT seeks specific input on the TCF's structure and process, role of project partners, cost share arrangements, and potential to leverage other DOE programs. This RFI builds on previous DOE RFIs related to technology transfer and commercialization topics, including the 2008
If clicking on the above link gives you an error message, you must CUT AND PASTE the URL into your browser to reach the web page.
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
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of extension of waiver.
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is granting a waiver extension (Case No. 2018–010) to Apple Inc. (“Apple”) to waive certain requirements of the DOE external power supply test procedure for determining the energy efficiency of the Apple brand external power supply basic models A1947 and A1720. Apple is required to test and rate these basic models in accordance with the alternate test procedure specified.
The Extension of Waiver is effective on November 27, 2018. The Extension of Waiver will terminate upon the compliance date of any future amendment to the test procedure for external power supplies located in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z that addresses the issues presented in this waiver. At such time, Apple must use the relevant test procedure for the specified basic models of external power supplies for any testing to demonstrate compliance with standards, and any other representations of energy use.
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Email:
Mr. Michael Kido, 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) 586–8145. Email:
In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 430.27(g)), DOE gives notice of the issuance of an Extension of Waiver as set forth below. The Extension of Waiver extends the Decision and Order granted to Apple on March 16, 2018 (83 FR 11738, “March 2018 Decision and Order”) to include Apple brand basic models A1947 and A1720, as requested by Apple on October 30, 2018.
DOE makes decisions on waiver extensions for only those basic models specifically set out in the request, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. Apple may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional basic models of external power supplies. Alternatively, if appropriate, Apple may request that DOE extend the scope of a 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 430.27(g).
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (“EPCA”)
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. (42 U.S.C. 6296)
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the product complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended
Under 10 CFR 430.27, any interested person may submit a petition for waiver from DOE's test procedure requirements. DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either that the basic model for which the waiver was requested contains a design characteristic that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or that the prescribed test procedures evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy or water consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures.
A petitioner 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. 10 CFR 430.27(g). DOE will publish any such extension in the
On March 16, 2018, DOE issued a Decision and Order in Case Number EPS–001 granting Apple a waiver to test its Apple brand basic models A1718, A1719, and A1540 using an alternate test procedure. 83 FR 11738 (“March 2018 Decision and Order”). Apple stated that the specified basic models meet the provisions of the International Electrotechnical Commission's “Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power—Part 1–2: Common components—USB Power Delivery” (“IEC 62680–1–2:2017”) specification. The IEC specification describes the particular architecture, protocols, power supply behavior, connectors, and cabling necessary for managing power delivery over a universal serial bus (“USB”) connection at power levels of up to 100 watts (“W”). The purpose behind this specification is to help provide a standardized approach for power supply and peripheral developers to ensure backward compatibility while retaining product design and marketing flexibility. See generally, IEC 62680–1–2:2017 (Abstract) (describing the standard's general provisions and purpose).
In Apple's view, applying the DOE test procedure to the adaptive EPS basic models identified in its petition would yield results that would be unrepresentative of the active-mode efficiency of those products. The DOE test procedure requires that the average active-mode efficiency for adaptive EPSs
Based on the information provided by Apple, DOE determined that the current test procedure at Appendix Z would evaluate the adaptive EPS basic models specified in the March 2018 Decision and Order in a manner so unrepresentative of their true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 83 FR 11738, 11739. The March 2018 Decision and Order specifies that Apple test and rate the subject basic models such that the 100% nameplate loading condition when testing at the lowest achievable output voltage is 2A (which corresponds to an output power of 10 watts). 83 FR 11738, 11740. The 75%, 50%, and 25% loading conditions shall be scaled accordingly and the nameplate output power of such an EPS, at the lowest output voltage, shall be equal to 10 watts.
On October 10, 2018, DOE granted a request from Apple to extend the waiver it received in Case Number EPS–001 to Apple brand basic model A1882. 83 FR 50905 (Case Number 2018–005). DOE determined that basis model A1882 employs the same technology as the models covered by Case Number EPS–001.
On October 30, 2018, Apple submitted a request to extend again the scope of the waiver it received in Case Number EPS–001 to the Apple brand basic models A1947 and A1720. Apple stated that these basic models employ the same technology as the models covered by the existing waiver.
DOE has reviewed Apple's waiver extension request and determined that the adaptive EPS basic models identified in Apple's request incorporate the same design characteristics as those basic models covered under the waiver in Case Number EPS–001 such that the test procedure evaluates that basic model in a manner that is unrepresentative of its actual energy use. DOE also determined that the alternate procedure specified in Case Number EPS–001 will allow for the accurate measurement of the energy use of the external power supply basic model identified by Apple in its waiver extension request.
After careful consideration of all the material submitted by Apple in this matter, it is
(1) Apple must, as of the date of publication of this Extension of Waiver in the
(2) The alternate test procedure for the Apple brand basic models referenced in paragraph (1) of this section is the test procedure for EPSs prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z, except that under section 4(a)(i)(E) and Table 1 of Appendix Z, the adaptive EPSs must be tested such that when testing at the lowest achievable output voltage (
(3)
(4) This Extension of Waiver shall remain in effect consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27.
(5) This Extension of Waiver is issued on the condition that the statements, representations, and documents provided by Apple are valid. If Apple makes any modifications to the controls or configurations of these basic models, the waiver will no longer be valid and Apple will either be required to use the current Federal test method or submit a new application for a test procedure waiver. DOE may rescind or modify this Extension of Waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for Extension of Waiver is incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic model's true energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 430.27(k)(1). Likewise, Apple may request that DOE rescind or modify the Extension of Waiver if Apple discovers an error in the information provided to DOE as part of its petition, determines that the waiver is no longer needed, or for other appropriate reasons. 10 CFR 430.27(k)(2).
(6) Granting of this Extension of Waiver does not release Apple from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.
Signed in Washington, DC, on November 15, 2018.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of KCE NY 1, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is December 10, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Springfield Power, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is December 10, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Pixelle Specialty Solutions LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is December 10, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of DG Whitefield LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is December 10, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on November 14, 2018, Saddle Butte Pipeline III, LLC (Saddle Butte) filed a petition seeking a temporary waiver of the tariff filing and reporting requirements of sections 6 and 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. App. 6 and 20, and parts 341 and 357 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR parts 341 and 357 (2018), with respect to its Powder Flats System, which is a crude petroleum gathering system located in Wyoming, all as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that on November 16, 2018, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e, and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2018), American Electric Power Service Corporation, on behalf of its PJM transmission owners (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection L.L.C. (PJM or Respondent), alleging that PJM's Open Access Transmission Tariff is unjust and unreasonable because it does not include indemnifications provisions that are consistent with the Commission's
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for Respondent, as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On November 9, 2018, Cat Creek Energy, LLC (Cat Creek) filed an application for a successive preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), to study the feasibility of the proposed Cat Creek Energy Generation Facility Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project (project) to be located at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Anderson Ranch Reservoir on the South Fork of the Boise River near Mountain Home in Elmore County, Idaho. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
As stated in the original permit for the project, Reclamation retains jurisdiction over hydropower development at the Anderson Ranch dam, reservoir, and powerhouse, which are part of Reclamation's Boise Project. However, the Commission retains jurisdiction for hydropower facilities that would be located outside of Reclamation's development. Thus, an entity seeking to build a hydropower project that would use Reclamation's Boise Project facilities would need to obtain a lease of power privilege from Reclamation, but it also would need to obtain a license from the Commission for those facilities of the hydropower project that are not under Reclamation's jurisdiction.
The proposed project would utilize Reclamation's existing Anderson Ranch Reservoir as a lower reservoir and would consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 4.3-mile-long, 80-foot-high earthen dam; (2) a 63,500-acre-foot impoundment as an upper reservoir; (3) six 2,500-foot-long, 14- to 16-foot-diameter steel penstocks; (4) two 100-foot-diameter concrete silos; (5) twelve 60-megawatt (MW) ternary turbine/generator units, for a total capacity of 720 MW; (6) an 8.1-mile-long, 230-kilovolt transmission line interconnecting with the existing Bonneville Power Administration Dixie Substation; (7) an approximately 2-mile-long access road; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the project would be 1,965.4 gigawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's website at
Take notice that during the month of October 2018, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2018).
Take notice that on November 16, 2018, pursuant to sections 206, 306, and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, and 825h, and section 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2018), Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (Complainant) filed a formal complaint (complaint) against Westar Energy, Inc. (Westar or Respondent), alleging that Westar is violating its generation formula rate, Commission orders, regulations, and generally applicable ratemaking policies, as more fully explained in the complaint.
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for Respondent and the Kansas Corporation Commission as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on November 16, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2017), Iron Horse Pipeline, LLC (Iron Horse or Petitioner) filed a petition for declaratory order requesting that the Commission approve Iron Horse's proposed rate structures, Committed Shipper Rights, and certain prorationing provisions for shippers and the Transportation Service Agreement, all as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that on October 31, 2018, Buckeye Power, Inc. submitted its tariff filing: Refund Report NJ17–19 and NJ18–9 to be effective N/A.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
On September 14, 2018, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (Eastern Shore) filed an application in Docket No. CP18–548–000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Del-Mar Energy Pathway Project (Project), and would provide about 11.8 million cubic feet per day of additional natural gas firm transportation and 2.5 million cubic feet per day of off-peak transportation service to three local distribution companies and one industrial shipper.
On September 27, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's
Issuance of EA—April 1, 2019.
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline—June 30, 2019.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Eastern Shore proposes to construct and operate new natural gas pipelines and meter and delivery stations in Kent and Sussex Counties, Delaware, and Wicomico and Somerset Counties, Maryland.
The Project would consist of construction and operation of the following facilities:
• 4.9 miles
• 7.39 miles of new 8-inch-diameter mainline extension to the existing Milford Line;
• one aboveground pig launcher and one pig receiver,
• one new delivery metering and regulation (M&R) station.
• 0.35 mile of 10-inch-diameter pipeline extension between the existing Millsboro Pressure Control Station and the existing Milford Line; and
• a dual run pressure control addition to the existing Millsboro Pressure Control Station with modifications to the existing piping, valves, and associated electronic transmitters.
• 6.83 miles of new 10-inch-diameter pipeline extension to the existing Parkesburg Line;
• one aboveground pig launcher and one pig receiver, and aboveground mainline valve; and
• one new delivery M&R station at the Somerset Extension terminus.
On November 2, 2018 the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208–FERC or on the FERC website (
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018–11–19_SA 3212 MP–GRE ICA (Bergen Lake) to be effective 11/20/2018.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). 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 exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability 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
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on November 5, 2018, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056, filed an application pursuant to section 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Commission's regulations seeking authorization to replace its existing Yorktown metering and regulation (M&R) station located in Westchester County, New York, with upgraded facilities for additional operation flexibility and reliability on its system. Algonquin states the project will be fully reimbursed by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., all as more fully described in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Lisa A. Connolly, Director, Rates and Certificates, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251, by telephone at (713) 627–4102, by fax at (713) 627–5947, or by email at
Specifically, Algonquin states that the proposed construction will include the (i) installation and subsequent removal of temporary bypass facilities, (ii) removal and replacement of the station building and housed facilities including two ultrasonic meters, one low flow meter, a flow control valve, and regulation facilities, (iii) replacement of the existing gas-fired heater. The proposed project will increase capacity on Algonquin's system to 31,200 Dekatherms per day. Algonquin states the replacement and upgrade of the metering facilities is anticipated to begin in the spring of 2020, with the completion of the meter replacement and facility upgrade by the fall of 2020.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 3 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must provide a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in Docket No. CP16–4–001, the Commission will apply its revised practice concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new Natural Gas Act section 3 or section 7 proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Petal III Compression Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) in Forrest County, Mississippi. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 20, 2018.
You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission staff will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on October 9, 2018, you will need to file those comments in Docket
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law.
Gulf South provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC website (
The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208–3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP19–3–000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Gulf South proposes to construct, operate, and maintain two new electric-driven 5,000 horsepower compressor units, one dehydration unit, one thermal oxidizer, and other auxiliary appurtenant facilities within the existing Petal III Compressor Station in Forrest County, Mississippi. The project would increase the injection capability from 1,488 million standard cubic feet per day (MMscf/d) to 1,738 MMscf/d, and modify the withdrawal capability from 1,945 to 2,495 MMscf/d.
According to Gulf South, the project would enhance operational flexibility, allow for the continued provision of reliable natural gas storage service, and increase the number of injection and withdrawal cycles to satisfy the needs of new customers desiring service from the Petal Gas Storage facilities (Petal Complex). The Petal Complex includes eight salt caverns and four compressor stations.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 18.8 acres of land for the workspaces, access roads, and aboveground facilities. However, 6.6 acres of this disturbed land during construction would occur within the Petal III Compressor Station. Following construction, Gulf South would maintain about 5.5 acres for the permanent storage yard and dehydration unit; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.
The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• air quality and noise;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If the Commission issues the EA for an allotted public comment period, a
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208–FERC, or on the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that on November 16, 2018, pursuant to Rule 206 of the Rules of the Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206 (2018), Part 343 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, 18 CFR 343.2 (2018), and sections 1(5), 6 and 13 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. App. 1(5), 6 and 13, TransMontaigne Product Services LLC (Complainant) filed a formal complaint (complaint) against Colonial Pipeline Company (Respondent) alleging that the Respondent attempted to increase charges related to product volume losses without stating the charges in its tariff, explaining the derivation of such charges, or providing shippers with an opportunity to evaluate and challenge such charges, as more fully explained in the complaint.
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): “PCBs, Consolidated Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements” and identified by EPA ICR Number 1446.12 and OMB Control Number 2070–0112. The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized in this document. This is a request to renew the approval of an existing ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2018. EPA previously provided a 60-day public review opportunity via the
Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number [EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0647, to both EPA and OMB as follows: To (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40 CFR part 761). Respondents may claim all or part of a response confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted the
Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number [EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0645, to: (1) EPA online using
Supporting documents, including the ICR that explains in detail the information collection activities and the related burden and cost estimates that are summarized in this document, are available in the docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): “Certification of Pesticide Applicators (Renewal)” and identified by EPA ICR No. 0155.13 and OMB Control No. 2070–0029. This is a request to renew the approval of an existing ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2018. EPA did not receive any comments in response to the previously provided public review opportunity issued in the
Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0654, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Ryne Yarger, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 605–1193; email address:
Under PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
To become a certified applicator, a person must meet certain standards of competency through completion of a certification program or test. Authorized agencies administer certified applicator programs within their jurisdictions, but each agency's certification plan must be approved by EPA before it can be implemented. In areas where no authorized agency has jurisdiction, EPA may administer a certification program directly.
This ICR also addresses how registrants of certain pesticide products are expected to perform specific, special paperwork activities, such as training and recordkeeping, in order to comply with the terms and conditions of the pesticide registration (
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices (EPA ICR Number 1745.09, OMB Control Number 2050–0154) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 27, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OLEM–2018–0317, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Craig Dufficy, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, mailcode 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703–308–9037; fax number: 703–308–8686; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Continuous Release Reporting Requirement Including Analysis for Use of Continuous Release Reporting Forms (EPA ICR No. 1445.14, OMB Control No. 2050–0086) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 27, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0100, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Wendy Hoffman, Regulations Implementation Division, Office of
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
CRR allows the Federal government to determine whether a Federal response action is required to control or mitigate any potential adverse effects to public health, welfare or the environment. The release information is also available to EPA program offices and other Federal agencies who evaluate the potential need for additional regulations, new permitting requirements for specific substances or sources, or improved emergency response planning. State and local government authorities and facilities subject to the CRRR use release information for local emergency response planning. The public, which has access to release information through the Freedom of Information Act, may request release information on what types of releases are occurring in different localities and what actions, if any, are being taken to protect public health, welfare and the environment.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Monthly Progress Reports (EPA ICR Number 1039.15, OMB Control Number 2030–0005) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 27, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OARM–2018–0229, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Thomas Valentino, Policy, Training and Oversight Division, Office of Acquisition Management (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2019. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.
Comments must be submitted on or before January 28, 2019.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005–0007 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
Sella M. Burchette, U.S. Environmental Response Team, MS 101, Building 205, Edison, NJ 08837, telephone number: 732–321–6726; fax number: 732–321–6724; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Technical Assistance Needs Assessments (TANAs) at Superfund Remedial or Removal Sites (EPA ICR No. 2470.02, OMB Control No. 2050–0211), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 27, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–SFUND–2012–0578, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Robert Shewack, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration, (OSRR01–5), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109–3912; telephone number: (617) 918–1428; fax number: (617) 918–0428; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Other Solid Waste Incineration Units (EPA ICR Number 2163.06, OMB Control Number 2060–0563), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2018. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 27, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0094, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–2970; fax number: (202) 564–0050; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): “Health and Safety Data Reporting, Submission of Lists and Copies of Health and Safety Studies” and identified by EPA ICR No. 0575.16 and OMB Control No. 2070–0004. The ICR, which is available in the docket, is only briefly summarized in this document. This is a request to renew the approval of an existing ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2018. EPA previously provided a 60-day public review opportunity via the
Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number [EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0646, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
EPA uses this information to construct a complete picture of the known effects of the chemical substance in question, leading to determinations by EPA of whether additional testing of the chemical substance should be required. The information enables EPA to base its testing decisions on the most complete information available and to avoid requiring testing that may be duplicative. EPA will use information obtained via this collection to support its investigation of the risks posed by the chemical substance and, in particular, to support its decisions on whether to require additional test data be submitted under TSCA section 4. Respondents may claim all or part of a response confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before December 27, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
47 CFR 76.66(b)(1) states each satellite carrier providing, under section 122 of title 17, United States Code, secondary transmissions to subscribers located within the local market of a television broadcast station of a primary transmission made by that station, shall carry upon request the signals of all television broadcast stations located within that local market, subject to section 325(b) of title 47, United States Code, and other paragraphs in this section. Satellite carriers are required to carry digital-only stations upon request in markets in which the satellite carrier is providing any local-into-local service pursuant to the statutory copyright license.
47 CFR 76.66(b)(2) requires a satellite carrier that offers multichannel video programming distribution service in the United States to more than 5,000,000 subscribers shall, no later than
Carriage of signals originating as digital signals of each television broadcast station that is located in a local market in Alaska or Hawaii shall include the entire free over-the-air signal, including multicast and high definition digital signals.
47 CFR 76.66(c)(3)–(4) requires that a commercial television station notify a satellite carrier in writing whether it elects to be carried pursuant to retransmission consent or mandatory consent in accordance with the established election cycle. 47 CFR 76.66(c)(5) requires that a noncommercial television station must request carriage by notifying a satellite carrier in writing in accordance with the established election cycle.
47 CFR 76.66(c)(6) requires a commercial television broadcast station located in a local market in a noncontiguous state to make its retransmission consent-mandatory carriage election by October 1, 2005, for carriage of its signals that originate as analog signals for carriage commencing on December 8, 2005 and ending on December 31, 2008, and by April 1, 2007 for its signals that originate as digital signals for carriage commencing on June 8, 2007 and ending on December 31, 2008. For analog and digital signal carriage cycles commencing after December 31, 2008, such stations shall follow the election cycle in 47 CFR 76.66(c)(2) and 47 CFR 76.66(c)(4). A noncommercial television broadcast station located in a local market in Alaska or Hawaii must request carriage by October 1, 2005, for carriage of its signals that originate as an analog signal for carriage commencing on December 8, 2005 and ending on December 31, 2008, and by April 1, 2007 for its signals that originate as digital signals for carriage commencing on June 8, 2007 and ending on December 31, 2008. Moreover, Section 76.66(c) requires a commercial television station located in a local market in a noncontiguous state to provide notification to a satellite carrier whether it elects to be carried pursuant to retransmission consent or mandatory consent.
47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(ii) states an election request made by a television station must be in writing and sent to the satellite carrier's principal place of business, by certified mail, return receipt requested.
47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iii) states a television station's written notification shall include the: (A) Station's call sign; (B) Name of the appropriate station contact person; (C) Station's address for purposes of receiving official correspondence; (D) Station's community of license; (E) Station's DMA assignment; and (F) For commercial television stations, its election of mandatory carriage or retransmission consent.
47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iv) Within 30 days of receiving a television station's carriage request, a satellite carrier shall notify in writing: (A) Those local television stations it will not carry, along with the reasons for such a decision; and (B) those local television stations it intends to carry.
47 CFR 76.66(d)(2)(i) states a new satellite carrier or a satellite carrier providing local service in a market for the first time after July 1, 2001, shall inform each television broadcast station licensee within any local market in which a satellite carrier proposes to commence carriage of signals of stations from that market, not later than 60 days prior to the commencement of such carriage (A) Of the carrier's intention to launch local-into-local service under this section in a local market, the identity of that local market, and the location of the carrier's proposed local receive facility for that local market; (B) Of the right of such licensee to elect carriage under this section or grant retransmission consent under section 325(b); (C) That such licensee has 30 days from the date of the receipt of such notice to make such election; and (D) That failure to make such election will result in the loss of the right to demand carriage under this section for the remainder of the 3-year cycle of carriage under section 325.
47 CFR 76.66(d)(2)(ii) states satellite carriers shall transmit the notices required by paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section via certified mail to the address for such television station licensee listed in the consolidated database system maintained by the Commission.
47 CFR 76.66(d)(2)(iii) requires a satellite carrier with more than five million subscribers to provide a notice as required by 47 CFR 76.66(d)(2)(i) and 47 CFR 76.66(d)(2)(ii) to each television broadcast station located in a local market in a noncontiguous state, not later than September 1, 2005 with respect to analog signals and a notice not later than April 1, 2007 with respect to digital signals; provided, however, that the notice shall also describe the carriage requirements pursuant to Section 338(a)(4) of Title 47, United States Code, and 47 CFR 76.66(b)(2).
47 CFR 76.66(d)(2)(iv) requires that a satellite carrier shall commence carriage of a local station by the later of 90 days from receipt of an election of mandatory carriage or upon commencing local-into-local service in the new television market.
47 CFR 76.66(d)(2)(v) states within 30 days of receiving a local television station's election of mandatory carriage in a new television market, a satellite carrier shall notify in writing: Those local television stations it will not carry, along with the reasons for such decision, and those local television stations it intends to carry.
47 CFR 76.66(d)(2)(vi) requires satellite carriers to notify all local stations in a market of their intent to launch HD carry-one, carry-all in that market at least 60 days before commencing such carriage.
47 CFR 76.66(d)(3)(ii) states a new television station shall make its election request, in writing, sent to the satellite carrier's principal place of business by certified mail, return receipt requested, between 60 days prior to commencing broadcasting and 30 days after commencing broadcasting. This written notification shall include the information required by paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section.
47 CFR 76.66(d)(3)(iv) states within 30 days of receiving a new television station's election of mandatory carriage, a satellite carrier shall notify the station in writing that it will not carry the station, along with the reasons for such decision, or that it intends to carry the station.
47 CFR 76.66(d)(5)(i) states beginning with the election cycle described in § 76.66(c)(2), the retransmission of significantly viewed signals pursuant to § 76.54 by a satellite carrier that provides local-into-local service is subject to providing the notifications to stations in the market pursuant to paragraphs (d)(5)(i)(A) and (B) of this section, unless the satellite carrier was retransmitting such signals as of the date these notifications were due. (A) In any local market in which a satellite carrier provided local-into-local service on December 8, 2004, at least 60 days prior to any date on which a station must make an election under paragraph (c) of this section, identify each affiliate of the same television network that the carrier reserves the right to retransmit into that station's local market during the next election cycle and the
47 CFR 76.66(f)(3) states except as provided in 76.66(d)(2), a satellite carrier providing local-into-local service must notify local television stations of the location of the receive facility by June 1, 2001 for the first election cycle and at least 120 days prior to the commencement of all election cycles thereafter.
47 CFR 76.66(f)(4) states a satellite carrier may relocate its local receive facility at the commencement of each election cycle. A satellite carrier is also permitted to relocate its local receive facility during the course of an election cycle, if it bears the signal delivery costs of the television stations affected by such a move. A satellite carrier relocating its local receive facility must provide 60 days notice to all local television stations carried in the affected television market.
47 CFR 76.66(h)(5) states a satellite carrier shall provide notice to its subscribers, and to the affected television station, whenever it adds or deletes a station's signal in a particular local market pursuant to this paragraph.
47 CFR 76.66(m)(1) states whenever a local television broadcast station believes that a satellite carrier has failed to meet its obligations under this section, such station shall notify the carrier, in writing, of the alleged failure and identify its reasons for believing that the satellite carrier failed to comply with such obligations.
47 CFR 76.66(m)(2) states the satellite carrier shall, within 30 days after such written notification, respond in writing to such notification and comply with such obligations or state its reasons for believing that it is in compliance with such obligations.
47 CFR 76.66(m)(3) states a local television broadcast station that disputes a response by a satellite carrier that it is in compliance with such obligations may obtain review of such denial or response by filing a complaint with the Commission, in accordance with § 76.7 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations. Such complaint shall allege the manner in which such satellite carrier has failed to meet its obligations and the basis for such allegations.
47 CFR 76.66(m)(4) states the satellite carrier against which a complaint is filed is permitted to present data and arguments to establish that there has been no failure to meet its obligations under this section.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before December 27, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
On July 13, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) released an Order titled, “In the Matter of Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band; Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 GHz; Petition for Rulemaking to Amend and Modernize Parts 25 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Authorize and Facilitate the Deployment of Licensed Point-to-Multipoint Fixed Wireless Broadband Service in the 3.7–4.2 GHz Band; Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition, Inc., Request for Modified Coordination Procedures in Band Shared Between the Fixed Service and the Fixed Satellite Service,” GN Docket No. 18–122, GN Docket No. 17–183, RM–11791, RM–11778 (FCC 18–91). The Order has been published in the
In this proceeding, the Commission seeks to identify potential opportunities for additional terrestrial use for wireless broadband services of 500 megahertz of mid-band spectrum between 3.7–4.2 GHz. In response to concerns that the Commission's information regarding current use of the band is inaccurate and/or incomplete, the Commission adopted an Order requesting additional information from operators in the fixed-satellite service (FSS). Specifically, for FSS operators in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, the Order (1) requests additional information on the operations of temporary-fixed earth station licensees, and (2) requests additional information on the operations of space stations. This information collection will provide the Commission and the public with additional information about existing FSS operators that will be used to consider potential new terrestrial services in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band while protecting the interests of those FSS operators. The Order also requires certain earth station operators to file certifications that information on file with the Commission remains accurate.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before January 28, 2019. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418–2991.
The Commission also adopted changes to its existing pole attachment timeline, which still will be used for complex work, work above the communications space on a utility pole, and in situations where new attachers do not want to elect OTMR. The Commission largely kept the existing pole attachment timeline intact, except for the following changes: (1) Revising the definition of a complete pole attachment application and establishing a timeline for a utility's determination whether an application is complete; (2) requiring utilities to provide at least three business days' advance notice of any surveys to attachers; (3) establishing a 30-day deadline for completion of all make-ready work in the communications space; (4) eliminating the 15-day utility make-ready period for communications space attachments; (5) streamlining the utility's notice requirements; (6) enhancing the new attacher's self-help remedy by making the remedy available for surveys and make-ready work for all attachments anywhere on the pole in the event that the utility or the existing attachers fail to meet the required deadlines; (7) providing notice requirements when new attachers elect self-help, such notices to be given when new attachers perform self-help surveys and make-ready work, when outages or equipment damage results from self-help work, and upon completion of self-help work to allow for inspection; (8) allowing utilities to meet the survey requirement by electing to use surveys previously prepared on the affected poles by new attachers; and (9) requiring utilities to provide detailed make-ready cost estimates and final invoices on a pole-by-pole basis if requested by new attachers. Both utilities and existing attachers can deviate from the existing pole attachment make-ready timeline for reasons of safety or service interruption by giving written notice to the affected parties that includes a detailed explanation of the need for the deviation and a new completion date. The deviation shall be for a period no longer than necessary to complete make-ready on the affected poles, and the deviating party shall resume make-ready without discrimination when it returns to routine operations.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before December 27, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418–2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page,
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection.
Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before January 28, 2019. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418–2991.
The disclosure requirements are intended to equip subscribers with necessary information to purchase and maintain a source of backup power to enhance their ability to maintain access to reliable 911 service from their homes.
We permit providers to convey both the initial and annual disclosures and information described above by any means reasonably calculated to reach the individual subscriber. For example, a provider may meet this obligation through a combination of disclosures via email, an online billing statement, or other digital or electronic means for subscribers that communicate with the provider through these means. For a subscriber that does not communicate with the provider through email and/or online billing statements—such as someone who ordered service on the phone or in a physical store and receives a paper bill by regular mail—email would not be a means reasonably calculated to reach that subscriber.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before January 28, 2019. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email:
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of the existing information collection described below (3064–0161).
Comments must be submitted on or before January 28, 2019.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Jennifer Jones, Counsel, 202–898–6768,
1.
Sec. 312 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003 (FACT Act) requires the FDIC to: Issue guidelines for furnishers regarding the accuracy and integrity of the information about consumers furnished to consumer reporting agencies; prescribe regulations requiring furnishers to establish reasonable policies/procedures to implement the guidelines; and issue regulations identifying the circumstances where a furnisher must reinvestigate a dispute about the accuracy of information in a consumer report based on a direct request from a consumer.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall reduction in burden hours is the result of economic fluctuation. In particular, the number of respondents has decreased while the hours per response and frequency of responses have remained the same.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
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 December 21, 2018.
1.
1.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Notice and request for comment.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the FTC is seeking public comments on its request to OMB to extend for three years the current PRA clearances for information collection requirements contained in the agency's shared enforcement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) of subpart N of the CFPB's Regulation V (“Rule”). That clearance expires on November 30, 2018.
Comments must be received by December 27, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed to Ryan Mehm, Attorney, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326–2918, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580.
On August 27, 2018, the FTC sought public comment on the information collection requirements associated with subpart N (83 FR 43683). No relevant public comments were received. Since the FTC sought public comment on August 27, 2018, the Consumer Data Industry Association provided an updated estimate regarding the number of free annual file disclosures requested by consumers through the centralized internet website required to be established by the FACT Act and subpart N. Accordingly, the FTC updated the PRA burden analysis based on this data.
Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, that implement the PRA,
Because the FTC shares enforcement authority with the CFPB for subpart N, the two agencies split between them the related estimate of PRA burden for firms under their co-enforcement jurisdiction. The overall burden calculations attributable to the CFPB and the FTC, are set out below. In summary after splitting between the two agencies, the estimated annual burden solely for FTC would be 176,360 hours, $3,560,755 in associated labor costs, and $5,677,650 in non-labor/capital costs.
The Consumer Data Industry Association (“CDIA”) estimated that in 2016 and 2017, the nationwide consumer reporting agencies provided on average approximately 25 million free annual file disclosures through the centralized internet website required to be established by the FACT Act and subpart N. Based on its knowledge of the industry, FTC staff believes that the consumer reporting agencies provided no more than 6 million free annual file disclosures through the centralized toll-free telephone number and postal address required to be established by the FACT Act and subpart N. Accordingly, we are now estimating 31 million requests per year as a representative average year to estimate PRA burden for purposes of the instant analysis. When it last sought clearance renewal for the Rule, the FTC had been unable to obtain, through public comment or otherwise, updated information on request volume. As a proxy, it then assumed a volume of 35 million requests per year. The CDIA attributes this decrease to the many new and alternative channels where consumers can access credit reports.
Both nationwide and nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies will likely handle the overwhelming majority of consumer requests through internet websites. The annual file disclosure requests processed through the internet will not impose any hours burden per request on the nationwide and nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies. However, consumer reporting agencies periodically will be required to adjust the internet capacity needed to handle the changing request volume. Consumer reporting agencies likely will make such adjustments by negotiating or renegotiating outsourcing service contracts annually or as conditions change. Trained personnel will need to spend time negotiating and renegotiating such contracts. Commission staff estimates that negotiating such contracts will require a cumulative total of 8,320 hours and $598,957 in labor costs. Based on the time necessary for similar activity in the federal government (including at the FTC), staff estimates that such contracting and administration will require approximately four full-time equivalent employees (“FTE”) for the web service contracts. Thus, staff estimates that administering the contract will require four FTE, which is 8,320 hours per year (four FTE × 2,080 hours/year). The cost is based on the reported May 2017 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) rate ($71.99) for computer and information systems managers.
Most of the telephone requests for annual file disclosures will also be handled in an automated fashion, without any additional personnel needed to process the requests. As with the internet, consumer reporting agencies will require additional time and investment to increase and administer the automated telephone capacity for the expected increase in request volume. The nationwide and nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies will likely make such adjustments by negotiating or renegotiating outsourcing service contracts annually or as conditions change. Staff estimates that this will require a total of 6,240 hours at a cost of $449,218 in labor costs.
Based on their knowledge of the industry, staff believes that no more than 1% of consumers (1% × 31 million, or 310,000) will request an annual file disclosure through U.S. postal service mail. Staff estimates that clerical personnel will require 10 minutes per request to handle these requests, thereby totaling 51,667 hours of time. [(310,000 × 10 minutes)/60 minutes per hour = 51,667 hours]
In addition, whenever the requesting consumer cannot be identified using an automated method (a website or automated telephone service), it will be necessary to redirect that consumer to send identifying material along with the request by mail. Staff estimates that this will occur in about 5% of the new requests (or 1,534,500)
The Rule also requires that certain instructions be provided to consumers.
Labor costs are derived by applying hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. Staff anticipates that processing of requests for annual file disclosures and instructions will be performed by clerical personnel, and estimates that the processing will require 338,159 hours at a cost of $6,073,336. [(51,667 hours for handling initial mail request + 255,750 hours for handling requests redirected to mail + 30,742 hours for handling instructions mailed to consumers) × $17.96 per hour.
As elaborated on above, staff estimates that a total of 14,560 labor hours will be needed to negotiate or renegotiate outsourced service contracts annually (or as conditions otherwise change) to increase internet (8,320 hours) and telephone (6,240 hours) capacity requirements for internet web services and the automated telephone call center. This will result in approximately $1,048,174 per year in labor costs. [14,560 hours × $71.99 per hour
176,360 hours and $3,560,755 in associated labor costs.
After halving the updated estimates to split the PRA burden with the CFPB regarding the Rule, the FTC's burden totals are 176,360 hours and $3,560,755 in associated labor costs.
As in the previous PRA clearance analysis, FTC staff believes it is likely that consumer reporting agencies will use third-party contractors (instead of their own employees) to increase the capacity of their systems. Because of the way these contracts are typically established, these costs will likely be incurred on a continuing basis, and will be calculated based on the number of requests handled by the systems. Staff estimates that the total annual amount to be paid for services delivered under these contracts is $11,355,300.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before December 27, 2018. Write “Paperwork Reduction Act: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online, or to send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Paperwork Reduction Act: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC–5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments can also be sent via email to
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before December 27, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Public Buildings Service, National Capital Region, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of availability for the Record of Decision of the FDA Headquarters Master Plan Environmental Impact Statement.
GSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2018 Master Plan for the Consolidation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at the Federal Research Center at White Oak, located in Silver Spring, Maryland, on November 14, 2018. The ROD was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, and the GSA Public Buildings Service NEPA Desk Guide.
Paul Gyamfi, GSA, National Capital Region, Public Buildings Service, Office of Planning and Design Quality, at 202–440–3405. Please contact this number if special assistance is needed to attend and participate in the scoping meeting.
GSA, in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has prepared a Master Plan for the consolidation of the FDA headquarters facilities at the Federal Research Center at White Oak (FRC) in Silver Spring, Maryland. The FDA headquarters currently encompasses a 130-acre piece of the FRC, now known as the FDA Campus.
In the fiscal year 2016, Congress provided funding “for FDA to complete a feasibility study and Master Plan for land inside and contiguous to the White Oak campus to address its expanded workforce and the facilities needed to accommodate them.” On August 3, 2017, Congress passed the FDA Reauthorization Act (FDARA) of 2017. This new legislation reauthorized the user fee programs necessary for continued support of the agency's pre-market evaluation of prescription drugs, medical devices, generic drugs, and biosimilar products.
Due to these Congressional mandates, FDA is projecting that there will need to be an increase in employees and campus support staff at the FDA Campus. Therefore, GSA has prepared a Master Plan to accommodate future growth and further consolidate FDA operations. The Master Plan will provide a framework for development at the FRC to accommodate up to approximately 18,000 FDA employees and support staff. GSA completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that assessed the impacts of the population increase and additional growth needed on the FRC to support the increased population.
GSA has chosen to implement Alternative C: Two Large Tower Buildings, as defined in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (GSA, September 2018). This decision is based on analyses contained in the 2018 FDA Master Plan Draft EIS issued in March 2018, the 2018 FDA Master Plan Final EIS issued in September 2018, the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed on November 7, 2018, and the comments of Federal and State agencies, stakeholder organizations, members of the public, and elected officials, and other information in the Administrative Record.
Alternative C includes an additional 1,602,371 gross square feet (gsf) of office space and 318,253 gsf of special/shared use space that will be added to the FDA Campus to support FDA's mission for a total of up to 5,687,229 gsf of office, shared, and special use spaces. The East Loop Road will be reconfigured to allow for ease of circulation and access into and out of the FDA Campus. The reconfigured East Loop Road will circle around the new office buildings proposed on the east side of the FDA Campus and will connect with Dalghren Road. At Blandy Road and FDA Boulevard, a new traffic circle will be constructed that will connect it with the Southeast Loop Road. The Southeast Loop Road will circle around the southeast parking garage and connect to the existing Southwest Loop Road that will be reconfigured for the connection.
GSA has chosen to implement Alternative C. Alternative C will also consist of the following:
• Three new office buildings ranging from 8 to 16 stories, placed on the eastern end of the FDA Campus, and one new office building, placed on the western part of the FDA Campus adjacent to Building 22;
• 7,342 additional parking spaces within three new parking garages;
• A Distribution Center will be constructed adjacent to the northeast parking garage;
• A Truck Screening Facility will be constructed at the entrance to the FDA Campus on Michelson Road:
• A new Transit Center will be located on the existing northwest surface lots;
• A free-standing dining facility will be constructed on the plaza near the new buildings:
• A Communications Center will be placed with the new buildings on the eastern end of the campus;
• The plaza will be extended to facilitate a walkable campus; and
• A Conference Center will be placed on the northwest quadrant and existing main campus.
The ROD can be found on GSA's project website at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has submitted the information collection request titled “Per- or Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Exposure Assessments (PFAS EAs)” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. ATSDR previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on July 19, 2018 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. ATSDR received eight comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
ATSDR will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639–7570 or send an email to
Per- or Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Exposure Assessments (PFAS EAs)—New—Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the National Center for Environmental Health (ATSDR/NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large group of man-made chemicals that have been used in industry and consumer products worldwide since the 1950s. Although some PFAS are no longer produced in the United States, they many remain in the environment and may impact people's health. Thus, PFAS are contaminants that have gained national prominence over the last decade.
Under Section 8006 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and CDC National Center for Environmental Health (ATSDR/NCEH) are requesting a three-year Paperwork Reduction Act clearance for a new information collection request (ICR). ATSDR/NCEH will conduct exposure assessments (EAs) at current or former domestic military installations known to have PFAS in drinking water, groundwater, or any other sources of water. The annualized number of EAs assumes the following. ATSDR/NCEH will conduct a minimum of eight EAs, but ATSDR/NCEH may complete an additional seven for a total of 15 EAs. Therefore, ATSDR/NCEH anticipates conducting five PFAS EAs each year for three years.
Public health professionals, environmental risk managers, and other decision makers can use EA results to make informed decisions about the sources and impact of PFAS contamination in environmental media within their own community and jurisdiction. The data will support their recommendations for public health actions to reduce or eliminate harmful levels of PFAS in the local environment. These EAs are not intended to yield information about PFAS exposure that will be generalized beyond the defined boundaries of each investigation; however, ATSDR/NCEH will also use these EA findings to inform a future national PFAS health study.
Applying an average U.S. household size of 2.5 members, per EA, ATSDR/NCEH will enroll respondents from 152 eligible households (379/2.5). To identify the 152 eligible households, we further assume a 65 percent household eligibility rate. This will require administering a 5-minute household eligibility phone script to 234 heads-of-households per EA (152 * 100/65), or to 1,170 heads-of-households per year (234 × 5). The annual time burden requested for eligibility screening is 98 hours.
ATSDR estimates the total annualized time burden is 1,390 hours. Participation is voluntary, and there are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled “Emergency Cruise Ship Outbreak Investigations (CSOIs)”. The purpose of this study is to allow the CDC Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP) to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of acute gastroenteritis (AGE) via cruise ships entering the United States from foreign countries.
CDC must receive written comments on or before January 28, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC–2018–0104 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS–D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404–639–7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Emergency Cruise Ship Outbreak Investigations (COIs)—Existing Collection in Use without an OMB Control Number—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Established in 1975 as a cooperative activity with the cruise ship industry, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP) develops and implements comprehensive sanitation programs to minimize the risk of gastrointestinal diseases, by coordinating and conducting operational inspections, ongoing surveillance of gastrointestinal illness, and outbreak investigations on vessels.
Under the authority of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 264 and 269), the VSP is requesting a three-year approval for a new generic clearance information collection request (ICR). This ICR will provide the quick turn-around necessary to conduct emergency cruise ship outbreak investigations (CSOIs) in response to acute gastroenteritis (AGE) outbreaks. CSOIs are used to determine the causative agents and their sources, modes of transmission, or risk factors. The VSP's jurisdiction includes passenger vessels carrying 13 or more people sailing from foreign ports and within 15 days of arriving at a U.S. port.
VSP uses its syndromic surveillance system called the Maritime Illness and Death Reporting System (MIDRS) (approved under “Foreign Quarantine Regulations” [OMB Control No. 0920–0134, expiration date 05/31/2019]) to collect aggregate data about the number of people onboard ships in VSP's jurisdiction who are experiencing AGE symptoms. When the levels of illness meet VSP's alert threshold (
Causative agent, sources of exposure, modes of transmission, and risk factors can be ascertained by gathering the following types of information from both the affected and (seemingly) unaffected populations:
• Demographic information,
• Pre-embarkation travel information,
• Symptoms, including type, onset, duration,
• Contact with people who were sick or their body fluids,
• Participation in ship and shore activities,
• Locations of eating and drinking, and
• Foods and beverages consumed both on the ship and on shore.
Rapid and flexible data collection is imperative given the mobile environment, the remaining duration of the voyage left for investigation, and the loss to follow-up if delays allow passengers to disembark and leave the ship, including those returning to locations outside of the U.S.
This new generic clearance will cover investigations that meet all of the following criteria:
• The investigation is urgent in nature (
• The investigation is characterized by undetermined agents, undetermined sources, undetermined modes of transmission, or undetermined risk factors.
• One or more CDC staff (including trainees and fellows) will be deployed to the field.
• Most CSOIs involve two to five days of data collection; data collection is completed in 30 days or less.
This new generic clearance excludes each of the following:
• Investigations related to non-urgent outbreaks or events.
• Investigations conducted for the primary purpose of program evaluation, surveillance, needs assessment, or research (
• Investigations with data collection expected for greater than 30 days.
The VSP estimates 10 CSOIs annually in response to cruise ship AGE outbreaks. The estimated number of respondents is 2,500 per CSOI, for a total of 25,000 respondents per year. The average time burden is 15 minutes for each respondent. Therefore, the total estimated annual burden in hours is 6,250. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled Foreign Quarantine Regulations (42 CFR 71) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on September 7, 2018 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639–7570 or send an email to
Foreign Quarantine Regulations (42 CFR 71) (OMB Control No. 0920–0134) (Exp 5/31/2019)—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) (42 U.S.C. 264) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make and enforce regulations necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States. Statute and the existing regulations governing foreign quarantine activities (42 CFR 71) authorize quarantine officers and other personnel to inspect and undertake necessary control measures with respect to conveyances, persons, and shipments of animals and etiologic agents in order to protect the public's health. Other inspection agencies, such as Customs and Border Protection (CBP), assist quarantine officers in public health screening of persons, pets, and other importations of public health importance and make referrals to quarantine station staff when indicated. These practices and procedures ensure protection against the introduction and spread of communicable diseases into and within the United States with a minimum of recordkeeping and reporting procedures, as well as a minimum of interference with trade and travel.
U.S. Quarantine Stations are located at 20 ports of entry and land-border crossings where international travelers arrive. The jurisdiction of each station includes air, maritime, and/or land-border ports of entry. Quarantine Station staff work in partnership with international, federal, state, and local agencies and organizations to fulfill their mission to reduce morbidity and mortality among globally mobile populations. This work is performed to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States or from one State or possession to another State or possession. When an illness suggestive of a communicable disease is reported by conveyance operators or port partners (
CDC is making a number of changes and adjustments to this information collection. The changes are as follows:
• CDC is merging this information collection with another, 0920–0821 Illness Response Forms: Airline, Maritime, and Land/Border Crossing.
• CDC is disaggregating the information collection 42 CFR 71.21(a) report of illness or death from ships so that the influenza like illness (ILI) report, which is voluntary, is separate
• CDC is removing the information collection pertaining to Partner Government Agency Message Sets, because CDC will not collect information using these tools.
• CDC is removing the acute gastroenteritis reports from ships and removal of medical logs information collection from this information collection request, because CDC's Vessel Sanitation Program will submit a separate information collection request for these tools.
CDC is requesting the following adjustments:
• As described above, CDC is requesting a separation of the maritime (ILI) and other maritime illness or death reports. CDC is also requesting an increase in the total number of maritime reports of illness of each type, ILI and others.
• For fall 2018, CDC is considering a policy change related to requirements for rabies vaccination documentation for dogs coming from certain countries; therefore, CDC is providing estimates of burden and respondents related to importation of dogs into the United States
• Revised estimates of under 42 CFR 71.55, 42 CFR 71.32 Dead Bodies—Death certificates
• Revised estimate of the number of requests for exemptions for importation of African rodents
Respondents for this information collection request are any pilot in command of an aircraft or maritime vessel operator with an ill person meeting certain criteria, or death aboard; any individual who is subject to federal quarantine or isolation; any ill traveler who is reported by the airlines, Customs and Border Protection, or EMS to CDC or the local public health authority that meets the definition of ill person; and any importer or filer who seeks to bring certain animals, animal products, or other CDC-regulated item into the United States.
For all except one of these collections, there are no costs to respondents other than their time. Examinations of imported animals is only required if the pet is ill on arrival or if it has died during transport. These exams are not routine. Depending on the time of arrival, the initial exam fee may be between $100 and $200. Rabies testing on a dog that dies may be between $50 and $100. The expected number of ill or dead dogs arriving into the United States for which CDC may require an examination is estimated at less than 30 per year. The total annualized burden hours is estimated to be 268,493.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled Understanding multi-sectoral collaboration for strengthening public health capacities in Ethiopia to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on August 23, 2018 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639–7570 or send an email to
Understanding multi-sectoral collaboration for strengthening public health capacities in Ethiopia—New—Center for Preparedness and Response (CPR), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Countries with poor public health infrastructure are more vulnerable to adverse health outcomes caused by disease outbreaks, natural disasters, and other public health events. The 2013 Ebola outbreak in West Africa highlighted the shortcomings of infrastructure and preparedness plans in the region, and prompted Ministries of Health in affected countries to reexamine capabilities and identify approaches for strengthening them. More recently, the spread of the Zika virus in 2015 through more than 20 countries in the Americas demonstrated that prioritizing efforts to strengthen public health systems and capacities is imperative to mitigating the impact of public health events and improving global health security.
Capacities refer to the abilities and resources of countries to identify and address problems, and carry out functions for public health. Public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) related capacities focus acutely on the resources and infrastructure required for communities and countries to effectively respond to incidents. Zoonotic disease (ZD) related capacities center on minimizing the spread of diseases from animals to humans in domestic, agricultural and wildlife settings.
PHEP and ZD are regarded as cross-cutting technical areas of public health, spanning numerous fields of practice and knowledge necessary to successfully mitigate the impacts of public health events. As a result, multi-sectoral collaboration—a cornerstone of many public health initiatives and programs—is a prominent feature of efforts and plans to strengthen PHEP and ZD capacities. While the importance of multi-sectoral collaboration for health strategies is widely recognized by global health experts and leaders, the evidence base on demonstrated benefits and advantages in public health capacity building is limited. Some research has been carried out to understand aspects of public health capacity strengthening efforts and their impact on global health security; however, it often focuses on high-income countries, such as the United States (US). More research is needed, particularly in low- and middle-income country settings, to understand how collaboration occurs across sectors to implement efforts to strengthen PHEP and ZD capacities and systems, and to gain a deeper understanding of the perspectives of partners involved in the collaboration.
The purpose of the proposed research is to explore how multi-sectoral collaboration occurs for PHEP and ZD related activities implemented under the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA). The research will employ a multiple-case study design in Ethiopia, focusing on the GHSA technical areas of PHEP and ZD as the cases. The study seeks to understand the landscape of stakeholders engaged in PHEP and ZD related capacity development, and their perspectives on one another's roles and contributions to efforts. This research will also examine stakeholder perceptions on barriers and facilitators to collaboration under GHSA, overall and in each technical area via in-depth interviews. Finally, this study will utilize an adapted questionnaire that measures collaboration across five key domains to foster dialogue between partners on the strength of multi-sectoral collaboration in Ethiopia for GHSA related ZD and PHEP activities. Participants will be able to provide feedback to these questionnaires through a workshop. Research findings will be compared across the two technical areas to understand similarities and differences in stakeholder environments and partner perspectives on collaboration under GHSA; they can also be used to identify opportunities to amplify successes and overcome challenges for stakeholders to collaborate across sectors—in Ethiopia and other countries—to achieve ZD and PHEP goals under GHSA. CDC will disseminate information and findings through presentations, publications, and summary reports to stakeholders and interested members of the public. This research can enrich understanding among stakeholders of one another's perspectives on collaborative efforts, and encourage further dialogue on how to best facilitate multi-sectoral collaboration for broad global agendas such as GHSA, and improved health
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by January 28, 2019.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
William Parham at (410) 786–1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
On October 1, 2018, we published a 60-day information collection request (83 FR 49389) which we are withdrawing—due to technical difficulties—as indicated in a partial withdrawal notice published elsewhere in today's
2.
The home health COP requirements are set forth in § 1891[42 U.S.C. 1395bbb] of the Social Security Act (the Act). The implementing regulations under 42 CFR 484.10(c) specify that Medicare patients receiving HHA services have rights. The patient has the right to be informed, in advance about the care to be furnished, and of any changes in the care to be furnished. The HHA must advise the patient in advance of the disciplines that will furnish care, and the frequency of visits proposed to be furnished. The HHA must advise the patient in advance of any change in the plan of care before the change is made.”
Notification is required for covered and non-covered services listed in the plan of care (POC). The beneficiary will use the information provided to decide whether or not to pursue alternative options to continue receiving the care noted on the HHCCN.
Notice; partial withdrawal.
On October 1, 2018 (83 FR 49389), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published a notice entitled, “Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request.” That notice invited public comments on three separate information collection requests specific to document identifiers: CMS–10142, CMS–R–262, and CMS–179. Due to technical difficulties associated with CMS–179 (OMB control number: 0938–0193) titled “Medicaid State Plan Base Plan Pages,” through the publication of this document we are withdrawing CMS–179 from our October 1, 2018, information collection request. While the technical issues associated with CMS–179 have recently been resolved, because of the delay we are publishing a new 60-day information collection request elsewhere in today's
Children's Bureau (CB), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for public comment on revised syntax used to calculate Statewide Data Indicators for Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs).
In October 2014, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) published a notice in the
Comments are due by February 25, 2019.
You may send comments, identified by Docket Number ACF–2018–0007, by one of the following methods:
•
•
James Gregory, (202) 260–4668,
This
CB implemented the CFSRs in 2001 in response to a mandate in the Social Security Amendments of 1994. The reviews are required for CB to determine if such programs are in substantial conformity with title IV–B and IV–E plan requirements. The review process, as regulated at 45 CFR 1355.31–37, grew out of extensive consultation with interested groups, individuals, and experts in the field of child welfare and related areas.
The CFSRs enable CB to: (1) Ensure conformity with federal child welfare requirements; (2) determine what is actually happening to children and families as they are engaged in child welfare services; and (3) assist states to enhance their capacity to help children and families achieve positive outcomes. CB conducts the reviews in partnership with state child welfare agency staff and other partners and stakeholders involved in the provision of child welfare services. We have structured the reviews to help states identify strengths as well as areas needing improvement within their agencies and programs.
We use the CFSR to assess state performance on seven outcomes and seven systemic factors. The seven outcomes focus on key items measuring safety, permanency, and well-being. The seven systemic factors focus on key state plan requirements of titles IV–B and IV–E that provide a foundation for child outcomes. If we determine a state has not achieved substantial conformity in one or more of the areas assessed in the review, the state is required to develop and implement a program improvement plan addressing the areas of nonconformity within 2 years. CB supports the states with technical assistance and monitors implementation of their program improvement plans. If the state is unable to complete its program improvement plan successfully, a portion of the state's federal title IV–B and IV–E funds is withheld.
In the April 23, 2014,
After the May 2015 notice, we discovered additional technical errors in the syntax and formulation of the statewide data indicators. Some of the changes were identified by states and other interested parties that operationalized the indicators for continuous quality improvement. CB determined additional time was necessary to review, correct, and thoroughly test revised syntax used to calculate national and state performance on the data indicators. Recognizing challenges associated with the delay and implementation of revised indicators, especially for states already involved in the CFSR and program improvement planning process, CB decided to suspend use of the indicators in determinations of substantial conformity and as a basis for potentially imposing financial penalties during the third round of CFSRs. We are authorized by the regulations at 45 CFR 1355.34(b)(4) and (5) to add, amend, or suspend any of the statewide data indicators and to adjust the national standards when appropriate. CB issued Technical Bulletin #9 on October 11, 2016, to notify states of the change in the use of the statewide data indicators. Technical Bulletin #9, which rescinded Technical Bulletin #8A, provided guidance on how state performance on the CFSR 3 statewide data indicators would be used as context, revised related program improvement plan requirements, and re-issued the description of program improvement measurement methods.
We recently completed the comprehensive syntax review, revision, and validation process for calculating statewide data indicator performance information. The revisions do not change the statewide data indicator measures as defined in prior
Following the commencement of this
After the discovery of technical errors in the syntax and formulation of the statewide data indicators, federal staff completed a comprehensive internal review to identify and make syntax revisions. The internal in-depth line-level review of all syntax related to computing performance on the statewide indicators was completed in May 2017. Staff verified each step of
In addition to our internal review, we contracted for an independent review and validation of the syntax used to complete data quality checks and calculate observed and risk-standardized performance on the seven statewide data indicators. The independent reviewers used the following multi-step process to systematically review and verify all of the syntax:
The independent reviewers determined the syntax can validly and reliably develop source data files, perform data quality checks, and calculate state observed performance and risk-standardized performance on the seven statewide data indicators according to the definitions set forth in the
The documents identified below are provided to assist states and other interested parties with the independent syntax review process:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
We are inviting state child welfare agencies, partner organizations, and the public to review, test, and provide comments on the revised syntax to perform data quality checks and calculate observed performance on the statewide data indicators. The purpose of this invitation is to provide an opportunity for additional independent review prior to finalizing the revised syntax. Interested parties may choose to review a written version of the statistical syntax and supporting documents, and/or follow the instructions to replicate the syntax files to generate CFSR data indicator performance information using state-generated AFCARS and NCANDS files.
We are interested in receiving comments on the revised syntax and related considerations and recommendations to strengthen our statistical calculations for generating CFSR statewide data indicator performance information. We encourage states and interested parties to share the outcome of their review and/or results from running the revised syntax files. Please be specific in identifying the corresponding statewide data indicator or data quality check being referenced in the comment; the syntax revision, question, or recommendation; and the rationale for considerations or recommendation(s), as applicable.
Comments containing suggested revisions should be limited to operationalizing the measures and calculation methods contained in the statistical syntax used to generate performance data. We are not making changes or requesting comments at this time pertaining to the statewide data indicator measures as defined in prior
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is soliciting written comments on the proposed Healthy People 2030 objectives, including proposed core, developmental, and research objectives. The public is also invited to propose new objectives to be considered for inclusion in Healthy People 2030.
ODPHP manages the Health People initiative, which provides science-based, 10-year national objectives for promoting health and preventing disease. Every 10 years, through the Healthy People initiative, HHS leverages scientific insights and lessons from the past decade along with new knowledge of current data, trends, and innovations to develop the next iteration of national health promotion and disease prevention objectives. For four decades, Healthy People has set and monitored national health objectives to meet a broad range of health needs, encouraged collaborations across sectors, guided individuals toward making informed health decisions, and measured the impact of our prevention and health promotion activities. The proposed objectives for Healthy People 2030 represent a streamlined set of objectives, representing important public health issues facing our nation.
Written comments must be submitted by January 11, 2019.
Written comments will be accepted via an online public comment database on
Ayanna Johnson, Public Health Advisor, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite LL100, Rockville, MD 2085. Email:
Public participation will shape the objectives included in Healthy People 2030. Healthy People 2030 will provide a picture of the nation's health at the beginning of the decade, establish national goals and targets to be achieved by the year 2030, and monitor progress over time. As a national initiative, Healthy People's success depends on a coordinated commitment to improve the health of the nation.
42 U.S.C. 200u.
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice and request for comments. Request for extension of approval.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Indian Health Service (IHS) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for extension of approval of the information collection titled, “Addendum to Declaration for Federal Employment, Child Care and Indian Child Care Worker Positions,” Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 0917–0028.
December 27, 2018. Your comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having full effect if received within 30 days of the date of this publication.
Send your comments and suggestions regarding the proposed information collection contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for IHS.
Send requests for more information on the proposed collection, or requests to obtain a copy of the data collection instrument and instructions to Evonne Bennett-Barnes by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
This previously approved information collection expires November 30, 2018. Notice regarding the information collection was last published in the
A copy of the supporting statement is available at
OMB is particularly interested in comments that: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques of other forms of information technology,
The IHS is required to compile a list of all authorized positions within the IHS where the duties and responsibilities involve regular contact with, or control over, Indian children; and to conduct an investigation of the character of each individual who is employed, or is being considered for employment, in a position having regular contact with, or control over, Indian children. 25 U.S.C. 3207(a)(1) and (2). Title 25 U.S.C. 3207(a)(3) requires regulations prescribing the minimum standards of character for individuals appointed to positions involving regular contact with, or control over, Indian children, and section 3207(b) provides that such standards shall ensure that no such individuals have been found guilty of, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to any felonious offense, or any two or more misdemeanor offenses, under Federal, State, or Tribal law involving crimes of violence; sexual assault, molestation, exploitation, contact or prostitution; crimes against persons; or offenses committed against children.
In addition, 34 U.S.C. 20351 (formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. 13041, which was transferred to 34 U.S.C. 20351) requires each agency of the Federal Government, and every facility operated by the Federal Government (or operated under contract with the Federal Government), that hires (or contracts for hire) individuals involved with the provision of child care services to children under the age of 18 to assure that all existing and newly hired employees undergo a criminal history background check. The background investigation is to be initiated through the personnel program of the applicable Federal agency. This section requires employment applications for individuals who are seeking work for an agency of the Federal Government, or for a facility or program operated by (or through contract with) the Federal Government, in positions involved with the provision of child care services to children under the age of 18, to contain a question asking whether the individual has ever been arrested for or charged with a crime involving a child, and if so, requiring a description of the disposition of the arrest or charge.
There are no Capital Costs, Operating Costs, and/or Maintenance Costs to report.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Barry Buchbinder, Ph.D., 240–627–3678;
Technology description follows.
An effective human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV–1) vaccine has long been sought to contend with the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) pandemic.
One approach researchers have taken to elicit broadly neutralizing antibodies against HIV–1 is to stabilize the structurally flexible HIV–1 envelope (Env) trimer. Researchers stabilized the Env trimer in a conformation that displays predominantly broadly neutralizing epitopes and few non-neutralizing epitopes. Currently, BG505 DS–SOSIP is a leading vaccine candidate with the desired conformation and antigenicity.
Ideally, to be useful as a vaccine, such a conformationally fixed Env immunogen should have high thermostability and should remain in the desired antigenic state, even in the presence of CD4, a glycoprotein found on the surface of immune cells.
Researchers at the Vaccine Research Center (VRC) of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) undertook efforts to improve the properties of BG505 DS–SOSIP for use as a vaccine. The VRC researchers introduced three additional mutations to further stabilize BG505 DS–SOSIP in the vaccine-preferred prefusion-closed conformation and refer to the engineered BG505 DS–SOSIP as BG505 DS–SOSIP.3mut. Experiments showed that these modifications conferred improved thermostability that will allow easier transport and storage of BG505 DS–SOSIP.3mut compared to BG505 DS–SOSIP. In addition, BG505 DS–SOSIP.3mut has lower antigenicity toward non/weak neutralizing antibodies compared to BG505 DS–SOSIP, which suggests that it could potentially elicit higher neutralization titer by targeting only broadly neutralizing antibodies. With improved antigenicity and stability, this version may have utility as an HIV–1 immunogen or in other antigen-specific contexts, such as for use with B-cell probes.
This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
• Vaccine—to elicit potent neutralizing antibodies against the HIV–1 Env glycoprotein.
• Probes—to identify broad and potent HIV–1-neutralizing antibodies.
Compared to previous engineered Env trimer versions:
• 300-fold reduction in CD4-binding affinity.
• Reduced binding affinity to ineffective HIV–1 antibodies.
• Increase in melting temperature (10 degrees over BG505 SOSIP).
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The intramural programs and projects as well as the grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with intramural programs and projects as well as the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health published a Notice in the
Dr. Jennifer Guimond, Project Clearance Liaison, Office of Science Policy, Reporting, and Program Analysis, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Room 2A18, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892 or call non-toll-free number (301) 496–1877 or Email
On November 7, 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health published a Notice in the
Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
30-Day Notice and request for comments; New Collection, 1670–NEW.
DHS NPPD IP will submit the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DHS previously published this information collection request (ICR) in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until December 27, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to OMB Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security and sent via electronic mail to
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Jenny Margaros at 703.235.9381 or at
Under the Homeland Security Presidential Directive-19: Combating Terrorist Use of Explosives in the United States, DHS was mandated to have a regularly updated assessment of domestic explosives-related capabilities. It required DHS to expand its National Capabilities Analysis Database, which is now known as the National Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Capabilities Analysis Database (NCCAD). Currently, the President's Policy Directive-17: Countering Improvised Explosive Devices (PPD–17) reaffirms the 2007 Strategy for Combating Terrorist Use of Explosives in the United States. It provides guidance to update and gives momentum to our ability to counter threats involving improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
The NCCAD provides State, local, tribal and territorial law enforcement stakeholders a method to identify their level of capability to prevent, protect, mitigate, and respond to an IED threat. It also provides Federal stakeholders an overarching view of the Nation's collective counter-IED capabilities.
Information is collected by Office for Bombing Prevention (OBP) personnel and contractors. These individuals travel to locations across the Nation to gather the requisite information. OBP personnel and contractors facilitate initial baseline assessments either face-to-face or via webinar in order to get stakeholders familiar with the NCCAD system, provide clarifying information, and answer questions. Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement personnel with a counter-IED mission assist NCCAD personnel to coordinate a training location for personnel from the four disciplines (bomb squads, explosives detection canine, special weapons and tactics teams (SWAT), and dive units) to take their respective assessment. The OBP facilitator begins by conducting a short brief on the reasons for NCCAD and how it can help them as units.
The NCCAD assessments consists of a total of 56 tasks bundled into specific question sets spread across the four (4) disciplines representing specific tasks encompassing personnel, training, and equipment. The OBP and the NCCAD team used federal requirements (FEMA Resource Typing) to create the overarching list of questions in the question sets. Where there were no requirements, OBP and NCCAD worked with subject matter experts to identify best practices to create the assessments. Subject matter experts and Federal, State, local agency representatives collaborated to rank and stack each question and question set in order of importance and priority. At that time, weights were assigned to the questions, which provide the capability calculation for the whole question set.
The first group of questions in the assessment focus on the profile of the unit,
Each discipline's questionnaire only includes question sets specific to that discipline. This means that while multiple disciplines may have the same question set title, the questions may not be the same. For example, the SWAT and canine questionnaires both have the question set, Maintain Readiness,
The information from each individual unit is collected into the database. Upon completion of inputting the unit information, the program, using the appropriate algorithms, creates a capabilities analysis report for the unit commander. The report identifies current capabilities, existing gaps, and makes recommendations for closing those gaps. Additionally, the NCCAD allows the unit commander to identify the most efficient and effective purchases of resources to close those gaps. At the State, regional, and National-levels, the data is aggregated within the selected discipline and provides a snapshot of the counter-IED capabilities across the discipline. OBP also intends to identify the lowest, highest, median, and average capability levels across units, States, regions, disciplines, and the Nation. This data will be used to provide snapshots of the C–IED capabilities and gaps to inform decision-makers on policy decisions, resource allocation for capability enhancement, and crisis management. Data collected will be used in readiness planning, as well as steady-state and crisis decision support during threats or incidents. NCCAD data will assist operational decision-makers and resource providers in developing investment justifications that support State homeland security strategies and national priorities.
The National Incident Management System (NIMS) Resource Typing assessment is a subset of the NCCAD assessment questions which identify the number and type of bomb response teams that a unit has based on its composition. There are seven tasks with a total of 32 questions. Resource Typing Definitions are used to categorize, by capability, the resources requested, deployed, and used in incidents. Measurable standards identifying resource capabilities and performance levels serve as the basis for this categorization. National NIMS resource types support a common language for the mobilization of resources (equipment, teams, units, and personnel) prior to, during, and after major incidents. Resource users at all levels use these definitions as a consistent basis when identifying and inventorying their resources for capability estimation, planning and for mobilization during mutual aid efforts. National NIMS resource types represent the minimum criteria for the associated component and capability.
All responses are collected via electronic means via the virtual assessment program. While the actual data collection is done through the NCCAD database through IP Gateway, OBP personnel facilitate the collection of the data by assisting users via a face-to-face discussion or webinar. This is particularly useful for first time users to understand the nuances of the NCCAD system and how they can use their assessment to help justify resource requests and help with steady-state and threat-initiated decision-making. It is NCCAD policy to not accept the questionnaires in paper format. If there is a power outage at the event site or if the website is down due to technical reasons, facilitators have copies of the paper format for stakeholders to continue filling out. Facilitators do not collect these hard copies. Stakeholders keep them to update the electronic assessment when they next access it. OBP is cutting down this possibility even more by beginning the utilization of tablets and hotspots for those individuals who do not have laptops or internet access.
This is a new information collection.
OMB is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
Notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is announcing the opportunity for explosives detection canine teams and canine team providers to become a registered Certified Cargo Screening Facility-Canine (CCSF–K9) under TSA's Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP). This notice provides information necessary for qualified, interested persons to initiate the registration process.
Applicable November 27, 2018.
Interested persons can contact
Michael P. Daniel, Section Chief, Cargo Risk Reduction, Compliance Division, Security Operations, TSA. Mr. Daniel can be reached at (571) 227–2228, or by email to
The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110–53, 121 Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007) (9/11 Act) mandated the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to require 100 percent screening of air cargo transported on passenger aircraft at a level commensurate with requirements for screening of checked baggage.
TSA's Third-Party Canine-Cargo (3PK9–C) program, which fulfills the requirements in sec. 1941 of the TSA Modernization Act, provides an effective and efficient method for screening cargo consistent with TSA's authority under 49 U.S.C. 44901. There are three primary non-governmental participants in TSA's 3PK9–C Program: (1) 3PK9–C Certifiers, authorized through an Order issued by TSA to certify canine teams as meeting TSA's certification standards;
TSA issued the CCSP regulation in 2009 to provide an approved method for regulated entities to screen 100 percent of all cargo to be transported on passenger aircraft. The program established a new regulatory framework that allowed a third-party to screen cargo to TSA standards, relieving the air carrier of the space, time, and cost pressures associated with screening cargo using technical means on airport grounds.
To operate as a CCSF–K9, a canine provider must register with the CCSP and be approved as a holder of the Certified Cargo Security Program-Canine, issued under 49 CFR part 1549. For the purposes of this notice, the term “CCSF–K9” refers to the registered-holder of this security program. The security program includes both the requirements to become a CCSF–K9 and the operational requirements for screening air cargo. Under the framework for the 3PK9–C Program, a CCSF–K9 must seek certification of its canine teams by a 3PK9–C Certifier. Any contracts under which the CCSF–K9 will provide Certified 3PK9–C Teams, must be identified in the CCSF–K9's Operational Implementation Plan (OIP), including locations where screening will be conducted. The OIP must be submitted as part of the canine provider's application and updated throughout the CCSF–K9s participation in the 3PK9–C program. The regulated entity must also have a TSA-approved or accepted amendment to its required security program that allows use of a CCSF–K9 to screen air cargo, defines the process for transferring cargo to and from the CCSF–K9, establishes requirements for the regulated entity to conduct alarm resolution using a screening method approved by TSA, and requires recordkeeping of certain program documents.
This notice is being published to ensure all interested persons are aware of the opportunity to become CCSF–K9s. To initiate the registration process, canine team providers must submit an initial email indicating their interest to be a CCSF–K9 to the email address identified above under
All interested canine team providers must submit the following information before receiving any additional documentation from TSA regarding and CCSF–K9 and application:
• Corporate profile information to TSA, including information on the company's corporate affiliation, corporate physical location, canine field locations, and information on canine team certifications.
• SSI acknowledgement, training, and non-disclosure agreement.
• Letter of intent and affidavit signed by relevant principal(s).
• Legal documentation describing the corporation, ID verification, and work authorization for specific individuals.
Once approved by TSA, the CCSF–K9 must comply with statutory and regulatory requirements for the screening of air cargo intended for transport on aircraft operated pursuant to a TSA-approved or accepted security program under 49 CFR parts 1544 or 1546, or a facilities-based CCSF operating pursuant to a TSA-approved security program under 49 CFR part 1549. The CCSF–K9 must also ensure that all employees and authorized representatives who have duties and responsibilities for any requirement in the security program successfully complete TSA's requirements for a Security Threat Assessments (STA), which may include a fingerprint-based criminal history records check, and are trained to ensure the effective performance of those responsibilities, and are knowledgeable of their security responsibilities.
Unless otherwise approved by TSA, the provider must apply for a security program and certification to operate as a CCSF–K9 no less than 90 days before commencing operations.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 28, 2019.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0030 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS–2008–0012. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529–2140, telephone number 202–272–8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting 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. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until December 27, 2018.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529–2140, Telephone number (202) 272–8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
USCIS uses the information collected on Form N–600 to determine if a Certificate of Citizenship can be issued to the applicant. Citizenship acquisition laws have changed throughout the history of the INA and different laws apply to determine whether the applicant automatically became a U.S. citizen. However, step children cannot acquire U.S. citizenship under any provision of the INA.
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 28, 2019.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0106 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS–2009–0010. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529–2140, telephone number 202–272–8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting 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. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until December 27, 2018.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529–2140, Telephone number (202) 272–8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until December 27, 2018.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529–2140, Telephone number (202) 272–8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 28, 2019.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0067 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS–2007–0034. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529–2140, telephone number 202–272–8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 28, 2019.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0132 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS–2014–0002. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529–2140, telephone number 202–272–8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting 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. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until December 27, 2018.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529–2140, Telephone number (202) 272–8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before November 10, 2018, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by December 12, 2018.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before November 10, 2018. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resources:
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) are proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 27, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Paul Matuska by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of Reclamation; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might Reclamation enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might Reclamation minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
United States International Trade Commission.
November 30, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205–2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote on Inv. Nos. 701–TA–612–613 and 731–TA–1429–1430 (Preliminary) (Polyester Textured Yarn from China and India). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations on December 3, 2018; views of the Commission are currently scheduled to be completed and filed on December 10, 2018.
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of submission of request for approval of a questionnaire to the Office of Management and Budget. This notice is being given pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8) Information obtained from the questionnaire that qualifies as confidential business information will be so treated by the Commission and not disclosed in a manner that would reveal the individual operations of a firm.
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet address (
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Juul Labs, Inc., on November 20, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain cartridges for electronic nicotine delivery systems and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: DripTip Vapes LLC of Plantation, FL; The Electric Tobacconist, LLC of Boulder, CO; Fuma Vapor, Inc. of Des Plaines, IL; Lan & Mike International Trading, Inc. of Torrance, CA; Lizard Juice, LLC of Largo, FL; Maduro Distributors, Inc. of Maplewood, MN; MistHub, LLC of Buffalo Grove, IL; Noah Duvberg of Daytona Beach, FL; ParallelDirect LLC of Lincolnshire, IL; Saddam Aburoumi of Manchester, CT; Sarvasva LLC of Maple Shade, NJ; Shenzhen Haka Flavor Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen OCIGA Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen OVNS Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Yibo Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Twist Vapor Franchising, LLC of Tampa, FL; United Wholesale LLC of Glastonbury, CT; Vape4U LLC of Montclair, CA; Vaperz LLC of Frankfort, IL; Vaportronix, LLC of Aventura, FL; Vapor 4 Life Holdings, Inc. of Northbrook, IL; The ZFO of Spencerport, NY; Zipp Lab Co. Ltd. of China; and Ziip Lab S.A. of Uruguay. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders and impose a bond during the 60-day review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3354) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Notice of registration.
The registrant listed below has applied for and been granted registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as an importer of various classes of schedule I or II controlled substances.
The company listed below applied to be registered as an importer of various basic classes of controlled substances. Information on the previously published notice is listed in the table below. No comments or objections were submitted and no requests for hearing were submitted for this notice.
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of the listed registrant to import the applicable basic class of schedule I controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the DEA has granted a registration as an importer for schedule I controlled substances to the above listed company.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before December 27, 2018 Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before December 27, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on May 2, 2018, Akorn Inc., 1222 W. Grand Avenue, Decatur, Illinois 62522 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class of controlled substance:
The company plans to import the above listed controlled substance for research purposes.
Notice of registration.
The registrant listed below has applied for and been granted registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as bulk a manufacturer of various classes of schedule I and II controlled substances.
The company listed below applied to be registered as bulk manufacturer of various basic classes of controlled substances. Information on the previously published notice is listed in the table below. No comments or objections were submitted for this notice.
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of this registrant to manufacture the applicable basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the DEA has granted a registration as a bulk manufacturer to the above listed company.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before December 27, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before December 27, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on August 30, 2018, Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, 50 Frontage Road, Andover, Massachusetts 01810 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before January 28, 2019.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on July 4, 2018, Noramco Inc., 1550 Olympic Dr. Athens, Georgia 30601 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer for the basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and reference standards for distribution to their customers.
In reference to drug codes 7360 (marihuana) and 7370 (tetrahydrocannabinols), the company plans to bulk manufacture these drugs as synthetic. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Notice of registration.
The registrant listed below has applied for and has been granted registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as an importer of schedule I or II controlled substances.
The company listed below applied to be registered as an importer of various basic classes of controlled substances. Information on the previously published notice is listed in the table below. No comments or objections were submitted and no requests for a hearing were submitted for this notice.
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of the listed registrant to import the applicable basic classes of schedule I controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the DEA has granted a registration as an importer for schedule I controlled substances to the above listed company.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before December 27, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before December 27, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on September 5, 2018, GE Healthcare, 3350 North Ridge Avenue, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004, applied to be registered as an importer of cocaine (9041), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import small quantities of Ioflupane, in the form of three separate analogues of cocaine, to validate production and quality control systems, for a reference standard, and for producing material for a future investigational new drug (IND) submission. Supplies of this particular controlled substance are not available in the form needed within the current domestic supply of the United States.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before January 28, 2019.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been delegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on October 4, 2018, Insys Manufacturing, LLC, 811 Paloma Drive, Suite C, Round Rock, Texas 78665, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture bulk synthetic active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for product development and distribution to its customers. No other activity for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before December 27, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before December 27, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on September 27, 2018, Fisher Clinical Services, Inc., 700A–C Nestle Way, Breinigsville, Pennsylvania 18031, has applied to be registered as an importer of the below listed basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I & II.
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for analytical research, testing, and clinical trials. This authorization does not extend to the import of a finished FDA approved or non-approved dosage form for commercial distribution in the United States.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before January 28, 2019.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on July 25, 2018, Cayman Chemical Company, 1180 East Ellsworth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer for the basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances to produce forensic and research analytical reference standards for distribution to its customers.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before December 27, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before December 27, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on February 21, 2018, Sigma Aldrich Co., LLC, 3500 Dekalb Street, Saint Louis, Missouri 63118 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for sale to research facilities for drug testing and analysis. In reference to drug codes 7360 and 7370, the company plans to import a synthetic cannabidiol and a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until December 27, 2018.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Barbara Oudekerk, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit applications received.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act in the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by December 27, 2018. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address, 703–292–8030, or
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541, 45 CFR 671), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
Robin West, Director of Expedition Operations, Onboard Revenue, Seabourn Quest, Seabourn Cruise Line Ltd., 450 Third Ave. W, Seattle, WA 98119.
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, December 11, 2018.
NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20594.
The one item is open to the public.
58698 Marine Accident Report: Fire On Board US Small Passenger Vessel
The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle McCallister at (202) 314–6305 or by email at
The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at
Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is recognizing a recent Postal Service filing requesting that Inbound Letter Post small packets and bulky letter, and inbound registered services associated with such items, be transferred from the market dominant product list to the competitive product list. This document 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.
On November 16, 2018, the Postal Service filed a notice with the Commission pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
• Attachment A—Statement of Supporting Justification;
• Attachment B—Draft Mail Classification Schedule (MCS) Language; and
• Attachment C—Resolution of the Governors of the United States Postal Service, November 13, 2018 (Resolution No. 18–9).
The Postal Service asserts that the new Inbound Letter Post Small Packets and Bulky Letters product fulfills all of the criteria for competitive products under section 3642.
In addition, the Postal Service states that the Private Express Statutes (PES) do not apply to the Inbound Letter Post Small Packets and Bulky Letters product because: (1) Documents that are combined with goods are likely invoices or advertising materials that are exempt from PES; (2) most Inbound Letter Post Small Packets and Bulky Letters mailpieces will weigh more than the 12.5 ounce threshold and will likely be exempt from PES; and (3) the Postal Service is likely to propose prices for the Inbound Letter Post Small Packets and Bulky Letters product that are at least six times the price charged for a 1-ounce First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters mailpiece.
The Postal Service notes that prices for the Inbound Letter Post Small Packets and Bulky Letters product have not been determined but expects such prices to be “fully remunerative and provide healthy contribution to institutional costs[,]” thereby satisfying 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(1) and (2).
The Postal Service also asserts that transferring Inbound Letter Post small packets and bulky letters from the market dominant product list to the competitive product list will improve consistency between inbound and outbound products. Request at 12. Specifically, the Postal Service notes that “outbound international products analogous to those at issue here” are already on the competitive product list, as are Inbound Air and Surface Parcel Post, which are similar to Inbound Letter Post small packets and bulky letters.
The Commission establishes Docket No. MC2019–17 to consider the Postal Service's proposals described in its Request. Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Request is consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, and 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Request and related filings are available on the Commission's website (
The Commission appoints Kenneth E. Richardson to serve as Public Representative in this proceeding.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. MC2019–17 for consideration of the matters raised by the United States Postal Service Request to Transfer Inbound Letter Post Small Packets and Bulky Letters, and Inbound Registered Service Associated with Such Items, to the Competitive Product List, filed November 16, 2018.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth E. Richardson is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Comments by interested persons are due by December 10, 2018.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. 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 November 28, 2018 comment due date applies to Docket Nos. CP2018–104; MC2019–22 and CP2019–23; MC2019–23 and CP2019–24; MC2019–24 and CP2019–25; MC2019–25 and CP2019–26.
The November 29, 2018 comment due date applies to Docket Nos. MC2019–26 and CP2019–27; MC2019–27 and CP2019–28; MC2019–28 and CP2019–29; MC2019–29 and CP2019–30; MC2019–30 and CP2019–31.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 20, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 20, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 20, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 20, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 20, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 20, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 20, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 20, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 20, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to delete from [sic] the current rules on Registration, Qualification Examination and Continuing Education consisting of Rules 1200, 1210, 1220, 1230, 1240 and 1250 (the “1200 Series” of rules) and to relocate them into General 4 in the Exchange's rulebook's (“Rulebook”) shell structure, as new General 4, Section 1.
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 Exchange proposes to delete its rules on Registration, Qualification Examinations and Continuing Education where they are currently found in the Exchange's Rulebook and relocate them to General 4, Regulation, of the “General Equity and Options Rules” in the Exchange's new shell Rulebook, as new Section 1, Registration, Qualification and Continuing Education.
The 1200 Series of rules is a common set of rules among Nasdaq and the Affiliated Exchanges that were recently adopted on Nasdaq and on each of the Affiliated Exchanges.
The relocation and harmonization of the 1200 Series is part of the Exchange's continued effort to promote efficiency and conformity of its rules with those of its Affiliated Exchanges. The Exchange believes that the placement of the 1200 Series of rules in their new location in the shell will facilitate the use of the Rulebook by members of the Exchange who are also members of one or more of the Affiliated Exchanges. Moreover, the proposed changes will not amend the substance of the 1200 Series of rules. They will simply renumber the rules by adding “General 4, Section 1.” immediately before the current rule number. Thus, for example, current Rule 1210 will be redesignated “General 4, Section 1.1210”. Similarly, current references in the Rulebook to the “Rule 1200 Series” will be changed to the “General 4, Section 1.1200 Series”. Current Exchange rules—both within the existing 1200 Series of rules and elsewhere in the Rulebook—that cross-reference the current 1200 Series of rules will also be updated to refer to the 1200 Series of rules as renumbered.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes do not impose a burden on competition because, as previously stated, they are of a non-substantive nature.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing. However, Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX”) proposes to adopt Complex Reserve Order functionality.
(a) No change.
(b) Availability of Types of Complex Orders. The Exchange will determine and communicate to Members via specifications and/or a Regulatory Circular listing when the complex order types, among the complex order types set forth in this Rule, are available for use on the Exchange. The complex order types that may be submitted are limit orders and market orders, and orders with a Time in Force of GTD, IOC, DAY, GTC, or OPG as such terms are defined in Rule 21.1(f).The
(1)–(3) No change.
(
(c) Trading of Complex Orders. The Exchange will determine and communicate to Members via specifications and/or Regulatory Circular which complex order origin codes (
(1) No change.
(2) Execution of Complex Orders.
(A)–(E) No change.
(F)
(G) No change.
(3) Complex Order Priority.
(A) No change.
(B) Complex orders will be automatically executed against bids and offers on the COB in price priority. Bids and offers at the same price on the COB will be executed in time priority.
(4)–(6) No change.
(d) COA Process. All option classes will be eligible to participate in a COA. Upon evaluation as set forth in subparagraph (c)(5) above, the Exchange may determine to automatically submit a COA-eligible order into a COA.
(1) No change.
(2) Commencement of COA. Upon receipt of a COA-eligible order, the Exchange will begin the COA process by sending a COA auction message. The COA auction message will be sent to all subscribers to the Exchange's data feeds that deliver COA auction messages. The COA auction message will identify the COA auction ID, instrument ID (
(3) No change.
(4) COA Response. Members may submit a response to the COA auction message (a “COA Response”) during the Response Time Interval. COA Responses can be submitted by a Member with any origin code, including Priority Customer. COA Responses may be submitted in $0.01 increments and must specify the price, size, side of the market (
(5)–(6) No change.
(7) Allocation at the Conclusion of a COA. Orders executed in a COA will be allocated first in price priority based on their original limit price as follows:
(A) Priority Customer Orders
(B) COA Responses and unrelated orders on the COB
(C) No change.
(8)–(9) No change.
Interpretations and Policies:
.01–.06 No change.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc. (formerly named CBOE Holdings, Inc.) (“Cboe Global”), which is the parent company of Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe Options”) and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc., acquired the Exchange, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX or BZX Options”), and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX” and, together with C2, Cboe Options, EDGX, EDGA, and BZX, the “Cboe Affiliated Exchanges”). The Cboe Affiliated Exchanges are working to align certain system functionality, retaining only intended differences between the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, in the context of the technology migration of Cboe Options to the same trading platform as the Exchange. Thus, the proposed rule change is intended to
Currently, one of the Order Types in the Rules for simple orders is a Reserve Order.
The Exchange proposes to adopt Complex Reserve Order functionality.
A User may determine that a Complex Reserve Order it submits should be subject to “Random Replenishment” or “Fixed Replenishment.” If a Complex Reserve Order has a Random Replenishment instruction, the System randomly replenishes the Display Quantity for the Complex Reserve Order with a number of contracts not outside a replenishment range, which equals the Max Floor plus and minus a replenishment value established by the User when entering a Complex Reserve Order with a Random Replenishment instruction. For any Complex Reserve Order for which a User does not select Random Replenishment, the System will replenish the Display Quantity of the Complex Reserve Order with the number of contracts equal to the Max Floor (or the entire remainder of the Complex Reserve Order if it is less than the replenishment amount).
Current Rule 21.20(d)(2) provides that upon receipt of a COA-eligible order,
Proposed Rule 21.20(c)(2)(F) states the entire quantity of a Complex Reserve Order (both the Display Quantity and Reserve Quantity) will Leg into the Simple Book at the same time, and any quantity that does not execute pursuant to Rule 21.20(c) or (d) after Legging will rest in the COB in accordance with the proposed Complex Reserve Order instruction. As stated in the definition of a Reserve Order and the proposed definition of a Complex Reserve Order, both the Displayed Quantity and Reserve Quantity are eligible for execution against incoming orders. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to similarly make both the Displayed Quantity and Reserve Quantity eligible for execution against orders and quotes in the Simple Book as well. This will maximize the size of resting orders and quotes on the Simple Book that may execute when these orders Leg into the Simple Book, as well as provide the entire quantity of a Complex Reserve Order with an opportunity to execute against orders in the Simple Book. A Complex Reserve Order may Leg into the Simple Book after a COA, following submission to the System (if not COA-eligible), or following evaluation when resting in the COB.
The proposed rule change also amends Rule 21.20(d)(4) to clarify that COA Responses may be larger than the COA-eligible order (in response to which the COA Response is submitted). Neither the System nor the Rules limit the size of COA Responses to the size of the COA-eligible order, and the Exchange believes this proposed change will provide Users with additional clarity. Because COA Responses are not limited to the size of COA-eligible orders, if a Complex Reserve Order initiates a COA, COA Responses with size larger than the Display Quantity of the Complex Reserve Order will have the opportunity to execute against the entire size of the Complex Reserve Order.
Processing and execution of Complex Reserve Orders will generally occur in the same manner as other complex orders in accordance with current Rule 21.20(c) and (d). Proposed Rule 21.20(c)(3)(B) and (d)(7)(B) states that displayed complex orders resting on the COB have priority over nondisplayed portions of Complex Reserve Orders resting on the COB. This is consistent with the current handling of simple Reserve Orders.
If a complex order Legs into the Simple Book, the execution priority of contra-side interest will be as follows:
The proposed rule change also makes a nonsubstantive change to the introductory sentence to the list of complex order types in Rule 21.20(b) to eliminate the use of passive voice in that sentence.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open national market system, as well as benefit investors by providing Users with additional flexibility to manage and display their complex orders and additional control over their executions on the Exchange. This may encourage market participants to bring additional liquidity to the market, which benefits all investors.
The Exchange notes that Reserve Order functionality is not new or unique and is already available in a similar capacity for simple orders. While the Reserve Order functionality is not currently available for complex orders, the Exchange has Reserve Order functionality in its Rules for simple orders, which functions substantially in the same manner as the proposed Complex Reserve Order functionality.
The proposed rule change to only include the Displayed Quantity of a Complex Reserve Order in a COA message protects investors, as it is consistent with the purpose of a Complex Reserve Order and the intention of a User that submits a Complex Reserve Order, which is to only have a certain specified size publicly displayed. This provides Complex Reserve Orders with the potential for price improvement in a manner consistent with the objective of a Reserve Order. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to only include the Display Quantity of a Complex Reserve Order in a COA message.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change regarding how Complex Reserve Orders Leg into the Simple Book will benefit investors. The proposed rule change is consistent with the definition of a Reserve Order, which states that the entire quantity is eligible for potential execution against incoming orders, and thus provides the entire quantity of a Reserve Order with an opportunity to execute against orders and quotes in the Simple Book. Additionally, this will maximize the size of resting orders and quotes on the Simple Book that may execute when Complex Reserve Orders Leg into the Simple Book. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change may increase execution opportunities for both Complex Reserve Orders and simple orders and quotes resting on the Simple Book.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change related to the priority of Complex Reserve Orders promotes just and equitable principles of trade, as it is consistent with current priority in the Simple Book that provides displayed orders have priority over nondisplayed orders. The proposed rule change that displayed portions of complex orders resting on the COB have priority over nondisplayed portions of Complex Reserve Orders resting on the COB is reasonable, because it is consistent with the current handling of simple Reserve Orders, as discussed above. Additionally, the proposed rule change to clarify that displayed and nondisplayed Priority Customer orders and quotes resting on the Simple Book have priority over all displayed and nondisplayed orders resting on the COB when a complex order Legs into the Simple Book is consistent with current functionality and current Rules describing how complex orders Leg into the Simple Book. This additional clarity regarding the order in which resting orders and quotes on the Simple Book will trade when a complex order Legs into the Simple Book benefits investors, as it provides more detail regarding the priority of executions on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes the proposed priority ensures system stability and efficient executions outweighs [sic]. The Exchange notes it is not novel for nondisplayed interest to trade ahead of displayed interest.
The proposed rule change is generally intended to add certain system functionality to the Exchange's System in order to provide a consistent technology offering for the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, as Cboe Options currently offers (and intends to offer following its migration to the same technology platform as the Exchange) complex reserve order functionality. A consistent technology offering, in turn, will simplify the technology implementation, changes, and maintenance by Users of the Exchange that are also participants on Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. The proposed rule change will provide Users with additional flexibility to manage and display their orders and control their executions on the Exchange. This may encourage market participants to bring additional liquidity to the market, which benefits all investors. Additionally, this will provide Users with greater harmonization between the order handling instructions available among the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will not burden intramarket competition because the Reserve Order instruction on complex orders will be available to all market participants. Additionally, use of the Reserve Order instruction on complex orders is voluntary. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intermarket competition because this relates to an instruction on orders that are submitted to the Exchange and how the Exchange's System will handle and execute them. Additionally, nothing prevents other options exchanges that offer complex orders from adopting a Reserve Order functionality for complex orders. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change will promote competition, as Complex Reserve Orders will provide Users with additional flexibility to manage and display their complex orders and additional control over their executions on the Exchange. This may encourage market participants to bring additional liquidity to the market, which benefits all investors.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “C2”) proposes to adopt Complex Reserve Order functionality.
Trading of complex orders is subject to all other Rules applicable to trading of orders, unless otherwise provided in this Rule 6.13.
(a) No change.
(b)
(1)–(3) No change.
(
(c) No change.
(d)
(1)
(2)–(3) No change.
(4)
(A) No change.
(B)
(C)–(D) No change.
(5)
(A) At the end of the Response Time Interval, the System executes a COA-eligible order (in whole or in part) against contra side interest in price priority. If there is contra side interest at the same price, the System allocates the contra side interest as follows:
(i) Orders and quotes in the Simple Book
(ii) No change.
(B) No change.
(e)
(1) Orders and quotes in the Simple Book
(2) No change.
The System enters any do-not-COA order (or unexecuted portion) that does not execute against the individual leg markets or complex orders into the COB (if eligible for entry), and applies a timestamp based on the time it enters the COB. The System cancels or rejects any complex order (or unexecuted portion) that would execute at a price outside of the SBBO, that is not eligible for entry into the COB, or in accordance with the User's instructions. Complex orders resting on the COB may execute pursuant to this paragraph (e) following evaluation pursuant to paragraph (i) and remain on the COB until they execute or are cancelled or rejected.
(f) No change.
(g)
(1)–(3) No change.
(4) Reserved
(5) The entire quantity of a Complex Reserve Order (both the Display Quantity and Reserve Quantity) Legs into the Simple Book at the same time, and any quantity that does not execute pursuant to paragraph (d) or (e) after Legging will rest in the COB in accordance with the Complex Reserve Order instruction.
(h)
(1)
(A)–(B) No change.
(2)
(3) (Reserved)
(4)
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc. (formerly named CBOE Holdings, Inc.) (“Cboe Global”), which is also the parent company of Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe Options”), acquired Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”), Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX or BZX Options”), and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX” and, together with C2, Cboe Options, EDGX, EDGA, and BZX, the “Cboe Affiliated Exchanges”). The Cboe Affiliated Exchanges are working to align certain system functionality, retaining only intended differences between the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, in the context of the technology migration of Cboe Options to the same trading platform as the Exchange. Thus, the proposed rule change is intended to add certain functionality to the Exchange's System that is currently offered by Cboe Options in order to ultimately provide a consistent technology offering for market participants who interact with the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. Although the Exchange intentionally offers certain features that differ from those offered by its affiliates and will continue to do so, the Exchange believes that offering similar functionality to the extent practicable will reduce potential confusion for Users.
Currently, the Exchange offers Reserve Order functionality for simple orders.
The Exchange proposes to adopt Complex Reserve Order functionality.
A User may determine that a Complex Reserve Order it submits should be subject to “Random Replenishment” or “Fixed Replenishment.” If a Complex Reserve Order has a Random Replenishment instruction, the System randomly replenishes the Display Quantity for the Complex Reserve Order with a number of contracts not outside a replenishment range, which equals the Max Floor plus and minus a replenishment value established by the User when entering a Complex Reserve Order with a Random Replenishment instruction. For any Complex Reserve Order for which a User does not select Random Replenishment, the System will replenish the Display Quantity of the Complex Reserve Order with the number of contracts equal to the Max Floor (or the entire remainder of the Complex Reserve Order if it is less than the replenishment amount).
Current Rule 6.13(d)(1) provides that upon receipt of a COA-eligible order,
Proposed Rule 6.13(g)(5) states the entire quantity of a Complex Reserve Order (both the Display Quantity and Reserve Quantity) will Leg into the Simple Book at the same time, and any quantity that does not execute pursuant to Rule 6.13(d) or (e) after Legging will rest in the COB in accordance with the proposed Complex Reserve Order instruction.
The proposed rule change also amends Rule 6.13(d)(4)(B) to clarify that COA Responses may be larger than the COA-eligible order (in response to which the COA Response is submitted), and that when the System caps the size of aggregated COA Responses at the size of the COA-eligible order, the size of the COA-eligible order includes the Display Quantity and Reserve Quantity if the COA-eligible order is a Complex Reserve Order. Neither the System nor the Rules limit the initial size of COA Responses to the size of the COA-eligible order, and the Exchange believes this proposed change will provide Users with additional clarity. Because COA Responses are not limited to the size of COA-eligible orders, if a Complex Reserve Order initiates a COA, COA Responses with size larger than the
Processing and execution of Complex Reserve Orders will generally occur in the same manner as other complex orders in accordance with current Rule 6.13(c) through (e), subject to the current handling provisions in Rule 6.13(h).
If a complex order Legs into the Simple Book, the execution priority of contra-side interest will be as follows:
The Exchange believes this is reasonable, as it ensures protection of the leg markets while ensuring system stability. This priority order results in nondisplayed orders on the Simple Book ahead of displayed complex orders on the COB. While the Exchange generally prioritizes displayed orders over nondisplayed orders to encourage Users to submit displayed liquidity, executing complex orders first against displayed simple orders, second against displayed complex orders and COA responses, third against nondisplayed portions of simple orders, and fourth against nondisplayed portions of Complex Reserve Orders would significantly increase the complexity of the proposed functionality. The Simple Book and COB are entirely separate functioning books, and moving a complex order back and forth between the two books increases systematic risk related to Legging. Additionally, this would increase the execution time for complex orders that are able to Leg, which may harm Users. The Exchange believes the need to ensure system stability and efficient executions in connection with offering the proposed functionality to Users outweighs any potential benefits of prioritizing all displayed interest ahead of nondisplayed interest in this context.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open national market system, as well as benefit investors, by providing Users with additional flexibility to manage and display their complex orders and additional control over their executions on the Exchange. This may encourage market participants to bring additional liquidity to the market, which benefits all investors.
The Exchange notes that Reserve Order functionality is not new or unique and is already available in a similar capacity for simple orders. While the Reserve Order functionality is not currently available for complex orders, the Exchange has Reserve Order functionality for simple orders, which functions substantially in the same manner as the proposed Complex Reserve Order functionality. The purpose of a Complex Reserve Order is the same as the purpose of a simple Reserve Order.
The proposed rule change to only include the Displayed Quantity of a Complex Reserve Order in a COA message protects investors, as it is consistent with the purpose of a Complex Reserve Order and the intention of a User that submits a Complex Reserve Order, which is to only have a certain specified size publicly displayed. This provides Complex Reserve Orders with the potential for price improvement in a manner consistent with the objective of a Reserve Order. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to only include the Display Quantity of a Complex Reserve Order in a COA message.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change regarding how Complex Reserve Orders Leg into the Simple Book will benefit investors. The proposed rule change is consistent with the definition of a Reserve Order, which states that the entire quantity is eligible for potential execution against incoming orders, and thus provides the entire quantity of a Reserve Order with an opportunity to execute against orders and quotes in the Simple Book. Additionally, this will maximize the size of resting orders and quotes on the Simple Book that may execute when Complex Reserve Orders Leg into the Simple Book. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change may
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change related to the priority of Complex Reserve Orders promotes just and equitable principles of trade, as it is consistent with current priority in the Simple Book that provides displayed orders have priority over nondisplayed orders. The proposed rule change that displayed portions of complex orders resting on the COB have priority over nondisplayed portions of Complex Reserve Orders resting on the COB is reasonable, because it is consistent with the current handling of simple Reserve Orders, as discussed above. Additionally, the proposed rule change to clarify that displayed and nondisplayed orders and quotes resting on the Simple Book have priority over all displayed and nondisplayed orders resting on the COB when a complex order Legs into the Simple Book is consistent with current functionality and current Rules describing how complex orders Leg into the Simple Book. This additional clarity regarding the order in which resting orders and quotes on the Simple Book will trade when a complex order Legs into the Simple Book benefits investors, as it provides more detail regarding the priority of executions on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes the proposed priority ensures system stability and efficient executions outweighs [sic]. The Exchange notes it is not novel for nondisplayed interest to trade ahead of displayed interest.
The proposed rule change is generally intended to add certain system functionality to the Exchange's System in order to provide a consistent technology offering for the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, as Cboe Options currently offers (and intends to offer following its migration to the same technology platform as the Exchange) complex reserve order functionality. A consistent technology offering, in turn, will simplify the technology implementation, changes, and maintenance by Users of the Exchange that are also participants on Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. The proposed rule change will provide Users with additional flexibility to manage and display their orders and control their executions on the Exchange. This may encourage market participants to bring additional liquidity to the market, which benefits all investors. Additionally, this will provide Users with greater harmonization between the order handling instructions available among the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will not burden intramarket competition because the Reserve Order instruction on complex orders will be available to all market participants. Additionally, use of the Reserve Order instruction on complex orders is voluntary. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intermarket competition because this relates to an instruction on orders that are submitted to the Exchange and how the Exchange's System will handle and execute them. Additionally, nothing prevents other options exchanges that offer complex orders from adopting a Reserve Order functionality for complex orders. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change will promote competition, as Complex Reserve Orders will provide Users with additional flexibility to manage and display their complex orders and additional control over their executions on the Exchange. This may encourage market participants to bring additional liquidity to the market, which benefits all investors.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17Ad–15 (17 CFR 240.17Ad–15) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
There are approximately 373 registered transfer agents. The staff estimates that each transfer agent will spend about 40 hours annually to comply with Rule 17Ad–15, or a total of 14,920 hours for all transfer agents (373 × 40 hours = 14,920 hours). The Commission staff estimates that compliance staff work at each registered transfer agent will result in an internal cost of compliance (at an estimated hourly wage of $283) of $11,320 per year per transfer agent (40 hours × $283 per hour = $ 11,320 per year). Therefore, the aggregate annual internal cost of compliance for the approximately 373 registered transfer agents is approximately $4,222,360 ($11,320 × 373 = $4,222,360).
This rule does not involve the collection of confidential information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX Options”) proposes to amend its Rules regarding how the System handles Market Orders in series with no bid or no offer.
The System's acceptance and execution of orders and quotes are subject to the price protection mechanisms and risk controls in Rule 21.16, this Rule 21.17 and as otherwise set forth in the Rules. All numeric values established by the Exchange pursuant to this Rule will be maintained by the Exchange in publicly available specifications and/or published in a Regulatory Circular. Unless otherwise specified the price protections set forth in this Rule, including the numeric values established by the Exchange, may not be disabled or adjusted. The Exchange may share any of a User's risk settings with the Clearing Member that clears transactions on behalf of the User.
(a)–(d) No change.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc. (formerly named CBOE Holdings, Inc.) (“Cboe Global”), which is the parent company of Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe Options”) and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc., acquired the Exchange, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX or EDGX Options”), and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX” and, together with C2, Cboe Options, EDGX, EDGA, and BZX, the “Cboe Affiliated Exchanges”). The Cboe Affiliated Exchanges are working to align certain system functionality, retaining only intended differences between the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, in the context of a technology migration. Thus, the proposals set forth below are intended to add certain functionality to the Exchange's System that is more similar to functionality offered by Cboe Options in order to ultimately provide a consistent technology offering for market participants who interact with the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. Although the Exchange intentionally offers certain features that differ from those offered by its affiliates and will continue to do so, the Exchange believes that offering similar functionality to the extent practicable will reduce potential confusion for Users.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Rules regarding how the System handles a market order when there is no bid or offer, as applicable, against which the order may execute. A market order is an order to buy or sell at the best price available at the time of execution.
The Exchange also proposes to amend how the System handles sell Market Orders submitted in a series with no bid. Currently, if the System receives a Market Order to sell in a no-bid series, the System cancels or rejects the order. Pursuant to the proposed rule change, if the System receives a Market Order to sell in an option series with an NBB of zero:
(1) If the NBO in the series is less than or equal to $0.50, then the System converts the Market Order to a limit order with a limit price equal to the minimum trading increment applicable to the series and enters the order into the BZX Options Book with a timestamp based on the time it enters the Book. If the order has a Time-in-Force of GTC or GTD that expires on a subsequent day, the order remains on the Book as a Limit Order until it executes, expires, or the User cancels it.
(2) if the NBO in the series is greater than $0.50, then the System cancels the Market Order.
The proposed handling of sell Market Orders in no-bid series when the NBO in the series is greater than $0.50 is consistent with current functionality.
The proposed rule change serves as a protection feature for investors in certain situations, such as when a series is no-bid because the last bid traded just prior to entry of the sell Market Order. The purpose of this threshold is to limit the automatic booking of Market Orders to sell at minimum increments to only those for true zero-bid options, as options in no-bid series with an offer of greater than $0.50 are less likely to be worthless.
For example, if the System receives a sell Market Order in a no-bid series with a minimum increment of $0.01 and the NBO is $0.01, the System will convert the order to a Limit Order with a price of $0.01 and enter it on the BZX Options Book. Because the order will have a timestamp based on that time of Book entry, it will have priority behind any other Limit Orders to sell at $0.01 that were already resting on the Book. At that point, even if the series is no-bid because, for example, the last bid just traded and the limit order trades at $0.01, the next bid entered after the trade would not be higher than $0.01. If the order has a Time-in-Force of GTC or GTD that expires on a subsequent day, the order remains on the Book until it executes, expires, or the User cancels.
However, if the System receives a sell Market Order in a no-bid series with a minimum increment of $0.01 and the NBO is $1.20 (because, for example, the last bid of $1.00 just traded and a new bid has not yet populated the disseminated quote), the System will cancel or reject the order. Cancellation prevents an anomalous execution price, since the next bid entered in that series is likely to be much higher than $0.01. It would be unfair to the User to let is Market Order trade as a limit order for $0.01 because, for example, the firm submitted the order during the brief time when there were no disseminated bids in a series trading significantly higher than the minimum increment.
The Exchange believes the threshold of $0.50 is reasonable. The Exchange notes that this threshold the same as the threshold in the Cboe Options rule,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change regarding the handling of sell Market Orders in no-bid series assists with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and protects investors and the public interest, because it provides for automated handling of orders in series that are likely truly no-bid, ultimately resulting in more efficient executions of these orders. Additionally, the proposed rule change prevents executions of sell Market Orders in no-bid series with higher offers at potentially extreme prices in series that are not truly no-bid. The Exchange believes this threshold appropriately reflects the interests of investors, as options in no-bid series with offers higher than $0.50 are less likely to be worthless than no-bid series with offers no higher than $0.50, and cancelling the orders will prevent execution of these orders at unfavorable prices. The Exchange also believes the $0.50 threshold promotes fair and orderly markets, because sell Market Orders in no-bid series with offers of $0.50 or less are likely to be individuals seeking to close out a worthless position, for which the proposed automatic handling is appropriate. The proposed change is also substantially the same as Cboe Options Rule 6.13(b)(vi).
The proposed handling of buy Market Orders in no-offer series benefits investors, because it codifies current order handling and thus provides investors with more transparency in the Rules with respect to how the System will handle these orders. The proposed change is also substantially the same as C2 Rule 6.14(a)(1).
When Cboe Options migrates to the same technology as that of the Exchange and other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, Users of the Exchange and other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges will have access to similar functionality on all Cboe Affiliated Exchanges and similar language can be incorporated into the rules of all Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. As such, the proposed rule change would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on intramarket competition, because it will apply in the same manner to all buy or sell Market Orders submitted in no-offer or no-bid series, respectively. Additionally, the proposed rule change has no impact on sell Market Orders submitted in no-bid series with an offer of more than $0.50 or on buy Market Orders submitted in no-offer series, which orders will continue to be handled in the same manner as they are today (
The proposed rule change related to the handling of buy Market Orders is consistent with current Exchange functionality and will have no impact on how those orders will handled, and it is substantially the same as C2 Rule 6.14(a)(1). The proposed rule change related to the handling of sell Market Orders is substantially the same as Cboe Options Rule 6.13(b)(vi).
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to agreement [sic] to harmonize certain provisions with similar provisions in the governing documents of the Exchange's national securities exchange affiliates and parent companies, as well as make clarifying, technical and conforming changes. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Article II, Section 2.03(h)(ii) (Board) and Article VI (Indemnification and Exculpation) of the Eleventh Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the Exchange (“Operating Agreement”) to harmonize certain provisions with similar provisions in the governing documents of the Exchange's national securities exchange affiliates
The Exchange is owned by NYSE Group, Inc., which in turn is indirectly wholly owned by NYSE Holdings LLC (“NYSE Holdings”). NYSE Holdings is a wholly owned subsidiary of Intercontinental Holdings, Inc. (“ICE Holdings”), which is in turn wholly owned by the Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (“ICE”).
The Exchange operates as a separate self-regulatory organization and has rules, membership rosters and listings distinct from the rules, membership rosters and listings of the other NYSE Group Exchanges. At the same time, however, the Exchange believes it is important for each of the NYSE Group Exchanges to have a consistent approach to corporate governance in certain matters, to simplify complexity and create greater consistency among the NYSE Group Exchanges.
The proposed amendment to Article II, Section 2.03(h)(ii) is based on the Second Amended and Restated By-Laws of NYSE Chicago, Inc. (“NYSE Chicago Bylaws”).
The Exchange proposes to amend the Operating Agreement as follows.
Article II, Section 2.03(h)(ii) establishes the powers and responsibilities of the Regulatory Oversight Committee (“ROC”), and is substantially the same as the related provisions in the governing documents of the other NYSE Group Exchanges.
Current Section 6.02 includes provisions related to indemnification by the Exchange. As a wholly-owned subsidiary of ICE, the Exchange believes it appropriate to harmonize the Exchange's indemnification provisions with those of ICE and the Exchange's intermediate holding company, ICE Holdings.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete the text of Section 6.02 in its entirety and replace it with proposed text that is substantially similar to the CHX, ICE and ICE Holdings provisions, with the exception of changes to be consistent with the Operating Agreement's terminology
(a) The Company shall, to the fullest extent permitted by Law (as defined below), as such Law may be amended and supplemented from time to time, indemnify any director or officer made, or threatened to be made, a party to any action, suit or proceeding, whether criminal, civil, administrative or investigative, by reason of being a director or officer of the Company or a predecessor company or, at the Company's request, a director, officer, partner, member, employee or agent of another entity; provided, however, that the Company shall indemnify any director or officer in connection with a proceeding initiated by such person only if such proceeding was authorized in advance by the Board of Directors of the Company. The indemnification provided for in this Section 6.02 shall: (i) Not be deemed exclusive of any other rights to which those indemnified may be entitled under any bylaw, agreement or vote of stockholders or disinterested directors or otherwise, both as to action in their official capacities and as to action in another capacity while holding such office; (ii) continue as to a person who has ceased to be a director or officer; and (iii) inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors and administrators of an indemnified person.
(b) Expenses incurred by any such person in defending a civil or criminal action, suit or proceeding by reason of the fact that he is or was a director or officer of the Company (or was serving at the Company's request as a director, officer, partner, member, employee or agent of another entity) shall be paid by the Company in advance of the final disposition of such action, suit or
(c) The foregoing provisions of this Section 6.02 shall be deemed to be a contract between the Company and each director or officer who serves in such capacity at any time while this bylaw is in effect, and any repeal or modification thereof shall not affect any rights or obligations then existing with respect to any state of facts then or theretofore existing or any action, suit or proceeding theretofore or thereafter brought based in whole or in part upon any such state of facts. The rights provided to any person by this bylaw shall be enforceable against the Company by such person, who shall be presumed to have relied upon it in serving or continuing to serve as a director or officer or in such other capacity as provided above.
(d) The Board of Directors in its discretion shall have power on behalf of the Company to indemnify any person, other than a director or officer, made or threatened to be made a party to any action, suit or proceeding, whether criminal, civil, administrative or investigative, by reason of the fact that such person, or his or her testator or intestate, is or was an officer, employee or agent of the Company or, at the Company's request, is or was serving as a director, officer, partner, member, employee or agent of another company or other entity.
(e) For purposes of this Section 6.02, “Law” shall mean the laws governing the indemnification of, and advancement of expenses to, directors, officers, employees and agents of New York corporations, including Section 722 of the New York Business Corporation Law (“Section 722”), with such laws being applicable to the Exchange as if the Exchange were a New York corporation. To assure indemnification under this Section 6.02 of all directors, officers, employees and agents who are determined by the Company or otherwise to be or to have been “fiduciaries” of any employee benefit plan of the Company that may exist from time to time, Section 722 shall, for the purposes of this Section 6.02, be interpreted as follows: An “other enterprise” shall be deemed to include such an employee benefit plan, including without limitation, any plan of the Company that is governed by the Act of Congress entitled “Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,” as amended from time to time; the Company shall be deemed to have requested a person to serve an employee benefit plan where the performance by such person of his duties to the Company also imposes duties on, or otherwise involves services by, such person to the plan or participants or beneficiaries of the plan; excise taxes assessed on a person with respect to an employee benefit plan pursuant to such Act of Congress shall be deemed “fines.”
Current Section 6.03 states that the rights to indemnification and the payment of expenses conferred are not exclusive of any other right a person has. Because the non-exclusivity of rights would now be addressed in the final sentence of proposed Section 6.02(a), the Exchange proposes to delete Section 6.03 in its entirety. The deletion would be consistent with the indemnity provisions of the ICE, ICE Holdings and NYSE Chicago Bylaws, which do not have separate provisions regarding the non-exclusivity of rights.
The remaining sections of Article VI would be renumbered accordingly.
The Exchange proposes to make technical and conforming changes to the title, recitals and signature page of the Operating Agreement.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the Operating Agreement would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange and would enable the Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and comply with the provisions of the Exchange Act by its members and persons associated with members. The proposed changes would create greater conformity between the ROC and indemnification provisions of the Operating Agreement and those of the governing documents of CHX, ICE and ICE Holdings. The Exchange believes that such conformity would streamline the NYSE Group Exchanges' corporate processes, create more equivalent governance processes among them, and also provide clarity to the Exchange's members, which is beneficial to both investors and the public interest. At the same time, the Exchange will continue to operate as a separate self-regulatory organization and to have rules, membership rosters and listings distinct from the rules, membership rosters and listings of the other NYSE Group Exchanges.
For the same reason, the Exchange believes that the greater consistency among the governing documents of the NYSE Group Exchanges, ICE and ICE Holdings would promote the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, the protection of investors and the protection of the public interest. Indeed, the proposed amendments would make the corporate requirements and administrative processes relating to the Board and ROC more similar to those of CHX, which have been established as fair and designed to protect investors and the public interest.
The proposed amendments to effect non-substantive technical and conforming changes would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by ensuring that persons subject to the Exchange's jurisdiction, regulators, and the investing public can more easily navigate and understand the governing documents. The Exchange further believes that the proposed amendments would not be inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from increased transparency and clarity, thereby reducing potential confusion.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with the corporate governance and administration of the Exchange.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On September 19, 2018, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the “MSRB” or “Board”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission received one comment letter on the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change would adopt MSRB Rule G–3(e)(ii)(A) to establish additional qualification requirements for municipal advisor principals. Specifically, the proposed rule change would require those who meet the definition of a municipal advisor principal, as defined under MSRB Rule G–3(e)(i), (
Proposed MSRB Rule G–3(e)(ii)(B) would require any person qualified as a municipal advisor principal who ceases to be associated with a municipal advisor for two or more years at any time after having qualified as a municipal advisor principal to requalify by examination by passing both the Series 50 examination and Series 54 examination prior to becoming qualified as a municipal advisor principal, unless a waiver is granted pursuant to MSRB Rule G–3(h)(ii), on waiver of qualification requirements.
The MSRB proposed a technical amendment to Rule G–3(e)(i), on definitions, to establish as a separate rule provision, and to clarify, that qualification as a municipal advisor representative is a prerequisite to obtaining qualification as a municipal advisor principal.
The MSRB stated that it believes that professional qualification examinations, such as the Series 50 examination and Series 54 examination, are established means for determining the competency of individuals in a particular qualification classification.
In the Notice of Filing, MSRB stated that it will announce the effective date of the permanent Series 54 examination at a later date in an MSRB Notice published on
The MSRB requested in the Notice of Filing that the proposed rule change become effective 30 days from the date of SEC approval.
As noted previously, the Commission received one comment letter on the proposed rule change, as well as the MSRB Response Letter. The commenter, Derivative Advisors (“Derivative Advisors”), stated that it is an interest rate swap broker who is a registered municipal advisor. The commenter believes that a firm that is principally an interest rate swap broker that is also registered as a municipal advisor should not have to take a qualification examination that is not specifically targeted to their business model.
The MSRB responded by stating that the MSRB is charged with setting professional qualification standards for municipal advisors under Section 15B(b)(2)(A)
In further response to the Derivative Advisors Letter, the MSRB stated that it believes that a municipal advisor principal should demonstrate knowledge of the rules and regulations governing municipal advisors.
Furthermore, the MSRB stated that it does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition not necessary or
The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change, the comment letter received, and the MSRB Response Letter. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB.
In particular, the proposed rule change is consistent with Sections 15B(b)(2)(A), 15B(b)(2)(C), and 15B(b)(2)(L) of the Act.
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Additionally, Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iii) of the Act provides that the MSRB's rules shall provide professional standards with respect to municipal advisors.
Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act requires that MSRB rules not impose a regulatory burden on small municipal advisors that is not necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors, municipal entities, and obligated persons, provided that there is robust protection of investors against fraud.
In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
As noted above, the Commission received one comment letter on the proposed rule change. The Commission believes that the MSRB considered carefully and responded adequately to the comments and concerns regarding the proposed rule change. For the reasons noted above, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.
November 21, 2018.
On August 17, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade Shares of the Fund under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600–E,
According to the Exchange, the investment objective of the Fund is to
• Debt securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government, its agencies or government-sponsored entities (“GSE” or “U.S. Government Entities”), other than “Agency Mortgage-Related Investments” as defined below;
• mortgage-related debt securities and other mortgage-related instruments issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government and U.S. Government Entities (collectively, “Agency Mortgage-Related Investments”); and
• debentures related to securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government and U.S. Government Entities.
The Fund may invest in the following derivative instruments: Options, futures contracts, and swap agreements. According to the Exchange, the use of these derivative transactions may allow the Fund to obtain net long or short exposures to selected interest rates or durations. The Fund may also utilize derivatives to enhance return, to hedge some of the risks of its investments in securities, as a substitute for a position in the underlying asset, to reduce transaction costs, to maintain full market exposure (which means to adjust the characteristics of its investments to more closely approximate those of the markets in which it invests), to manage cash flows, or to preserve capital.
The Fund may invest in exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) that invest in Fixed Income Securities.
The Fund may enter into mortgage dollar rolls and may invest in to-be-announced transactions (“TBA”). Cash earmarked or otherwise held as collateral for settling mortgage dollar rolls, TBA transactions, and other delayed-delivery transactions will count towards the Fund's 80% investment requirement described above. The Fund may enter into short sales of any securities in which the Fund may invest.
While, under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest at least 80% of the Fund's net assets in the securities and financial instruments described above under “Principal Investments of the Fund,” the Fund may invest up to 20% of its net assets in the securities and financial instruments described below.
The Fund may invest in cash and cash equivalents.
The Fund may invest up to 20% of its net assets in other fixed income securities, including asset-backed securities (“ABS”) and mortgage-related debt securities and other mortgage-related instruments not issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or U.S. Government Entities (“Non-Agency Mortgage-Related Investments”).
The Fund may invest in non-exchange-traded investment company securities (
The Exchange represents that the Fund will not invest in securities or other financial instruments that have not been described in the proposed rule change.
In addition, the Exchange represents that the Fund's investments, including derivatives, will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage (although certain derivatives and other investments may result in leverage). That is, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
Investments in derivative instruments will be made in accordance with the Fund's investment objective and policies. To limit the potential risk associated with such transactions, the Fund will enter into offsetting transactions or segregate or “earmark” assets determined to be liquid by the Adviser in accordance with procedures established by the Trust's Board of Trustees (the “Board”). In addition, the Fund will include appropriate risk disclosure in its offering documents, including leveraging risk. Leveraging risk is the risk that certain transactions of the Fund, including the Fund's use of derivatives, may give rise to leverage, causing the Fund to be more volatile than if it had not been leveraged.
The Adviser believes there will be minimal, if any, impact to the arbitrage mechanism as a result of the Fund's use of derivatives. The Adviser understands that market makers and participants should be able to value derivatives as long as the positions are disclosed with relevant information. The Adviser believes that the price at which Shares of the Fund trade will continue to be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities created by the ability to purchase or redeem Shares of the Fund at their net asset value (“NAV”), which should ensure that Shares of the Fund will not trade at a material discount or premium in relation to their NAV. The Adviser does not believe there will be any significant impacts to the settlement or operational aspects of the Fund's arbitrage mechanism due to the use of derivatives.
The Exchange represents that the portfolio for the Fund will not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600–E applicable to the listing of Managed Fund Shares. The Exchange states that the Fund's portfolio will meet all such requirements except for those set forth in Commentary .01(a)(1),
The Exchanges represents that the Fund will not comply with the requirement in Commentary .01(b)(1) to Rule 8.600–E that components that in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio each shall have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more.
As an alternative limitation, the Exchange proposes that, except for periods of high cash inflows or outflows,
The Exchange also represents that the Fund will not comply with the requirement in Commentary .01(b)(5) that investments in non-agency, non-GSE and privately issued mortgage-related and other asset-backed securities (
The Exchange states that the Fund would not meet the requirements of Commentary .01(a)(1)(A) through (E) to Rule 8.600–E
The Exchange notes that, other than Commentary .01(a)(1), (b)(1), and (b)(5) to Rule 8.600–E, as described above, the Fund's portfolio will meet all other requirements of Rule 8.600–E.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b–4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by December 18, 2018. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by January 2, 2019. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in the Notice,
In this regard, the Commission seeks comment on the Exchange's statements that the Fund will not comply with the requirement in Commentary .01(b)(1) to Rule 8.600–E that components that in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio each shall have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more.
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)
The Exchange proposes to add to the rules of the Exchange the Twelfth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE LLC”). The proposed change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to add to the rules of the Exchange the Twelfth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the NYSE LLC (the “Twelfth NYSE Operating Agreement”).
NYSE LLC has a wholly-owned subsidiary, NYSE Market (DE), Inc. (“NYSE Market (DE), Inc.”), which owns a majority interest in NYSE Amex Options LLC (“NYSE Amex Options”), a facility of the Exchange. The Exchange and NYSE Market (DE) are the only members of NYSE Amex Options.
On November 14, 2018, the NYSE LLC amended the Eleventh NYSE Operating Agreement to harmonize certain provisions with similar provisions in the governing documents of the Exchange's national securities exchange affiliates, and parent companies, as well as make clarifying, technical and conforming changes.
Consistent with that change, the Exchange is filing to remove the obsolete Eleventh NYSE Operating Agreement as a “rule of the exchange” under Section 3(a)(27) of the Act, and replace it with the Twelfth NYSE Operating Agreement as a “rule of the exchange” under Section 3(a)(27) of the Act.
The proposed rule change is a non-substantive administrative change that does not impact the governance or ownership of the Exchange, its facility NYSE Amex Options, or NYSE Amex Options' direct and indirect parent entities.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange and would enable the Exchange to continue to be so organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and comply and enforce compliance with the provisions of the Exchange Act by its members and persons associated with its members because, by removing the obsolete Eleventh NYSE Operating Agreement and making the Twelfth NYSE Operating Agreement a rule of the Exchange, the Exchange would be ensuring that its rules remain consistent with the NYSE LLC operating agreement in effect.
The Exchange notes that, as with the Eleventh NYSE Operating Agreement, it would be required to file any changes to the Twelfth NYSE Operating Agreement with the Commission as a proposed rule change.
For similar reasons, the Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather is concerned solely with ensuring that the Commission will have the ability to enforce the Exchange Act with respect to NYSE Amex Options and its direct and indirect parent entities.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The proposed 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.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day Notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which requires agencies to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before December 27, 2018.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205–7030
SBA Form 1050, Settlement Sheet is used in SBA's 7(a) Loan Program to collect information from lenders and borrowers regarding the disbursement of loan proceeds. SBA relies on this information during the guaranty purchase review process as a component in determining whether to honor a loan guaranty. The currently approved form primarily requires the lender and borrower to certify to whether they complied with a series of loan requirements. The current form also requires submission of documentation (
The form will be divided into several sections to clearly identify the information to be submitted. The revised form will continue to collect the same basic identifying information such as loan amount, loan number and lender's name. In addition, the form will continue to require certifications from both the lender and borrower regarding compliance with the disbursement requirements and accuracy of information submitted. However, generally the enumerated statements will be reduced or combined and replaced with requests for specific information. The revised form will include a listing of all of the uses of loan proceeds. For each applicable use, information regarding the names of the payees, the amount disbursed, and the authorized amount remaining will be collected. The revised form will also include a section to document the borrower's equity injection of cash, assets, and any seller contribution (on full standby for the life of the loan).
These changes will allow the lender to more clearly document all of the sources and uses of funds at the time of loan closing. This additional information will better allow both lenders and SBA staff to ensure that the necessary information is collected at the time of loan origination.
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object to be included in the exhibition “Manet and Modern Beauty,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at The Art Institute of Chicago, in Chicago, Illinois, from on or about May 26, 2019, until on or about September 8, 2019, and at The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, California, from on or about October 8, 2019, until on or about January 12, 2020, 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,
Consistent with the authority contained in section 604 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (Pub. L. 107–228) (the “Act”) pursuant to delegated authority, and with reference to the determinations set out in the Report to Congress transmitted pursuant to section 603 of the Act, regarding the extent of noncompliance by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) or the Palestinian Authority with certain commitments, I hereby impose the sanction set out in section 604(a)(1), “Denial of Visas to PLO and Palestinian Authority Officials.” This sanction is imposed for a period of 180 days from the date that the report under section 603 of the Act is transmitted to Congress or until such time as the next report under section 603 is required to be transmitted to Congress, whichever is later.
Furthermore, I hereby determine that it is in the national security interest of the United States to waive this sanction, pursuant to section 604(c) of the Act. This waiver shall be effective for a period of 180 days from the date hereof or until such time as the next report under section 603 of the Act is required to be transmitted to Congress, whichever is later.
This Determination shall be reported to Congress promptly and published in the
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Hajji `Abd al-Nasir, also known as Hajji Abdelnasser, also known as Hajji
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces the third meeting of the Motorcyclist Advisory Council (MAC) to the FHWA. The purpose of this meeting is to advise the Secretary of Transportation, through the Administrator of the FHWA, on infrastructure issues of concern to motorcyclists, including barrier design, road design, construction, and maintenance practices, and the architecture and implementation of intelligent transportation system technologies, pursuant to Section 1426 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.
The MAC will meet on December 12, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST.
The meeting will be held at National Highway Institute, 1310 North Courthouse Road, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22201.
Mr. Michael Griffith, the Designated Federal Official, Office of Safety, 202–366–2829, (
An electronic copy of this notice may be downloaded from the
Section 1426 of Pub. L. 114–94.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans that are final. The actions relate to a proposed highway project (Interstate 405 [I–405]) from Interstate 5 (I–5) to State Route 55 [SR–55]) in the Cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa, in the County of Orange, State of California. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before April 26, 2019. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period applies.
For Caltrans: Smita Deshpande, Branch
Effective July 1, 2007, FHWA assigned, and Caltrans assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that Caltrans has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of California: Caltrans proposes to add a single general-purpose lane in the northbound and southbound direction of the highway, approximately 8.5 miles. The purpose of the project is to add mainline capacity, reduce corridor congestion, improve mobility, improve ramp capacity and operations, and improve freeway operations including weaving, merging, and diverging. The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Environmental Assessment (EA) with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), approved on August 17, 2018. The EA with FONSI, and other documents are available by contacting Caltrans at the address provided above. The Caltrans EA with FONSI can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at
1. Council on Environmental Quality regulations;
2. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
3. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21);
4. Department of Transportation Act of 1966;
5. Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970;
6. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990;
7. Noise Control Act of 1970;
8. 23 CFR part 772 FHWA Noise Standards, Policies and Procedures;
9. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f);
10. Clean Water Act of 1977 and 1987;
11. Endangered Species Act of 1973;
12. Migratory Bird Treaty Act;
13. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended;
14. Historic Sites Act of 1935;
15. Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species; and
16. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT)
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans, that are final. The actions relate to a proposed highway project, widening of State Route 70 in the County of Butte, State of California. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
For Caltrans: Kelly McNally, Branch Chief, Caltrans Office of Environmental Management, M–2, California Department of Transportation—District 3, 703 B Street, Marysville, CA 95901. Office Hours: 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time, telephone (530) 741–4134 or email
Effective July 1, 2007, FHWA assigned, and Caltrans assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that the Caltrans has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
Caltrans proposes to widen a 6.1-mile portion of State Route 70 (SR70) from Cox Lane to Ophir Lane in Butte County. The State Route 70 Corridor Improvements Project would provide continuous passing opportunities thereby increasing safety and decreasing travel times between the cities of Marysville and Oroville. The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Environmental Assessment (FEA)/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project, issued October 10, 2018, and in other documents in Caltrans' project records. The FEA, FONSI and other project records are available by contacting Caltrans at the addresses provided above. The Caltrans FEA, FONSI and other project records can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from eight individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA–2018–0057 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366–4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA–2018–0057), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The eight individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
The advisory criteria states the following:
If an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the Medical Examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested that a six-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver may be qualified.
In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical condition (
Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a five-year period or more.
As a result of Medical Examiners misinterpreting advisory criteria as regulation, numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a CMV in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified Medical Examiner based on the physical qualification standards and medical best practices.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final Disposition titled, Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that interstate CMV drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” Since the January 15, 2013 notice, the Agency has published additional notices granting requests from individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP) (78 FR 3069).
Mr. Addington is a 45-year-old class C driver in Pennsylvania. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 1991. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2007. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Addington receiving an exemption.
Mr. Djukanovic is a 59-year-old class C driver in Oregon. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2018. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since November 2016. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Djukanovic receiving an exemption.
Mr. Gast is a 49-year-old class CM CDL holder in Kansas. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since January 2008. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since September 2016. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Gast receiving an exemption.
Mr. Johnston is a 49-year-old class B CDL holder in Minnesota. He has a history of a single provoked seizure and has been seizure free since 2017. He does not take anti-seizure medication. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Johnston receiving an exemption.
Mr. Martin is a 36-year-old class C driver in New York. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2007. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2013. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Martin receiving an exemption.
Mr. McDaniel is a 47-year-old class E driver in Missouri. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 1992. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 1992. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Mc Daniel receiving an exemption.
Mr. Wiggins is a 51-year-old class B CDL holder in Kentucky. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 1983. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 1983. His physician states that she is supportive of Mr. Wiggins receiving an exemption.
Mr. Woods is a 60-year-old class A CDL holder in Connecticut. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 2007. He stopped taking anti-seizure medication in 1975. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Woods receiving an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) requests public comment on an application for exemption from SmartDrive Systems, Inc. (SmartDrive) to allow an Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) camera to be mounted lower in the windshield than is currently permitted. Mounting the camera in this location does not meet the driver's field of view requirements for windshields. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) require devices meeting the definition of “vehicle safety technology” to be mounted not more than 4 inches below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, or not more than 7 inches above the lower edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. Because the ADAS camera would be mounted outside of the driver's normal sight lines to the road ahead, highway signs, signals or any mirrors, SmartDrive believes that they will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA–2018–0321 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Luke W. Loy, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC–PSV, (202) 366–0676,
FMCSA has authority to grant exemptions from some of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). Under 49 CFR part 381, FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305(a)).
The decision of the Agency must be published in the
SmartDrive has applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) to allow an ADAS camera to be mounted lower in the windshield than is currently permitted. A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
Section 393.60(e)(1)(i) of the FMCSRs prohibits the obstruction of the driver's field of view by devices mounted at the top of the windshield. Antennas and similar devices must not be mounted more than 152 mm (6 inches) below the upper edge of the windshield, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. Section 393.60(e)(1)(i) does not apply to vehicle safety technologies, as defined in 390.5, including “a fleet-related incident management system, performance or behavior management system, speed management system, lane departure warning system, forward collision warning or mitigation system, active cruise control system, and transponder.” Section 393.60(e)(1)(ii)
In its application, SmartDrive states:
SmartDrive is making this request so that it becomes possible to introduce Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) to our current vehicle safety platform. These new ADAS capabilities include forward collision warnings, short following distance warnings, lane detection and departure warnings, and active monitoring with real-time driver feedback.
This system operates like many other similar systems for which FMCSA has granted exemptions. ADAS requires that a camera be mounted to the upper center area of the windshield in an area where the windshield is swept by the windshield wipers to provide a clear view to the lane markings on the road and other objects in front of the vehicle.
This exemption will accommodate the ADAS camera and housing which is an integral part of our next-generation comprehensive vehicle safety system. The camera housing is approximately 3.71 inches wide (94MM) by 5.2 inches tall (132MM) and will be mounted in the approximate center of the windshield with the bottom edge of the camera housing approximately 8 inches below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers. The camera is mounted outside of the drivers and passenger's normal sight lines to the road ahead, signs, signals, and mirrors. This location will allow for the optimal functionality of the advanced safety systems supported by the camera.
SmartDrive has piloted the ADAS camera and functionality and found that all drivers and passengers agreed that there was no noticeable obstruction to the normal sight lines to the road ahead, highway signs, signals or any mirrors.
The exemption would apply to all CMV operators utilizing SmartDrive ADAS camera systems. SmartDrive's believes that the installation of the ADAS systems camera within 8 inches below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on SmartDrive application for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1). All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that it has received an application for exemption from the National Mobile Shower and Catering Association (NMSCA) from various provisions of the Federal hours-of-service (HOS) rules for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The NMSCA requests an exemption to allow their member companies operating under a “Resource Order” to: (1) Extend the 14-hour duty period to no more than 16 hours; (2) not include “waiting time” while not performing duties in the calculation of the 16-hour duty period; (3) not comply with the minimum 30-minute rest break provision; (4) extend the maximum 60 hours on duty in any 7-day period to 80 hours on duty in any 7-day period; (5) extend the 11 hours of driving time to 12 hours; and, (6) extend the “8 days in 30” exception in the electronic logging device (ELD) rule to “12 days in 30.” The requested exemption is made on behalf of those drivers employed by NMSCA member companies engaged in the transportation of equipment that provides food and water services to Federally-contracted forest firefighters and similar emergency workers who establish temporary base camps and have immediate need of food and water services near fire scenes. FMCSA requests public comment on the NMSCA application for exemption.
Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA–2018–0331 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 202–366–2722. Email:
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA–2018–0331), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
The National Mobile Shower and Catering Association (NMSCA) requests an exemption from certain hours-of-service (HOS) regulations for their member companies' drivers who are responding under a “Resource Order.” A Resource Order is a task order issued by a Federal Agency directing firefighters and supporting personnel to respond to forest fires and similar emergencies. They specifically request that while operating under the exemption their drivers and carriers: (1) May extend the 14-hour duty period to no more than 16 hours; (2) need not include “waiting time” while performing duties in the calculation of the 16-hour period; (3) need not comply with the minimum 30-minute rest break provision; (4) may extend the maximum 60 hours on duty in any 7 days to 80 hours on duty in any 7 days; (5) may extend the 11 hours of driving time to 12 hours; and, (6) may extend the “8 days in 30” provision for exemption from use of an electronic logging device to “12 days in 30.”
The NMSCA seeks the exemption for a group of approximately 30 member companies who are strategically positioned in the Western states. Wildfires occur frequently during certain months of the year, especially in Western states. To fight these fires, the National Forest Service and similar agencies call upon Federally-contracted private fire-fighting companies, who are exempt from the majority of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) [49 CFR 390.3T(f)(5)] when they respond. Upon arriving near the fire scene, the firefighters establish a base camp where they will remain for a period ranging from a few days to a month, and will quickly require food and drinking water. To meet that need, the responsible government agency will issue a Resource Order to the nearest mobile shower and catering company that is under contract.
Most of the government contract work for these services is seasonal. According to NMSCA, the specialized equipment utilized by their member companies travels comparatively few miles per year, generally not exceeding 5,000 miles, and almost exclusively in response to government contract orders. As there are a limited number of private contractors who have the capability and equipment to fulfill the government contract requirements, the territories covered by each contractor can be quite large. Wildfires and natural disasters are unpredictable and make it difficult to have assets prepositioned for an incident. When one contractor is called out to an incident, the nearest contractor must cover both their regional area and the one no longer covered by a contractor on an incident. At busy times of the year resources are stretched and travel distances are often increased, and therefore NMSCA contractors are often called on to travel hundreds of miles from their facilities at a moment's notice.
According to NMSCA, their member companies' equipment does not qualify for the 49 CFR 390.3T(f)(5) exception for emergency equipment, so, while firefighters respond as emergency equipment and set up their base camps, they have little food or water until NMSCA members' equipment arrives at a later time. The exemption is needed both to expedite response to the scene of an incident and to allow HOS flexibility for the crews while operating for days at the base camps. While there, the crew members often need to drive CMVs to obtain supplies and, in particular, to obtain tanker trucks of needed water. Although the crew members have substantial rest time and have sleeping quarters on-site, the current HOS regulations may at times hinder their mission support.
The NMSCA requests that the exemption be issued under the following terms and conditions: (1) It would be in effect for periods of time when NMSCA members are operating under a “Resource Order” or other comparable order issued by a Federal government agency; (2) drivers operating under the exemption must be employed by the NMSCA companies; and (3) drivers must provide proof that they are operating for one of the designated NMSCA member companies, and must produce a copy of the relevant “Resource Order”, upon request of a law enforcement officer. The NMSCA also indicated in their application, that when operating under the exemption, their drivers and carriers will comply with all other provisions of the FMCSRs—other than those for which they requested an exemption. Furthermore, the NMSCA member companies will mandate that drivers complete the appropriate modules of the North American Fatigue Management Program and will emphasize to all personnel that the CMVs may not be operated when the driver feels fatigued, regardless of the mission assignments, per 49 CFR 392.3.
By way of background, earlier in 2018, the NMSCA had requested a limited waiver from certain HOS regulations which was a nearly identical request to their recent application for exemption summarized in today's
A copy of the NMSCA application for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 30 individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on October 13, 2018. The exemptions expire on October 13, 2020.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366–4001,
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
On September 10, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 30 individuals requesting an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (83 FR 45745). The public comment period ended on October 10, 2018, and two comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5–1951.
49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. Vicky Johnson, of Minnesota Department of Safety, wrote there are no objections to Thomas D. Sneer receiving a hearing exemption. An anonymous commenter indicated that Donald Reamsnyder of Florida, is seeking the exemption for a B CDL with Passenger/School Bus endorsement. The Agency's Federal Hearing Exemption stipulates, that the driver granted a hearing exemption is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption for up to five years from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on current medical information and literature, and the 2008 Evidence Report, “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety.” The evidence report reached two conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety: (1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2) evidence from studies of the private driver's
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5; (2) each driver must report all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and (3) each driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable CDL testing requirements.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 30 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the hearing standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval and invites public comment. This new request titled “Truck and Bus Maintenance Requirements and Their Impact on Safety” will allow for a study that focuses on vehicle maintenance and aims to determine the impact of vehicle maintenance requirements on overall motor carrier safety. This information collection supports the DOT Strategic Goal of Safety.
Please send your comments by December 27, 2018. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.
All comments should reference Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA–2018–0189. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to
Quon Y. Kwan, Program Manager, Technology Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 6th Floor, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590–0001. Telephone: 202–385–2389; Email Address:
In 2014, the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) conducted a study to assess the effectiveness of SMS in identifying the highest risk motor carriers to be targeted for interventions. One finding from the study was that motor carriers targeted for intervention due to “vehicle maintenance” issues (
While these initial findings are important, they raise additional questions. One such question is prompted by the stipulation in 49 CFR 396.3(a), which states that every carrier must have a program to “systematically inspect, repair, and maintain, or cause to be systematically inspected, repaired, and maintained, all motor vehicles and intermodal equipment subject to its control.” Though this regulation provides some direction, there is no supporting definition of the word “systematic,” and because this term is subjective, it is likely to vary from one carrier to another. The lack of specificity regarding standard intervals for preventative maintenance makes it difficult for Federal and State personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of and compliance with a carrier's maintenance program. Furthermore, the lack of specificity may make it difficult for carriers to ascertain and therefore comply with the regulation's intent.
The current research effort, augmented by the proposed survey, is necessary to improve FMCSA's understanding of the safety impact of preventative vehicle maintenance and to clarify the requirements of section 396.3(a). The study objectives are as follows:
1. Develop an operational definition of “systematic maintenance.”
2. Evaluate whether current regulations and the intervention process could be modified to improve compliance with vehicle maintenance requirements. Examples of such requirements include: (i) Preventative maintenance intervals, (ii) preventative maintenance inspections with adequately trained/equipped mechanics, and (iii) adequacy of motor carriers' maintenance facilities. [However, the results of the survey will be used only to explore what areas of rulemaking and/or other areas, such as policy guidance and training, might be useful in the future; the results of the survey will not be used for rulemaking, per se.]
3. Gather information to assist in establishing minimum standards for inspection intervals, mechanic qualifications and training, and certification of maintenance facilities.
FMCSA is authorized to conduct this research under 49 U.S.C. 31108, Motor Carrier Research and Technology Program. Under section 31108(a)(3)(C), FMCSA may fund research, development, and technology projects that improve the safety and efficiency of commercial motor vehicle operations through technological innovation and improvement. This information collection supports the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) strategic goal of Safety.
Under contract to FMCSA, the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VT) will use online surveys to obtain the data required to address the study objectives. The information collection will be administered in two phases:
In the Phase II survey, carriers (of all sizes) in the RP Group will be asked to provide additional information about maintenance personnel and facilities (
Carriers in the IE Group will be asked to complete the section on intervention effects, which includes questions about
Survey responses will be summarized and reported using plots, tables, content analysis, and calculated summary statistics. Plots and tables will provide a visual comparison of multiple choice and checkbox survey responses for successful carriers (
The results of this information collection will be documented in a technical report to be delivered to and published by FMCSA. In addition, the results will be used to create a “recommended best practices” report that will outline minimum standards for inspection intervals, mechanic qualifications and training, and certification of maintenance facilities. Finally, VTTI is required under the contract with FMCSA to compile and analyze the collected information and develop a public-use data set.
This ICR is for a one-time data collection. If this data collection does not take place, the truck and bus industry will continue to operate with the uncertainty of what constitutes a “systematic maintenance” program, as currently worded in section 396.3(a). This term's ambiguous definition makes it difficult for Federal and State inspectors to evaluate the effectiveness of a carrier's maintenance program or its compliance with this provision. Furthermore, this uncertainty may make it difficult for carriers to ascertain and therefore comply with the regulation's intent.
On July 16, 2018, FMCSA published a 60-day
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association's (SC&RA) exemption from the 30-minute rest break rule of the Agency's hours-of-service (HOS) regulations for certain commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. SC&RA currently holds an exemption valid through November 1, 2018. The exemption renewal is for five years. All qualifying motor carriers and drivers operating mobile cranes with a rated lifting capacity of greater than 30 tons are exempt from the 30-minute break provision.
The renewed exemption is effective through November 1, 2023. Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System Number FMCSA–2016–0096 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
For information concerning this notice, contact Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 202–366–4225. Email:
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA–2016–0096), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
On December 27, 2011 (76 FR 81133), FMCSA published a final rule amending its HOS regulations for drivers of property-carrying CMVs. The rule requires most drivers to take a rest break during the workday. Generally, if 8 hours have passed since the end of the driver's last off-duty or sleeper-berth period of at least 30 minutes, the driver may not operate a CMV until he or she takes at least 30 minutes off duty (49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii)). FMCSA did not specify when drivers must take the 30-minute break.
The SC&RA's initial application for exemption from the provisions of the 30-minute break rule was submitted in 2014; a copy of that application is in the docket identified at the beginning of this notice. The 2014 application describes fully the nature of SC&RA's operations and CMV drivers. The exemption, limited to drivers of oversize/overweight (OW/OW) vehicles, was granted on June 18, 2015 (80 FR 34957) and extended to June 17, 2020 (see 81 FR 79556, November 14, 2016).
SC&RA subsequently requested an exemption from the 30-minute rest break and the 14-hour driving window for drivers of cranes with a lifting capacity of more than 30 tones. FMCSA granted an exemption from the 30-minute rule, but not from the 14-hour rule, on November 1, 2016 (81 FR 75727). SC&RA requested a renewal of that exemption.
The 2016 exemption excuses drivers operating mobile cranes with a rated lifting capacity of greater than 30 tons from the requirement to take a 30-minute break. SC&RA advises that there are approximately 85,000 trained and certified mobile crane operators in the United States, and, of these, approximately 65,000 operate cranes with a lifting capacity over 30 tons. While some of these cranes require an OS/OW permit, others do not. The 2016 exemption is therefore more inclusive than the 2015 exemption (now extended to 2020). SC&RA states that the HOS rules create complications because it is difficult to find suitable parking when crane drivers are required to go off duty. SC&RA cites data indicating that there is a shortage of parking places for CMVs in the United States and notes ongoing Federal and State efforts to address this problem. Parking for cranes is even more limited because of their size. SC&RA asserts that these two HOS rules often require crane drivers to stop operating a CMV to avoid violating their provisions. The result is that cranes are often parked on the shoulder of public roads. SC&RA states the width of some cranes means they cannot be parked entirely off the travel lanes, creating a safety hazard for their own drivers and others.
SC&RA describes the unpredictable nature of the typical workday of a crane operator. It lists a variety of variables that can complicate the scheduling of operations, including delays waiting for the item to be lifted to arrive at the work site or to be rigged for lifting. Unexpected inclement weather can also trigger delays. SC&RA asserts that the primary result is that the workday may be extended unexpectedly. Thus, timing a crane's movement from the worksite and onto public roads at the end of the day is highly problematic. It notes that State and local restrictions limit the hours of the day, and sometimes the days of the week, that cranes may move on public roads. In addition, the movement of cranes may require a pilot car, the display of signs and lights, and even a police escort. Cranes normally move much slower than the posted speed limit, and are highly susceptible to weather and traffic conditions.
SC&RA does not foresee any negative impact to safety from the requested exemption. It believes that continuing the exemption would have a favorable impact on overall safety by reducing the frequency of cranes being parked along public roads. It points out that its members generally drive a crane less than 2 hours a day and have low crash rates.
FMCSA has not received any reports of accidents attributable to the 30-minute exemption and has concluded that a renewal of the exemption, subject to the terms and conditions imposed, will achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or graer than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.
It should also be noted that this renewed exemption is broader in scope than the original 2015 exemption (now extended to 2020) because it covers, not just cranes required to have an OS/OW permit, but all cranes with a lifting capacity over 30 tons. As a result, the 2015 exemption may have been largely,
1. All motor carriers and drivers operating mobile cranes with a rated lifting capacity of greater than 30 tons are exempt from the 30-minute break requirement of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii). The lifting capacity of the crane must be displayed on a manufacturer's certification plate on the crane or in manufacturer's documentation carried on the vehicle.
2. Drivers must have a copy of this exemption document in their possession while operating under the terms of the exemption. The exemption document must be presented to law enforcement officials upon request.
3. Motor carriers operating under this exemption must have a “Satisfactory” safety rating with FMCSA, or be “Unrated.” Motor carriers with “Conditional” or “Unsatisfactory” FMCSA safety ratings are prohibited from using this exemption.
This exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii) is effective November 1, 2018 through November 1, 2023, 11:59 p.m. local time.
This exemption is limited to the provisions of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii). These motor carriers and drivers must comply with all other applicable provisions of the FMCSRs.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in intrastate commerce.
Any motor carrier utilizing this exemption must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of the motor carrier's CMV drivers operating under the terms of this exemption. The notification must include the following information:
a. Name of Exemption: “SC&RA cranes”,
b. Name of operating motor carrier and USDOT number,
c. Date of the accident,
d. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or closest to the accident scene,
e. Driver's name and license number and State of issuance,
f. Vehicle number and State license plate number,
g. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
h. Number of fatalities,
i. The police-reported cause of the accident,
j. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws or motor carrier safety regulations, and
k. The driver's total driving time and total on-duty time prior to the accident.
Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
FMCSA does not believe the drivers covered by this exemption will experience any deterioration of their safety record.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any or all of these motor carriers are not achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any information submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if the continuation of the exemption is inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) and 31136(e), FMCSA will immediately take steps to revoke the exemption of the company or companies and drivers in question.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Pursuant to Section 5404 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, 2015 (FAST Act), FMCSA proposes a 3-year period of information collection to determine: (1) Whether the safety outcomes (to include crashes, moving violations, inspection violations, and safety critical events as available) of drivers under the age of 21 with military experience in the operation of heavy vehicles (
Please send your comments by December 28, 2018. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.
All comments should reference Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA–2017–0196. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to
Nicole Michel, Research Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Pursuant to Section 5404 of the FAST Act, the proposed ICR will support research to determine whether the safety outcomes of covered drivers participating in interstate commerce are similar to the safety outcomes of older entry-level drivers, and how training and experience impact the safety of the 18- to 20-year-old driving population.
Section 5404 of the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114–94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1549, Dec. 4, 2015) (49 U.S.C. 31315 note) requires the establishment of a data collection program to collect and analyze data regarding crashes involving covered drivers participating in the pilot program, and drivers under the age of 21 operating CMVs in intrastate commerce. A “covered driver” is defined as a current or former member of the armed forces or reserve components between the ages of 18 and 21 (
Drivers of CMVs engaged in interstate commerce must be at least 21 years of age (49 CFR 391.11(b)(1)). This includes CMVs for which CDLs are required and certain other CMVs for which a CDL is not required.
In the May 9, 2011, final rule on “Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards,” (76 FR 26854), the Agency set a minimum age of 18 for an individual to obtain a CLP. A CDL holder under the age of 21 must have a “K” restriction on their CDL, which limits the driver to operating in
Details of the data collection plan for this pilot program are subject to change based on comments in the docket and further review by FMCSA.
The data collection plan calls for 50 motor carriers to be active in the pilot program at a time who will each identify and employ at least one covered group driver in addition to intrastate drivers and/or control group drivers. Carriers will report safety data to FMCSA. Note that while only 50 carriers are expected to participate at any given time, an estimated 70 carriers will participate throughout the 3-year study due to carrier turnover.
FMCSA anticipates an average of 600 drivers participating in the study per year (200 control group, 200 intrastate, and 200 covered drivers). An estimated 300 replacement drivers (100 control group, 100 intrastate, and 100 covered) will participate during each year of the 3-year program due to expected driver turnover.
The information collection can be summarized by the following:
• A motor carrier application (completed once at the time of application) for participation in the pilot program will provide the project team with the carrier's contact information and demographic data.
• Each participating driver will need to complete a driver background information form and sign an informed consent form, which the motor carrier will submit on the driver's behalf. This is a one-time task for each driver.
• On a monthly basis, carriers will submit data on driver activity (
• Carriers will be required to notify FMCSA within 24 hours of: Any injury or fatality crashes involving a participating driver, a participating driver receiving an alcohol-related citation (
This pilot limits the definition of CMVs to large trucks and does not include passenger-carrying vehicles, such as buses. The pilot also excludes trucks in special configurations or involved in the transport of hazardous materials.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) prohibits agencies from conducting information collection (IC) activities until they analyze the need for the collection of information and how the collected data will be managed. Agencies must also analyze whether technology could be used to reduce the burden imposed on those providing the data. The Agency must estimate the time burden required to respond to the IC requirements, such as the time required to complete a particular form. The Agency submits its IC analysis and burden estimate to OMB as a formal ICR; the Agency cannot conduct the information collection until OMB approves the ICR.
A
Of the comments received, 17 were in support for the pilot program with an additional 3 comments in support of the pilot program given certain criteria were met. There were 14 commenters who opposed the pilot program, and 3 additional comments were neutral in their stance toward the pilot program.
1. Consider the size and weight of the vehicle for which the military candidates are licensed to drive to avoid accepting candidates who were trained on or have experience with light military vehicles only. In other words, specify a type of vehicle requirement for military participants to be trained in and have experience on.
2. Consider having drivers pass an approved driver training program before participating in the pilot program.
3. Consider excluding drivers from the control sample for the same reason(s) military personnel would be disqualified from participating (
4. Clarify what is meant by “or be subject to any OOS order” regarding control driver requirements.
5. Specify that control drivers may not be former covered drivers who have aged out of the covered driver group.
6. Consider balancing the number of covered and control drivers from each carrier to minimize the effects of carrier differences in analysis.
7. Consider increasing the size of the study groups and not setting a maximum number on carriers who can participate.
8. Consider widening the age range of the control study group to increase small carrier participation.
9. Ensure data is evaluated by an independent third party before being analyzed by the working group.
10. Exercise caution when using CSA scores to determine motor carrier eligibility.
11. Consider collecting additional data, to include: Types of advanced vehicle safety technologies in use, types of vehicles being used by participating drivers, type of freight hauled, type of operating environment, as well as specific details about the type and duration of training the driver has
13. Consider a formal review process for motor carriers who temporarily fall out of compliance with the pilot program requirements and want to re-enter the program.
14. Allow for carriers to report driver infractions (
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of an application from Mr. Terry L. Curtner for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against operation of a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce by persons with either a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV, or a mental, nervous, organic, or functional disease or psychiatric disorder likely to interfere with his/her ability to drive a CMV safely. If granted, the exemption would enable Mr. Curtner who has been diagnosed with narcolepsy and is receiving medical treatment to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA–2018–0320 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public-Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366–4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA–2018–0320), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The individual listed in this notice has requested an exemption from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and (9). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of the applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor vehicle.
The physical qualification standard for drivers found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(9) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no mental, nervous, organic, or functional disease or psychiatric disorder likely to interfere with his/her ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
The advisory criteria states that if an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the Medical Examiner in consultation with the treating physician. The advisory criteria also states that a variety of functional disorders can cause drowsiness, dizziness, confusion, weakness or paralysis that may lead to incoordination, inattention, loss of functional control and susceptibility to accidents while driving.
In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical condition (
Mr. Curtner, is a commercial driver in Illinois. A letter dated August 10, 2018, from Mr. Curtner's neurologist reports that at his last July 31, 2018, follow-up evaluation, he was stable on a moderate daily dose of Nuvigil, and has not had any narcoleptic attacks or cataplexy in over 20 years.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 14 individuals for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA–2018–0208 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366–4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA–2018–0208), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 14 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal Meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard red, green, and amber.
In July 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to meet (Qualification of Drivers; Vision Waivers, 57 FR 31458, July 16, 1992). The current Vision Exemption Program was established in 1998, following the enactment of amendments to the statutes governing exemptions made by § 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21), Public Law 105–178, 112 Stat. 107, 401 (June 9, 1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the procedures established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case basis upon application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision standards of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past three years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used three consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first two years with their experiences in the final year.
Mr. Bowen, 50, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “My medical opinion is that the patient would be safe to operate a commercial vehicle even with the visual deficiency in his right eye.” Mr. Bowen reported that he has driven straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating 60,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 12 years, accumulating 12,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from New Mexico. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Casio Gamero, 49, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “In my professional/medical opinion, Guillermo has sufficient vision to perform all the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle, as he has been driving intrastate for many years.” Mr. Casio Gamero reported that he has driven straight trucks for eight years, accumulating 280,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for eight years, accumulating 280,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Cave, 59, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, light perception. Following an examination in 2018, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my opinion he has sufficient vision to obtain a commercial driving license and operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Cave reported that he has driven straight trucks for 40 years, accumulating 160,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Maryland. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Goss, 59, has had diabetic retinopathy in his right eye since 2014. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “It is in my opinion that Marc's condition is stable and he is able to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Goss reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 32 years, accumulating 3.2 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Hard, 54, has had glaucoma in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, Mr. Hard has sufficient vision in his left (better) eye to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Hard reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 1.2 million miles. He holds an operator's license from Indiana. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Johnson, 64, has had aphakia in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/40. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “I certify that Mr. Johnson has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Johnson reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 21 years, accumulating 147,420 miles. He holds a Class A CDL license from Missouri. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Johnson, 47, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Johnson has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Johnson reported that he has driven straight trucks for nine years, accumulating 324,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 14 years, accumulating 1.7 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Khashan, 54, has had macular drusen in his right eye since 2015. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion Mr. Khashan has adequate vision to operate a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Khashan reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
Mr. Kuehler, 39, has had aphakia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion Shelby has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle and, in fact, he has been operating commercial vehicles for the past fifteen years.” Mr. Kuehler reported that he has driven straight trucks for 13 years, accumulating 455,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 13 years, accumulating 455,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Kansas. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Lane, 25, has a corneal scar in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2014. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “The fact that he has been doing his job operating a commercial vehicle with his currently stable condition is proof he has sufficient vision to perform his work duties as required.” Mr. Lane reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 300,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Oklahoma. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Morris, 63, has had a chorioretinal scar in his left eye since 2013. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion he has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Morris reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 43 years, accumulating 2.15 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. O'Neil, 60, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “He has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. O'Neil reported that he has driven straight trucks for 44 years, accumulating 660,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Sheldon, 53, has a cataract in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 2005. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/300, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion Michael has sufficient vision to drive a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Sheldon reported that he has driven straight trucks for 22 years, accumulating 220,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 37 years, accumulating 1.48 million miles. He holds an operator's license from Nebraska. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Tellez Alvarez, 26, has a chorioretinal scar in his right eye due to an infection in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/125, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, “However, due to the childhood nature of this visual reduction Mr. Tellez Alvarez should have no difficulties operating a commercial vehicle due to the fact that recent onset visual losses impede drivers significantly more than longstanding vision losses.” Mr. Tellez Alvarez reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for three years, accumulating 255,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from California. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments and material received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 46 individuals from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on October 11, 2018. The exemptions expire on October 11, 2020.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366–4001,
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
On September 10, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 46 individuals requesting an exemption from diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) and requested comments from the public (83 FR 45736). The public comment period ended on October 10, 2018, and one comment was received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. Ms. Johnson stated Minnesota Department of Public Safety is in support of granting the Federal Diabetes exemption to Anthony D. Anderson, Jason R. Miller, and James B. Stevens. In reference to Chad M. Kunkel, Ms. Johnson noted no objection if FMCSA has no issue with the August 2016 crash information on this driver's record. She also noted that FMCSA had previously rescinded this exemption in January 2018. FMCSA requests a Motor Vehicle Record during the diabetes application process and reviews all previous exemption actions to ensure that the necessary equivalent level of safety is achieved to be granted the Federal diabetes exemption. In doing so, FMCSA did not find information that indicates that Mr. Chad M. Kunkel should not be granted this exemption.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for up to five years from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on the program eligibility criteria and an individualized assessment of information submitted by each applicant. The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the September 10, 2018,
These 46 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 36 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past five years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keeping a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 46 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice announces a public meeting of the Voluntary Information-sharing System (VIS) Working Group. The VIS Working Group will convene to discuss proposed recommendations to establish a voluntary information-sharing system.
The public meeting will be held on December 18, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET and December 19, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET. Members of the public who wish to attend in person should register no later than December 11, 2018. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, may notify PHMSA by December 11, 2018. For additional information, see the
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590. The meeting agenda and additional information will be published on the following VIS Working Group registration page at:
The meeting will not be webcast; however, presentations will be available on the meeting website and posted on the E-Gov website,
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Therefore, consider reviewing DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the following statement: “Comments on PHMSA–2016- 0128.” The docket clerk will date stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S. mail.
DOT may solicit comments from the public regarding certain general notices. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
The public meeting will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Dr. Christie Murray at
For information about the meeting, contact Dr. Christie Murray by phone at 202–366–4996 or by email at
The VIS Working Group is an advisory committee established in accordance with Section 10 of the Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114–183), the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., App. 2, as amended), and 41 CFR 102–3.50(a).
The VIS Working Group agenda will include briefings on topics such as mandate requirements, integrity management, data types and tools, in-line inspection and other direct assessment methods, geographic information system implementation, subcommittee considerations, lessons learned, examples of existing information-sharing systems, safety management systems, and more. As part of its work, the committee will ultimately provide recommendations to the Secretary as required and specifically outlined in Section 10 of Public Law 114–183, addressing:
(a) The need for, and the identification of, a system to ensure that dig verification data are shared with in-line inspection operators to the extent consistent with the need to maintain proprietary and security-sensitive data in a confidential manner to improve pipeline safety and inspection technology;
(b) Ways to encourage the exchange of pipeline inspection information and the development of advanced pipeline inspection technologies and enhanced risk analysis;
(c) Opportunities to share data, including dig verification data between operators of pipeline facilities and in-line inspector vendors to expand knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of the different types of in-line inspection technology and methodologies;
(d) Options to create a secure system that protects proprietary data while encouraging the exchange of pipeline inspection information and the development of advanced pipeline inspection technologies and enhanced risk analysis;
(e) Means and best practices for the protection of safety and security-sensitive information and proprietary information; and
(f) Regulatory, funding, and legal barriers to sharing the information described in paragraphs (a) through (d).
The Secretary will publish the VIS Working Group's recommendations on a publicly available DOT website and in the docket. The VIS Working Group will fulfill its purpose once its recommendations are published online.
PHMSA will publish the agenda on the PHMSA meeting page at:
Office of the Departmental Chief Information Officer, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, DOT.
Rescindment of Notices and Notice of a New System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Transportation's Office of the Secretary of Transportation (DOT/OST) intends to establish a DOT-wide System of Records titled, “DOT/ALL–27, Training Programs.” This system of records will allow the Department of Transportation, to include its Operating Administrations and Secretarial Offices, to collect and maintain contact, registration, and other information about Department of Transportation employees and other individuals related to participation in and management of Department of Transportation training programs. This system, titled Training Programs, will be included in the Department of Transportation's inventory of record systems. The Department also intends to rescind existing Notices for DOT/RITA–O12, TSI Online Catalog and Learning Management System”, and DOT/FHWA–221, “National Highway Institute website (NHIW) and Course Management Tracking System (CMTS)”, as these records will be part of the new DOT/ALL–27 described in this Notice.
Written comments should be submitted on or before December 27, 2018. The Department may publish an amended SORN in light of any comments received. This new system will be effective December 27, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DOT–OST–2018–0151 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For questions, please contact: Claire W. Barrett, Departmental Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590;
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Transportation (DOT)/Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) proposes to rescind the current system of records notices for DOT/RITA–012 and DOT/FHWA–221, and issue a DOT system of records titled, “DOT/ALL–27 Training Programs.”
The Department of Transportation provides training courses to its employees, contractors, and others. The Department wishes to create a new system of records for training program registration and participation information, including information pertaining to training course participants, instructors and course developers, and others involved in training course creation, management, and delivery. The Department will use this information to monitor and manage registration in training courses, track and record participation and completion in DOT training courses, schedule courses, assess the effectiveness of training, identify training trends and needs, and schedule training classes and programs. This system of records excludes records associated with training provided by entities other than DOT and training records covered by the Office of Personnel Management's Government-wide System of Records Notice, OPM/GOVT–1, “General Personnel Records.” Because DOT-provided training records will be covered by this Department-wide notice, individual notices covering particular DOT offices are not necessary; therefore, this notice also rescinds DOT/RITA–012, “TSI Online Catalog and Learning Management System” and DOT/FHWA–221, “National Highway Institute website (NHIW) and Course Management and Tracking System (CMTS)”. The records covered by DOT/RITA–012 and DOT/FHWA–221 will be managed according to the new DOT/ALL–27.
The routine uses are compatible with the purposes for which the information was collected. Individuals whose personally identifiable information (PII) is in this system of records have provided it to DOT to enable DOT to
The information contained within this system of records will be collected directly from the individuals who are the subject of the record.
This new system will be included in DOT's inventory of record systems.
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) governs the means by which the Federal Government collects, maintains, and uses personally identifiable information (PII) in a System of Records. A “System of Records” is a group of any records under the control of a Federal agency from which information about individuals is retrieved by name or other personal identifier. The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DOT has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Unclassified.
Records are maintained at the Department of Transportation and in component offices of the Department of Transportation in both Washington, DC and field offices.
Requests for training records should be submitted to the component office(s) that offers or sponsors the training. Contact information for system manager is provided at time of course registration and/or participation.
5 U.S.C. 301; 23 U.S.C. 504; and 49 U.S.C. 301, 5314, 5315, 20108, 30182, and 40108.
The purpose of this system is to manage, oversee, and document training provided to DOT employees, contractors, and others. This system will provide DOT with a means to document registration, participation, and completion of DOT provided training, document the particular training that is provided, identify training trends and needs, evaluate course instructors and course quality and context, and schedule training classes, programs, and instructors. The DOT also may use records from this system to document completion of training requirements for other DOT-mission purposes.
Current and former DOT employees, volunteers and contractors; any individual who has participated in or assisted with a DOT training program, including students and instructors; any other Federal employee or private individual, including contractors and others, who has participated in or assisted with training programs sponsored or operated by the DOT; and other participants in training programs, including instructors, course developers, observers, and interpreters.
Categories of records in the system include:
Individual's name;
Individual's date of birth;
Student or other identification number assigned to the individual
Address;
Phone number;
Email address;
Employer Name, address, and contact information, Occupation/Job Title;
Resume/Qualifications (for course instructors)
Applications;
Registration forms;
Course rosters and sign-in sheets;
Instructor lists;
Payment records, including financing, travel and related expenditures;
Grades and student evaluations;
Course evaluations;
Examination and testing materials; and
Other records and reports related to training.
Records are obtained from DOT employees and other individuals who are the subject of such records.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DOT as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3).
(1) To organizations, including other government entities, sponsoring or providing remuneration for training;
(2) To other Federal agencies as needed to create class schedules, or determine qualifications for participation in classes as students or instructors;
(3) To educational institutions or training providers as evidence of participation or successful completion, as needed to continue education;
(4) To the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of implementing, investigating, prosecuting, or enforcing a statute, regulation, rule or order, when a record in this system indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, including any records from this system relevant to the implementation, investigation, prosecution, or enforcement of the statute, regulation, rule, or order that was or may have been violated;
(5) To a Federal, State, or local agency maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary for DOT to obtain information relevant to a DOT decision concerning the hiring or retention or an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit;
(6) To a Federal agency, upon its request, in connection with the requesting Federal agency's hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation or an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information requested is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter;
(7) To the Department of Justice, or any other Federal agency conducting litigation, when (a) DOT, (b) any DOT employee, in his/her official capacity, or in his/her individual capacity if the
(8) To parties in proceedings before any court or adjudicative or administrative body before which DOT appears when (a) DOT, (b) any DOT employee in his or her official capacity, or in his or her individual capacity where DOT has agreed to represent the employee, or (c) the United States or any agency thereof is a party to litigation or has an interest in the proceeding, and DOT determined that is relevant and necessary to the proceeding; provided, however, that DOT determines, in each case, that disclosure of the records in the proceeding is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which the records where collected;
(9) To the National Archives and Records Administration for an inspection under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906;
(10) To another agency or instrumentality of any government jurisdiction for use in law enforcement activities, either civil or criminal, or to expose fraudulent claims; however, this routine use only permits the disclosure of names pursuant to a computer matching program that otherwise complies with the requirements of the Privacy Act;
(11) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons, when (1) DOT suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) DOT has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by DOT or not) that rely on the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, or persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DOT's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.;
(12) To the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) for the purpose of resolving disputes between requesters seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and DOT, or OGIS' review of DOT's policies, procedures, and compliance with FOIA;
(13) To DOT”s contractors and their agents, DOT's experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DOT, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
(14) To an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing an audit or oversight related to this system or records, provided that DOT determines the records are necessary and relevant to the audit or oversight activity. This routine use does not apply to intra-agency sharing authorized under Section (b)(1) of the Privacy Act; and
(15) To a Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign government, or multinational agency, either in response to a request or upon DOT's initiative, terrorism information (6 U.S.C. 485(a)(5), homeland security information (6 U.S.C. 482(f)(1), or law enforcement information (Guideline 2, report attached to White House Memorandum, “Information Sharing Environment,” Nov. 22, 2006), when DOT finds that disclosure of the record is necessary and relevant to detect, prevent, disrupt, preempt, or mitigate the effects of terrorist activities against the territory, people, and interests of the United States, as contemplated by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108–456, and Executive Order 13388 (Oct. 25, 2005).
Records in this system are stored electronically and/or on paper in secure facilities. Electronic records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, digital media, and CD–ROM.
Records will primarily be retrieved by individual's name, but may be retrieved by other identifiers in the system.
Records are typically destroyed when three years old, or 3 years after superseded or obsolete, whichever is appropriate, in accordance with National Archives and Records Administration General Records Schedule 2.6, Item 010. General Records Schedule 2.6, Item 010, also permits agencies to retain these records for a longer period of time, when needed for business use.
Records in this system are safeguarded in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DOT automated systems security and access policies. Strict controls have been imposed to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
Individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the System Manager at the address identified in “System Manager and Address” above. If an individual believes more than one component maintains Privacy Act records concerning him or her, the individual may submit the request to the Departmental Freedom of Information Act Office, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W94–122, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, ATTN: FOIA/Privacy Act request.
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 49 CFR part 10. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer,
An explanation of why you believe the Department would have information on you;
• Identify which component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created;
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DOT component agency may have responsive records; and
If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
Without this bulleted information the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
See “Record Access Procedures” above.
See “Record Access Procedures” above.
None.
Not applicable.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB); Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we invite comments on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this notice.
We must receive your written comments on or before January 28, 2019.
As described below, you may send comments on the information collections listed in this document using the “
•
•
•
Please submit separate comments for each specific information collection listed in this document. You must reference the information collection's title, form or recordkeeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
You may view copies of this document, the information collections listed in it and any associated instructions, and all comments received in response to this document within Docket No. TTB–2018–0001 at
Michael Hoover, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; telephone 202–453–1039, ext. 135; or email
The Department of the Treasury and its Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), as part of their continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be included or summarized in our request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the relevant information collection. All comments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Please do not include any confidential or inappropriate material in your comments.
We invite comments on: (a) Whether this information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the information collection's burden; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the information collection's burden on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide the requested information.
Currently, we are seeking comments on the following forms, recordkeeping requirements, or questionnaires:
The IRC at 26 U.S.C. 5555, 5741, and 5843 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to require the keeping of records to document and substantiate the information provided in excise and special occupational tax returns and claims. TTB uses the information contained in such records to determine the appropriate tax liability and verify the correctness of claims and other adjustments to tax liability. The required records may consist of affidavits and effective tax rate determinations, and usual and customary business records such as insurance records, invoices, inventories, production records, shipping records, and other documents that support the information provided on tax returns and claims.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans will meet on December 11–13, 2018, at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Conference Room 230, Washington, DC. The meetings will be held:
This meeting is open to the public.
The purposes of the Committee are to: Advise the Secretary on the administration of VA benefits and services to minority Veterans; assess the needs of minority Veterans; and evaluate whether VA compensation, medical and rehabilitation services, outreach, and other programs are meeting those needs. The Committee makes recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities.
On December 11, the Committee will receive briefings and updates from the Center for Minority Veterans, National Cemetery Administration, Veterans Experience Office, and Veterans Benefits Administration. On December 12, the Committee will receive briefings and updates from the Board of Veterans Appeals, Office of Health Equity, Mental Health, Center for Women Veterans,
A sign-in sheet for those who want to give comments will be available at the meeting. Individuals who speak are invited to submit a 1–2 page summary of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record. Members of the public may also submit written statements for the Committee's review to Ms. Juanita Mullen, Department of Veterans Affairs, Center for Minority Veterans (00M), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, or email at
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Request for information.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is requesting information regarding its Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC). This notice requests information and comments from interested parties on certain requirements of the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018 or the VA MISSION Act of 2018 related to PCAFC.
Comments are due by December 12, 2018.
Written comments may be submitted through
Margaret Kabat, National Director, Caregiver Support Program (10P4C), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461–6780 (this is not a toll-free number),
The Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) was established by title I of Public Law (Pub. L.) 111–163, Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, and is codified in section 1720G(a) of title 38 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). VA has been administering PCAFC continuously since May 5, 2011, and has implemented this program through its regulations in Part 71 of title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Through PCAFC, VA provides family caregivers of eligible veterans and servicemembers (as defined in 38 CFR 71.20) certain benefits, such as training, respite care, counseling, technical support, beneficiary travel (to attend required caregiver training and for an eligible veteran's medical appointments), a monthly stipend payment, and access to health care (if qualified) through the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA) 38 U.S.C. 1720G(a)(3), 38 CFR 71.40. For the purposes of this notice, the term veteran includes servicemembers who apply for or participate in PCAFC.
PCAFC is currently available to family caregivers of eligible veterans who incurred or aggravated a serious injury (including traumatic brain injury, psychological trauma, or other mental disorder) in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service on or after September 11, 2001. 38 U.S.C. 1720G(a)(2)(B). On June 6, 2018, the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018 or the VA MISSION Act of 2018 (“MISSION Act”), Public Law 115–182, was signed into law. Section 161 of the MISSION Act amended 38 U.S.C. 1720G to expand eligibility for PCAFC to family caregivers of eligible veterans who incurred or aggravated a serious injury in the line of duty before September 11, 2001, establish new benefits for designated primary family caregivers of eligible veterans, and make other changes affecting program eligibility and VA's evaluation of PCAFC applications. The expansion of PCFAC to family caregivers of eligible veterans who incurred or aggravated a serious injury in the line of duty before September 11, 2001, will occur in two phases, the first of which will begin when VA certifies to Congress that it has fully implemented a required information technology system. During the 2-year period beginning on the date of such certification to Congress, PCAFC will be expanded to include family caregivers of eligible veterans who have a serious injury (including traumatic brain injury, psychological trauma, or other mental disorder) incurred or aggravated in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service on or before May 7, 1975. Two years after the date of submission of the certification to Congress, PCAFC will be expanded to family caregivers of all eligible veterans who have a serious injury (including traumatic brain injury, psychological trauma, or other mental disorder) incurred or aggravated in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service, regardless of when the serious injury occurred.
We are issuing this notice to solicit input on changes to the program required by the MISSION Act, as further explained below. This notice and request for information serves as a means for VA to consult with key stakeholders on how to define and implement changes made to the program by the MISSION Act. After
This notice and request for information has a comment period of 15 days, during which individuals, groups, and entities may reply to the questions presented below. VA believes that 15 days is sufficient to provide comments, as the individuals, groups, and entities interested in this program likely have information and opinions readily available or can quickly compile and submit such information. Commenters are encouraged to provide complete but concise responses to the questions outlined below. Please note that VA will not respond to comments or other questions regarding policy plans, decisions, or issues regarding this notice. VA may choose to contact individual commenters, and such communications would only serve to further clarify their written comments.
To implement changes to PCAFC consistent with, and pursuant to, the MISSION Act, we are seeking information on the following topics and issues:
In addition to expanding PCAFC to eligible veterans who served before September 11, 2001 (subject to the timeline discussed above), section 161 of the MISSION Act amended the eligibility criteria in 38 U.S.C. 1720G to add an additional basis upon which a veteran can be deemed in need of personal care services. Previously, to be eligible for PCAFC, a veteran had to be in need of personal care services because of (1) an inability to perform one or more activities of daily living, (2) a need for supervision or protection based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury, or (3) such other matters as the Secretary considers appropriate. The MISSION Act amended this section to include “a need for regular or extensive instruction or supervision without which the ability of the veteran to function in daily life would be seriously impaired” as another basis upon which a veteran could be deemed in need of personal care services. See 38 U.S.C. 1720G(a)(2)(C)(iii), as amended by Public Law 115–182, section 161(a)(2).
Relatedly, the MISSION Act also modified the definition of personal care services to include “supervision or protection based on symptoms of residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury,” and “regular or extensive instruction or supervision without which the ability of the veteran to function in daily life would be seriously impaired.” See 38 U.S.C. 1720G(d)(4), as amended by Public Law 115–182, section 161(b). In its regulations, VA has defined “personal care services” as care or assistance of another person necessary to support the eligible veteran's health and well-being, and perform personal functions required in everyday living ensuring the eligible veteran remains safe from hazards or dangers incident to his or her daily environment. See, 38 CFR 71.15.
VA is seeking public input on how to define this need for regular or extensive instruction or supervision, how to assess whether the veteran's ability to function in daily life would be seriously impaired, and whether and how to change “personal care services” as defined in VA's regulations.
The MISSION Act also expands upon the benefits available to each family caregiver designated as the primary provider of personal care services for an eligible veteran to include: (1) Financial planning services relating to the needs of injured veterans and their caregivers, and (2) legal services, including legal advice and consultation, relating to the needs of injured veterans and their caregivers. See 38 U.S.C. 1720G(a)(3)(A)(ii)(VI), as amended by Public Law 115–182, section 161(a)(3). VA is seeking public comment on how to define and deliver such additional services.
Through this notice, we are soliciting information on certain changes made to PCAFC by the MISSION Act. We ask respondents to address the following questions, where possible, in the context of the discussion in this document. Commenters do not need to address every question and should focus on those that relate to their expertise or perspectives. To the extent possible, please clearly indicate which question(s) you address in your response. As previously mentioned, responses to this request will inform our updates to PCAFC.
Accordingly, we request comments on the following:
1. How should VA define “a need for regular or extensive instruction or supervision” in the new 38 U.S.C. 1720G(a)(2)(C)(iii)?
a. Should this be based upon frequency of intervention needed by the veteran or level of complexity of intervention? Should this be based upon the impact to the veteran if such instruction or supervision is not provided? If so, how should this be measured?
b. What constitutes “regular” instruction or supervision?
c. What constitutes “extensive” instruction or supervision?
2. How does “a need for regular or extensive instruction or supervision without which the ability of the veteran to function in daily life would be seriously impaired” differ from “a need for supervision or protection based on symptoms of residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury?”
a. How should VA define and assess “a need for supervision or protection based on symptoms of residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury”?
b. Are there established standards VA should model?
3. How should VA assess whether the ability of the veteran to function in daily life would be seriously impaired without regular or extensive instruction or supervision?
a. Are there existing tools or assessments that could be used?
b. How should “seriously impaired” be defined?
i. For example, should there be a standard of time in which a veteran is expected to be able to function without the need for a caregiver, and once that period of time is exceeded, a need for a caregiver is required due to the impairment of the veteran? Is there a minimum period of time lapse that a veteran should be expected to be able to function and upon exceeding that time, might meet this eligibility criterion?
ii. Are there standards that should or could be used to determine when a veteran's ability to function in daily life is considered seriously impaired without regular or extensive instruction or supervision?
iii. How should “ability to function in daily life” be defined?
4. What specific financial planning services relating to the needs of injured veterans and their caregivers should be made available to primary family caregivers under the new 38 U.S.C. 1720G(a)(3)(A)(ii)(VI)(aa)?
a. Should entities provide these services for free?
b. Are there specific financial planning services that should be excluded?
c. How should these services be made available and/or delivered? Should these be provided in person, online, and/or via telephone?
d. Should there be a limit as to how many times a primary family caregiver has access to these services? If yes, should it be an annual limit or lifetime limit? Should it be limited by some other measure?
e. What types of private organizations provide these services?
i. What services do they provide?
ii. How are the services provided?
iii. Do these organizations provide these services for free?
iv. Do these organizations contract with other entities to provide these services? Do these organizations receive grants to provide these services?
f. What other Federal/state/local agencies offer these services?
i. What services do they provide?
ii. How are the services provided?
iii. Do these agencies provide these services for free?
iv. Do these agencies contract with other entities to provide these services? Do these agencies receive grants to provide these services?
5. What specific legal services relating to the needs of injured veterans and their caregivers should be made available to primary family caregivers under the new 38 U.S.C. 1720G(a)(3)(A)(ii)(VI)(bb)?
a. Should entities provide these services for free?
b. Are there specific legal services that should be excluded?
c. How should these services be made available? Should these be provided in person, online, and/or via telephone?
d. Should there be a limit as to how many times a primary family caregiver has access to these services? If yes, should it be an annual limit or lifetime limit? Should it be limited by some other measure?
e. What types of private organizations provide these services?
i. What services do they provide?
ii. How are the services provided?
iii. Do these organizations provide these services for free?
iv. Do these organizations contract with other entities to provide these services? Do these organizations receive grants to provide these services?
f. What other Federal/state/local agencies offer these services?
i. What services do they provide?
ii. How are the services provided?
iii. Do these agencies provide these services for free?
iv. Do these agencies contract with other entities to provide these services? Do these organizations receive grants to provide these services?
This request for information constitutes a general solicitation of public comments as stated in the implementing regulations of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 at 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4). Therefore, this request for information does not impose information collection requirements (
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on November 19, 2018, for publication.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to maintain alignment with international regulations and standards by incorporating various amendments, including changes to proper shipping names, hazard classes, packing groups, special provisions, packaging authorizations, air transport quantity limitations, and vessel stowage requirements. These revisions are necessary to harmonize the HMR with recent changes made to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, the International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, and the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods—Model Regulations. Additionally, PHMSA proposes several amendments to the HMR that would allow for increased alignment with the Transport Canada, Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) Regulations.
Comments must be received by January 28, 2019.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Steven Webb, International Program or Aaron Wiener, International Program, telephone (202) 366–8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590–0001.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171 to 180) to maintain alignment with international regulations and standards by incorporating various amendments, including changes to proper shipping names, hazard classes, packing groups, special provisions, packaging authorizations, air transport quantity limitations, and vessel stowage requirements. This rulemaking project is part of our ongoing biennial process to harmonize the HMR with international regulations and standards.
In this NPRM, PHMSA proposes to amend the HMR to maintain alignment with various international standards. The following are some of the more noteworthy proposals set forth in this NPRM:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
If adopted in a final rule, the amendments proposed in this NPRM will result in minimal burdens on the regulated community. The benefits achieved from their adoption include enhanced transportation safety resulting from the consistency of domestic and international hazard communication and continued access to foreign markets by U.S. manufacturers of hazardous materials. PHMSA anticipates that most of the amendments in this NPRM will result in cost savings and will ease the regulatory compliance burden for shippers engaged in domestic and international commerce, including trans-border shipments within North America.
PHMSA solicits comment from the regulated community on these amendments and others proposed in this NPRM pertaining to: Need, benefits, and costs of international harmonization; impact on safety; and any other relevant concerns. In addition, PHMSA solicits comment regarding approaches to reducing the costs of this rule while maintaining or increasing the benefits. In its preliminary analysis, PHMSA concluded that the aggregate benefits of the amendments proposed in this NPRM justify their aggregate costs. Nonetheless, PHMSA solicits comment on specific changes (
Federal law and policy strongly favor the harmonization of domestic and international standards for hazardous materials transportation. The Federal hazardous materials law (49 U.S.C. 5101
In a final rule published December 21, 1990 (Docket HM–181; 55 FR 52402), PHMSA's predecessor—the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)—comprehensively revised the HMR for international harmonization with the UN Model Regulations. The UN Model Regulations constitute a set of recommendations issued by the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts (UNSCOE) on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). The UN Model Regulations are amended and updated biennially by the UNSCOE and serve as the basis for national, regional, and international modal regulations, including the IMDG Code and the ICAO Technical Instructions.
Since publication of the 1990 rule, PHMSA has issued 12 subsequent international harmonization rulemakings.
Harmonization becomes increasingly important as the volume of hazardous materials transported in international commerce grows. Harmonization not only facilitates international trade by minimizing the costs and other burdens of complying with multiple or inconsistent safety requirements for
Based on recent review and evaluation, PHMSA proposes to revise the HMR to incorporate changes from the 20th Revised Edition of the UN Model Regulations, Amendment 39–18 to the IMDG Code,
In addition, PHMSA proposes to incorporate by reference the newest editions of various international standards. The standards incorporated by reference are authorized for use, under specific circumstances, in part 171 subpart C of the HMR. This proposed rule is necessary to incorporate revisions to the international standards and, if adopted in the HMR, will be effective January 1, 2019.
PHMSA published a final rule under Docket HM–215N [82 FR 15796 (March 30, 2017)] that, among other things, added four new Division 4.1 entries for polymerizing substances to the HMT, and added into the HMR defining criteria, authorized packagings, and safety requirements including, but not limited to, stabilization methods and operational controls. In this prior rulemaking, PHMSA indicated that these changes would be in effect until January 2, 2019. During the interim time period between publication of the final rule and January 2, 2019, PHMSA indicated it would review and research the implications of the polymerizing substance amendments, and readdress the issue in the next international harmonization rulemaking.
On January 19, 2017, a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)
• Whether affected entities have experienced difficulties resulting from differing domestic and international requirements for polymerizing substances (
• The experiences of the regulated community in utilizing Test Series E with polymerizing substances; and
• Whether there are alternative tests that can indicate appropriate responses when potentially polymerizing substances are heated under confinement.
As this research project is presently in the pre-award phase prescribed in the BAA and will not be completed prior to the expected publication date of a final rule for this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to extend the sunset dates for provisions concerning the transportation of polymerizing substances from January 2, 2019 to January 2, 2021. This additional time should allow PHMSA to complete its ongoing research project and analyze all comments and data concerning the issue submitted to the docket for this NPRM. This information will increase our comprehension of polymerizing substances and further consider the most appropriate transport provisions for these materials. This new sunset date is proposed in amendments to §§ 172.101, 172.102, 173.21, and 173.124.
The UN Model Regulations, Manual of Tests and Criteria, and Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, as well as all of the Transport Canada Clear Language Amendments, are free and easily accessible to the public on the internet, with access provided through the parent organization websites. The ICAO Technical Instructions, IMDG Code, and all ISO references are available for interested parties to purchase in either print or electronic versions through the parent organization websites. The price charged for those not freely available helps to cover the cost of developing, maintaining, hosting, and accessing these standards. The specific standards are discussed in greater detail in the following analysis.
In addition to various other revisions to the HMR, PHMSA proposes the following amendments to harmonize the HMR with the most recent revisions to the UN Model Regulations, ICAO Technical Instructions, and IMDG Code, as well as several amendments to further align with the Transport Canada TDG Regulations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PHMSA's goal in this rulemaking is to harmonize the HMR with international requirements. We are not striving to make the HMR identical to the international regulations, but rather to remove or avoid potential barriers to international transportation.
PHMSA proposes changes to the HMR based on amendments adopted in the 20th Revised Edition of the UN Model Regulations, the 2019–2020 Edition of the ICAO Technical Instructions, and Amendment 39–18 to the IMDG Code. It is not, however, proposing to adopt all of the amendments made to the various international standards into the HMR.
In many cases, amendments to the international recommendations and regulations are not adopted into the HMR because the framework or structure of the HMR makes adoption unnecessary. In other cases, we have addressed, or will address, the amendments in separate rulemaking proceedings.
The following is a list of significant amendments to the international standards that PHMSA is not currently proposing:
•
•
•
•
Any comments received may be utilized to better inform PHMSA's work in various international forums. Below are some thought starters for consideration for your comments:
• If you currently follow a Competency Based Training approach to meet the requirements in Part 172, Subpart H:
○ Do you have suggestions or lessons learned that you would like to share?
○ What information or tools did/do you consider most helpful in implementing a Competency Based Training approach?
○ Have you reviewed the ICAO guidance provided in the Docket? If so, did you find the guidance helpful?
• If you do not follow a Competency Based Training approach to meet the requirements in Part 172, Subpart H:
○ Have you reviewed the ICAO guidance provided in the Docket? If so, did you find the guidance helpful?
○ Are you aware of any barriers to implementing a Competency Based Training approach?
The following is a section-by-section review of the amendments proposed in this NPRM:
Section 171.7 provides a listing of all voluntary consensus standards incorporated by reference into the HMR, as directed by the “National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1996.” According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Circular A–119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,” government agencies must use voluntary consensus standards wherever practical in the development of regulations. Agency adoption of industry standards promotes productivity and efficiency in government and industry, expands opportunities for international trade, conserves resources, improves health and safety, and protects the environment.
PHMSA actively participates in the development and updating of consensus standards through representation on more than 20 consensus standard bodies and regularly reviews updated consensus standards to consider their merit for inclusion in the HMR. For this rulemaking, PHMSA evaluated updated international consensus standards pertaining to proper shipping names, hazard classes, packing groups, special provisions, packaging authorizations, air transport quantity limitations, and vessel stowage requirements. It determined that the revised standards provide an enhanced level of safety without imposing significant compliance burdens. These standards have well-established and documented safety histories, and their adoption will maintain the high safety standard currently achieved under the HMR. Therefore, in this NPRM, PHMSA proposes to add and revise the following incorporation by reference materials:
• Paragraph (s)(2) would be added, to incorporate the International Atomic Energy Agency Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources. Section 172.800 references the incorporation by reference of this document; however, this entry does not currently appear in § 171.7. The proposed addition of this paragraph would correct this oversight. The incorporation of this document in § 172.800 provides a list of Category 1 and 2 radioactive sources for which offerors or carriers require a security plan.
• Paragraph (t)(1), which incorporates the
• Paragraph (v)(2), which incorporates the
• Paragraph (w), which incorporates various
• Paragraphs (aa)(1)–(4), which updates 4 existing
• Paragraph (bb)(1), which incorporates the
• Paragraph (bb)(2) would be added to incorporate by reference Containers for Transport of Dangerous Goods by Rail, a
• Paragraph (dd)(1), which incorporates the
• Paragraph (dd)(2)(ii) would be added to incorporate the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria, 6th Revised Edition, Amendment 1. This standard contains criteria, test methods, and procedures to be used for the classification of hazardous materials according to the UN Model Regulations.
• Paragraph (dd)(3), which incorporates the
Section 171.8 defines terms generally used throughout the HMR that have broad or multi-modal applicability. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to amend the definition of “UN pressure receptacle” to include pressure drums. Additionally, PHMSA proposes to add a definition for “UN Pressure drum” to mean a welded transportable pressure receptacle of a water capacity exceeding 150 L and not more than 1,000 L (
Section 171.12 prescribes requirements for the use of the Transport Canada TDG Regulations. In a March 30, 2017, final rule [HM–215N; 82 FR 15795], PHMSA amended the HMR to expand recognition of cylinders and pressure receptacles, cargo tank repair facilities, and certificates of equivalency in accordance with the TDG Regulations. The goal of these amendments is to promote flexibility and permit the use of advanced technology for the requalification and use of pressure receptacles; doing so will provide for a broader selection of authorized pressure receptacles, reduce the need for special permits, and to facilitate cross-border transportation of these cylinders. In this NPRM, PHMSA proposes to clarify the recognition of certificates of equivalency issued by Transport Canada. Transport Canada issues equivalency certificates as both a competent authority approval and for an alternative means of compliance with TDG Regulations. PHMSA provides reciprocity for equivalency certificates that are issued by Transport Canada as an alternative to the TDG Regulations; PHMSA does not provide recognition to Canada's competent authority approvals. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to amend paragraph (a)(1) to clarify the extent of reciprocity regarding certificates of equivalency.
Additionally, PHMSA is proposing to amend paragraph (a)(3)(v) to update the standard incorporated by reference to which Canadian rail cars must conform. The existing reference to the Canadian General Standards Board standard 43.147 is replaced with Containers for Transport of Dangerous Goods by Rail (2013).
Section 172.101 contains the HMT and provides instructions for its use. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to revise the instructional text that precedes the HMT for paragraph (e) of this section.
Paragraph (e) of § 172.101 provides instructions for the use of column (4) of the HMT. Column (4) lists the identification number assigned to each proper shipping name. Most identification numbers are preceded by the letters “UN” and are associated with proper shipping names, which may be used for both domestic and international transportation. Some proper shipping names are assigned “NA” or “North American” numbers. As it currently stands, the HMR states that NA numbers are afforded recognition in both the United States and Canada. Furthermore, under § 171.12, the HMR treats transporting hazardous materials to Canada in the same way as domestic transportation. This is problematic, however, because specific dangerous goods are classified
In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to amend the HMT. Readers should review all changes for a complete understanding of the amendments. For purposes of the Government Printing Office's typesetting procedures, proposed changes to the HMT appear under three sections of the Table, “remove,” “add,” and “revise.” Certain entries in the HMT, such as those with revisions to the proper shipping names, appear as a “remove” and “add.” Proposed amendments to the HMT include the following:
PHMSA proposes to add a classification scheme for articles containing hazardous materials not otherwise specified by name in the HMR that contain hazardous materials of various hazard classes and divisions. This proposal addresses transportation scenarios where various hazardous materials or hazardous materials residues are present in articles above the quantities currently authorized for dangerous goods in machinery or apparatus. This proposal authorizes safe and secure methods to transport articles that may be too large to fit into typical packagings. Absent provisions to package and transport these materials safely, such articles may be offered for transport under provisions that do not adequately account for the physical and chemical properties of the substances or mode of transport and may require the issuance of an approval by the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
Consistent with the 20th Revised Edition of the UN Model Regulations, this new generic entry addresses toxic solids with a flammable subsidiary risk in Packing Groups I and II.
This new HMT entry addresses lithium metal and lithium ion batteries installed in a cargo transport unit and designed only to provide power external to the cargo transport unit. The lithium batteries must meet the requirements of § 173.185 and contain the necessary systems to prevent overcharge and over discharge between the batteries. Such units are forbidden for transport on aircraft.
Section 172.101(c) describes column (2) of the HMT and the requirements for hazardous materials descriptions and proper shipping names. For the entry “2-Dimethylaminoethyl acrylate,” the word “stabilized” is added to the end, as the substance has been determined to polymerize in certain conditions.
The HMT entries for articles “UN3316, Chemical kit” and “UN3316, First aid kit” are revised to remove packing group II and III assignments. This revision would revert the entries to a single row with the packing group column left blank as they existed prior to adding the packing group II and III assignments in a final rule published on January 8, 2015 [Docket No. PHMSA–2013–0260 (HM–215M); 80 FR 1075]. This revision would address situations where materials in the kits are not assigned to a packing group or have packing group I assigned, as permitted by § 173.161.
Section 172.101(h) describes column (7) of the HMT, which contains special provisions for each entry in the table. Section 172.102(c) prescribes the special provisions assigned to specific entries in the HMT. The particular modifications to the entries in the HMT are discussed below. See “Section 172.102 special provisions” below for a detailed discussion of the proposed additions, revisions, and deletions to the special provisions addressed in this NPRM.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section 172.101(k) explains the purpose of column (10) of the HMT and prescribes the vessel stowage and segregation requirements for specific entries. Column (10) is divided into two columns: Column (10A) [Vessel stowage] specifies the authorized stowage locations on board cargo and passenger vessels, and column (10B) [Other provisions] specifies special stowage and segregation provisions. The meaning of each code in column (10B) is set forth in § 176.84.
Recent revisions to the stowage categories for Class 1 goods greatly simplified the stowage categories, but increased the difficulty in shipping explosives as break bulk cargo. Some shippers have found it difficult to meet the new stowage categories, particularly stowage category 04, which requires shipment on deck in a closed cargo transport unit or under deck in a closed cargo transport unit. Many of the items contained in these shipments are large and robust articles and are difficult to pack in a closed cargo transport unit. This has resulted in unnecessary delays and added expense.
The following table addresses this issue through modification of the stowage categories for individual UN numbers for which under deck stowage
Consistent with changes to Amendment 39–18 of the IMDG Code, PHMSA proposes numerous changes to the special stowage and segregation provisions [Other provisions] indicated in column (10B) of the HMT.
Amendment 39–18 of the IMDG Code amended multiple entries to ensure proper segregation between acids and both amines and cyanides. Amines react dangerously with acids, evolving heat, and the heat of reaction has the potential to generate corrosive vapors. Cyanides react with acids to generate toxic vapors. However, current vessel segregation requirements are inconsistent. Therefore, PHMSA proposes to apply stowage codes 52, 53, and 58—which require stowage “separated from acids,” “separated from alkaline compounds”, and “separated from cyanides,” respectively—to column 10B of the HMT, as shown in Table 3, below.
Consistent with changes adopted in Amendment 39–18 of the IMDG Code, PHMSA proposes to add existing stowage codes 12 and 25 to entries in the HMT. Vessel stowage code 12 requires keeping the cargo as cool as reasonably practicable. Vessel stowage code 25 requires protecting shipments from sources of heat. PHMSA proposes to add codes 12 and 25 to Nitrocellulose with alcohol
PHMSA proposes to add vessel stowage codes to multiple HMT entries for uranium hexafluoride. In a previous final rule [Docket No. PHMSA–2015–0273 (HM–215N); 82 FR 15796] a subsidiary hazard of 6.1 was added to the UN 2977 and UN 2978 Uranium hexafluoride entries, and the primary hazard for UN 3507, Uranium hexafluoride, radioactive material, excepted package was changed from 8 to 6.1. Consequential amendments to the stowage and segregation requirements codes for these materials were not addressed at the time of these changes in the IMDG Code or the HMR. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to add existing vessel stowage code 74 and new vessel stowage code 151 to UN 2977 and UN 2978. Additionally, PHMSA proposes to add new vessel stowage code 152 to UN 3507. Stowage code 74 requires stowage separated from oxidizers. See section by section discussion on proposed changes to § 176.84 for a description of stowage code 151 and 152. These proposed amendments are necessary to ensure appropriate stowage and segregation provisions that account for the subsidiary and tertiary hazards of these commodities.
Finally, we propose to add new stowage provision 154 and assign it to the NA 0123, NA 0494, UN 0494, and UN 0124 jet perforating gun HMT entries. This proposed new stowage provision indicates that notwithstanding the stowage category assigned to the entries in the HMT, jet perforating guns may be stowed in accordance with the provisions of packing instruction US 1 in § 173.62. See the discussion on stowage provision 154 in the § 176.84 section by section portion of this rulemaking.
Appendix B to § 172.101 lists marine pollutants regulated under the HMR. Based on test data submitted to PHMSA, the USCG, and the IMO, Amendment 39–18 of the IMDG Code was updated to indicate that 1-dodecene is not a marine pollutant. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to amend the entry for “Dodecene” in the list of marine pollutants in appendix B to § 172.101 to indicate that 1-dodecene is not a marine pollutant, and as a result, shipments of 1-dodecene are not subject to the provisions of the HMR applicable to marine pollutants.
Section 172.102 lists special provisions applicable to the transportation of specific hazardous materials. Special provisions contain
•
•
•
•
•
Special provision 347 is presently assigned to eight (8) Division 1.4S entries in the HMT including shaped charges, detonators, power device cartridges, detonator assemblies, and plastic bonded bursting charges. Following a review of other Division 1.4S entries, the UN Working Group on Explosives supported applying Special provision 347 to entries for articles and substances whose classification as 1.4S that are generic “not otherwise specified” (n.o.s.) and to UN 0367 (Fuzes, detonating) that are normally package dependent, noting that generic entries normally warrant more systematic testing. Therefore, in this NPRM, consistent with the UN Model Regulations, PHMSA proposes to add special provision 347 to the following entries:
PHMSA requests comments on whether this proposed provision—to add special provision 347 to the four entries—is likely to have net benefits.
•
•
•
•
•
This proposed special provision which captures many of the safety elements included in previous approvals issued by PHMSA would specify that the lithium batteries must meet the requirements of § 173.185(a) and contain the necessary systems to prevent overcharge and over discharge between the batteries. The batteries inside the cargo transport unit are not subject to marking or labelling requirements of part 172 subparts D and E of this subchapter. The cargo transport unit shall display the UN number in a manner in accordance with § 172.332 of this subchapter and be placarded on two opposing sides.
The batteries must be securely attached to the interior structure of the cargo transport unit (
•
•
•
•
•
•
PHMSA proposes to revise Portable Tank Special Provision TP10 to authorize a three-month extension for the transportation of bromine portable tanks for the purposes of performing the next required test—after emptying, but before cleaning.
•
•
Additionally, PPHMSA is proposing to add special provision W40 to the following HMT entries:
Section 172.203 prescribes additional description requirements for shipping papers. In this NPRM, PHMSA proposes to require, in revised § 172.203(o), that the words “TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED” be added to the proper shipping name if not already indicated in the HMT, when appropriate. This proposed amendment would provide notice to those in the transport chain that a material is being offered under temperature control. Additionally, PHMSA proposes to add polymerizing substances to the list of types of materials paragraph (o) additional documentation requirements apply to.
Section 172.407 prescribes specifications for hazard communication labels. Consistent with changes made in Amendment 39–18 of the IMDG Code and the 2019–2020 ICAO Technical Instructions, PHMSA is proposing to amend paragraph (c)(1) to remove the requirement that the width of the solid line forming the inner border of labels must be at least 2 mm. Additionally, we are proposing to amend the requirement that the solid line inner border, currently required to be 5 mm inside and parallel to the edge, to include the word “approximately” before 5 mm. These changes provide flexibility for minor labeling variations that do not have an appreciable impact on transportation safety. Finally, paragraph (c)(1)(iii) which contains a transitional exception allowing for labels in conformance with the requirements of 49 CFR 172.407(c)(1) (revised as of October 1, 2014) to continue to be used until December 31, 2018, is removed and reserved.
Section 172.514 prescribes placarding requirements and exceptions for a bulk packaging containing a hazardous material. The general placarding requirements prescribe that bulk packagings are to be placarded on each side and each end. Due to the form and shape (
Section 172.604 prescribes requirements for emergency response telephone numbers. Paragraph (d) identifies materials for which an emergency response telephone number is not required when offered for transportation. In a March 30, 2017 final rule [HM–215N; 82 FR 15795], PHMSA harmonized the HMR with international regulations by adopting separate HMT entries for internal combustion engines based on the fuel,
Section 172.800 prescribes the requirements for developing and implementing plans to address security risks related to the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce. During review of existing references that are incorporated by reference in the HMR it was noted that the IAEA Code of Conduct Category 1 and 2, while referenced in paragraph (b)(15) was not appropriately incorporated by reference (see § 171.7). In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to incorporate by reference the IAEA Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources into paragraph (b)(15). Furthermore, we are proposing to revise a reference to known radionuclides in forms listed as RAM–QC by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Category 1 and Category 2 radioactive materials as listed in Table 1, Appendix A to 10 CFR part 37. Lastly, we are listing the reference to Highway Route Controlled Quantities separately in this paragraph. This proposed amendment does not require the creation and retention of security plans by any new individuals, but simply incorporates by reference the appropriate IAEA reference and clarifies the existing requirement.
Section 173.2a outlines classification requirements for materials having more than one hazard. PHMSA is proposing to amend paragraph (a) to indicate the appropriate classification precedence for the new “Articles” HMT entries
Section 173.6 provides authorization for certain hazardous materials meeting the definition of a material of trade (MOT) to be transported by motor vehicle in conformance with this section and be excepted from all other requirements of this subchapter if certain quantity limitations, packaging provisions, and hazard communication requirements are met. In two recent rulemakings [HM–218H; 81 FR 35483] and [HM–215N; 82 FR 15795] PHMSA removed packing group assignments from Column (5) of the HMT for all organic peroxides (Division 5.2), self-reactive substances (Division 4.1), explosives (Class 1), and articles containing hazardous materials. This removal of an indication of packing group for these materials and articles has led to questions on the ability of these materials and articles to utilize the MOTs exceptions provided in § 173.6. Further, in this NPRM the addition of twelve new proper shipping names for articles is proposed. These proposed new proper shipping names are also not assigned a packing group. See “Section 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table (HMT)” for a detailed discussion of this proposal.
It was not the intention of these previous rulemakings or this NPRM to exclude these materials and articles from the ability to utilize the MOTs exceptions, provided the hazardous materials within the articles comply with the existing quantity limitations and other transport provisions of § 173.6. In this NPRM, PHMSA proposes to add a new paragraph (a)(7) to clarify that materials and articles for which Column (5) of the Hazardous Materials Table in § 172.101 does not indicate a packing group are authorized to utilize the MOTs exceptions as applicable, and indicate the appropriate quantity limits applicable to those materials in articles. In addition, PHMSA proposes to revise paragraph (b)(3) to clarify the securement requirement for the transportation of articles under the MOTS exceptions.
The packaging section 173.232 proposed in this NPRM for the new proper shipping names for articles requires packaging at the Packing Group II performance level. Non-specification packaging and transportation unpackaged is also authorized.
In addition, the two previous rulemakings removed packing groups from all organic peroxides (Division 5.2), self-reactive substances (Division 4.1), explosives (Class 1), and the specific articles indicated in Table 4 below. All articles and materials for which a packing group was recently removed from the HMT, the corresponding section referenced in Column (8) of the § 172.101 Table requires either packaging meeting Packing Group II or III performance level requirements or non-specification packaging is authorized. Thus, PHMSA believes clarifying that materials and articles that are not assigned a Packing Group in the HMT are eligible to utilize the MOTs exception, and indicating that the appropriate quantity limit for these materials and articles based on the PG II or PG III levels shown in § 173.6(a)(1)(ii) or as shown in § 173.6(a)(3) for articles containing Division 4.3 materials is appropriate to remove any doubt concerning MOTs applicability to these materials and articles.
Section 173.62 outlines specific packaging requirements for explosives. In paragraph (c), in the Table of Packing Methods, Packing Instruction US 1 containing packing instructions for jet perforating guns, PHMSA is proposing to increase the maximum authorized amount of explosive contents per tool pallet and cargo vessel compartment from 90.8 kg to 95 kg. These limits are consistent with a provision added to Amendment 39–18 of the IMDG Code authorizing jet perforating guns to be transported to or from offshore oil platforms, mobile offshore drilling units, and other offshore installations in offshore well tool pallets, cradles, or baskets. PHMSA notes that the amendments adopted in section 7.1.4.4.5 of Amendment 39–18 of the IMDG Code require both ends of jet perforating guns to be protected by means of steel end caps. PHMSA is not proposing to adopt this additional requirement for steel end caps noting the safe transportation record of these explosive articles under the existing requirements of the HMR.
Section 173.121 provides criteria for the assignment of packing groups to Class 3 materials. Paragraph (b) provides criteria for viscous flammable liquids of Class 3 (
Recognizing that global transport of dangerous goods is inherently multi-modal, the harmonization of the IMDG Code with other modes will aid trade and reduce incidents of non-compliance due to misunderstandings. At the point of packing, the manufacturer will not know which route (by road/rail/inland waterway or sea) the package will take. This leads to the possibility of accidental consignment by sea of packages between 30 and 450 litres.
This proposed change would increase the allowed volume of viscous liquids in a single package and would be applicable to all modes except for air. Specifically, in this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to increase the packaging limits for viscous flammable liquids of packing group II material that may be placed in packing group III. For transport by vessel, PHMSA proposes an increase from 30 L to 450 L. For transport by rail and highway, PHMSA proposes an increase from 100 L to 450 L. Consistent with the ICAO Technical Instructions, the packaging quantity limits to air will remain 30 L for passenger aircraft and 100 L for cargo aircraft.
Section 173.124 contains definitions for Class 4, Divisions 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to amend paragraph (a)(4)(iv) to extend the sunset dates for provisions concerning the transportation of polymerizing substances from January 2, 2019, to January 2, 2021. See the background section of this rulemaking for a more detailed discussion on polymerizing substances.
Section 173.127 provides a definition and criteria for the assignment of packing groups for Division 5.1 Oxidizers. A new Section 39 in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria was introduced containing all provisions for the classification of ammonium nitrate based fertilizers. As a consequence of the new section, existing text in both the Manual and the Model Regulations was amended or removed to avoid duplicative provisions in both publications. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to revise the classification criteria for solid ammonium nitrate based fertilizers by requiring that they are classified in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, Section 39. These proposed changes are not intended to result in changes to the current classification provisions for ammonium nitrate fertilizers, but rather consolidate the provisions for ease of use and prevent inadvertent misclassification.
Section 173.134 provides definitions and exceptions for infectious substances. Consistent with the UN Model Regulations, PHMSA is proposing to revise the definition for “patient specimen” in paragraph (a)(4) by removing redundant references to humans and animals.
Section 173.136 provides the definition for corrosive materials. In the UN Model Regulations, the definition for corrosive materials was revised to align with the current text in Chapter 3.2 of the UN GHS and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Test Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals. PHMSA is proposing to amend the definition in paragraph (a) for a corrosive material by replacing the text “full thickness destruction” with “irreversible damage.”
Section 173.137 prescribes the requirements for assigning a packing group to Class 8 materials. Currently the HMR require offerors to classify Class 8 corrosive material and assign a packing group based on test data. The HMR authorize a skin corrosion test and various
In a new paragraph (d), PHMSA proposes creating an alternative, tiered approach to classification and packing group assignment depending on how much information is available about the mixture itself, similar mixtures, and/or the mixture's ingredients. When sufficient data is available on similar mixtures to estimate skin corrosion hazards for bridging, the bridging principle method may be used to classify and assign a packing group. When no bridging data is available, the more conservative calculation method may be used. This tiered approach ensures an appropriate level of safety in situations where reliable data may not be available. These alternatives for classifying corrosive mixtures allow offerors the ability to make a classification and packing group assignment without having to conduct physical tests.
Additionally, the new corrosivity classification methods are much more closely aligned with those found in the UN GHS. However, not all GHS corrosivity classification methods were incorporated in the new UN Model Regulations corrosivity requirements. For example, the use of extreme pH values to assign corrosivity were not addressed in the UN Model Regulations, and as such are not proposed in this NPRM. Consistent with the proposed change to the definition of a corrosive material in § 173.136, PHMSA is proposing to replace all instances of the text “full thickness destruction” with “irreversible damage.” PHMSA is also proposing to add a new appendix I to part 173, containing a flow chart for use with the calculation method.
Finally, PHMSA is proposing to update the four existing OECD Guidelines currently incorporated by reference in this section to their 2015 versions (Test Nos. 404, 430, 431, and 435). OECD Guideline 404 and OECD Guideline 435 contain minor variations in the types of information to be recorded as a part of the test report in relation to the previously incorporated versions. OECD Guideline 430 and OECD Guideline 431 were updated to include a reference to a developed document on integrated approaches to testing and assessment. OECD Guideline 431.
Section 173.159 prescribes requirements applicable to the transportation of electric storage batteries containing electrolyte acid or alkaline corrosive battery fluid (
Section 173.185 prescribes requirements for lithium cells and batteries. The introductory paragraph defines terms as used in this section. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to clarify in the introduction that a single cell battery is considered a “cell” and must be transported in accordance with the requirements for cells. In § 173.185(a), the HMR describe UN cell and battery design testing, general cell and battery design safety requirements, and packaging requirements. In this NPRM, PHMSA proposes to amend § 173.185(a) to include a lithium cell and battery test summary with a standardized set of elements. Manufacturers and subsequent distributers of lithium cells and batteries manufactured after June 30, 2003, must make this information available to others in the supply chain. This action is intended to provide subsequent distributors and consumers the information necessary to ensure that lithium cells and batteries offered and reoffered for transport meet the appropriate UN design tests. This test summary is intended to provide a signal to users that the battery is from a legitimate and compliant source, and allowing those in the transport chain to more easily identify non-counterfeit products. PHMSA, believes that potential ancillary benefits from this proposed lithium battery test summary include; a reduction in shipments of counterfeit cells and batteries, incremental safety gains in transport and use due to an increase in the use of batteries that are of a tested and approved type, and additional benefits received by consumers from a higher quality battery (
PHMSA developed a guidance document to assist manufacturers and distributors with understanding and implementing this requirement. The guidance includes an explanation of the requirement, a sample test summary, and questions and answers. A copy of this guidance is available in the docket for this rulemaking. PHMSA requests comments on the usefulness of the guidance material and comments to improve its clarity and additional questions to add to the guidance.
The HMR in § 173.185(b) require lithium cells and batteries to be packed in inner packagings in such a manner as to prevent short circuits, including movement which could lead to short circuits. These inner packagings must be placed in an outer package conforming to the requirements of part 178, subparts L and M, at the Packing Group II performance level. PHMSA proposes several amendments to § 173.185(b) to update and clarify various provisions. PHMSA proposes to amend § 173.185(b)(2)(ii) to specify that lithium cells and batteries including lithium cells or batteries packed with, or contained in, equipment, must be packaged in a manner that prevents damage caused by movement or placement within the package. The current text requires lithium batteries to be packaged in a manner to prevent movement. This could be interpreted as to require no movement within the package. This proposed amendment would minimize ambiguity in the current requirements and only prohibit movement that leads to damage within the package.
Further, PHMSA proposes to amend § 173.185(b)(3)(i) to specify that inner packagings must be separated from
From our experience with public comments on this issue related to ICAO and the UN, PHMSA understands it is not common industry practice nor a desired option for U.S. shippers to pack lithium batteries with other hazardous materials in the same outer package. There appears to be limited U.S. market interest in this type of packing configuration. Therefore. PHMSA expects codifying this provision to have negligible negative implications to U.S. shippers while leveling the playing field by applying the provision to non-US originating shipments imported into the U.S.
Section 173.185(c) of the HMR describes provisions for the carriage of up to eight small lithium cells or two small lithium batteries per package with alternative hazard communication that replaces the Class 9 label with a lithium battery mark. Additional conditions for the transport of small lithium cells and batteries by air are contained in § 173.185(c)(4). In this NPRM, PHMSA proposes several amendments to § 173.185(c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) to align the HMR with the UN Model Regulations and the ICAO Technical Instructions, address the hazards associated with placing lithium batteries next to other hazardous materials, and clarify specific provisions. PHMSA proposes to amend § 173.185(c)(2) to except equipment that is robust enough to protect lithium batteries from damage or short circuit from the requirement to be packaged. The current regulations provide an exception from the requirement for the package to be rigid, but otherwise requires the equipment to be placed into a package. This proposed amendment would remove an unnecessary requirement to package otherwise robust equipment that protect lithium batteries from damage or short circuits. This proposal further aligns the HMR with the UN Model Regulations provisions found in special provision 188 for packaging of lithium cells batteries and equipment. PHMSA proposes to add a new § 173.185(c)(3)(iii) to require that when packages of lithium cells or batteries required to bear the lithium battery mark are placed in an overpack, the lithium battery mark must either (1) be clearly visible through the overpack; or
Section 173.185(d) of the HMR describes provisions for the transport of lithium cells and batteries for disposal or recycling. In this NPRM, PHMSA proposes to authorize the use of certain rigid large packagings to transport a single large battery or a single large item of equipment. This will provide additional packaging options to transport large batteries and equipment that by nature of their size or shape cannot fit into a non-bulk package. The UN Model Regulations do not include large packagings as an option for lithium batteries shipped for disposal or recycling. Nevertheless, PHMSA expects that large batteries and equipment would potentially require large packagings. Like the authorizations for the use of large packagings elsewhere in § 173.185, PHMSA would authorize the use of a large packaging for a single large battery or a single item of equipment containing batteries. PHMSA proposes to separate the existing § 173.185(d) into separate subparagraphs (d)(1) and (2) to accommodate these amendments.
Section 173.185(e) of the HMR describes provisions for the transport of low production and prototype lithium cells and batteries including equipment. In this NPRM, PHMSA proposes an editorial amendment to the § 173.185(e) introductory paragraph to clarify that the “transported for purposes of testing” condition applies to prototype cells and batteries and that both low production and prototype lithium cells and batteries may be contained in equipment. PHMSA also proposes an editorial amendment to paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) to specify that cushioning material must be electrically non-conductive instead of the existing “non-conductive” requirement. In addition, PHMSA proposes a new paragraph (e)(4) to authorize the use of certain rigid large packagings to transport a single large battery or a single large item of equipment. This will provide additional packaging options to transport large batteries and equipment that by nature of their size or shape cannot fit into a non-bulk package. Each of the remaining sub-paragraphs in § 173.185(e) would be renumbered and remain unchanged.
Section 173.185(f) of the HMR describes provisions for the transport of lithium batteries that have been damaged or identified by the manufacturer as being defective for safety reasons, and that have the potential of producing a dangerous evolution of heat, fire, or short circuit (
Section 173.218 contains packaging requirements for shipments of stabilized fish meal and fish scrap. Stabilization of fish meal and fish scrap by applying antioxidants is required in order to offer the material under a Class 9 stabilized proper shipping name. Historically, the IMDG Code and the HMR only reference one antioxidant—ethoxyquin—by name although other antioxidants exist. In response to testing performed by the International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organization (IFFO)
In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to amend paragraph (c) of this section to lower the required ethoxyquin level at the time of shipment in bulk in freight containers for transportation by vessel from 100 ppm to 50 ppm and to specify acceptable levels of for butylated hydroxytoluene (100 ppm) and for tocopherols (250 ppm) in shipments of fish meal or fish scrap transported by vessel in bulk in freight containers. Reducing the required minimum concentration of ethoxyquin and permitting the use of additional antioxidants would potentially reduce cost, add flexibility while maintaining an equivalent level of safety.
Section 173.220 prescribes transportation requirements and exceptions for internal combustion engines, vehicles, machinery containing internal combustion engines, battery-powered equipment or machinery, and fuel cell-powered equipment or machinery.
Special provision 135 is assigned to the HMT entries for certain vehicles. It specifies that if a vehicle is powered by
In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to make an editorial amendment to the requirements for vehicles powered by lithium batteries in paragraph (d). Specifically, we are clarifying that when a lithium battery is removed from the vehicle and is packed separately from the vehicle in the same outer packaging, the package must be classified as “UN 3481, Lithium ion batteries packed with equipment” or “UN 3091, Lithium batteries packed with equipment,” and is not eligible for classification as “UN3171, Battery-powered vehicle
Section 173.222 specifies the requirements for dangerous goods in machinery or apparatus. During the course of reviewing provisions associated with the new HMT entries for “Articles containing hazardous materials, n.o.s.,” PHMSA found that the quantity limits prescribed in § 173.222 are inconsistent with certain international standards. The current authorized quantity of hazardous materials in one item of machinery or apparatus are as follows: 1 kg for solids; 0.5 L for liquids, and 0.5 kg for Division 2.2 gases. These quantity limits are consistent with the ICAO Technical Instructions; however, they are not aligned with the UN Model Regulations or the IMDG Code. Special provision 301 of the UN Model Regulations and the IMDG Code authorize up to the limited quantity amount for each item of dangerous goods contained in the machinery or apparatus.
In a previous final rule published on March 5, 1999 [Docket No. RSPA–98–4185 (HM–215C); 64 FR 10741] PHMSA's predecessor agency, the Research and Special Projects Administration (RSPA), aligned the HMR with the ICAO Technical Instructions by adding “Dangerous goods in machinery
In the 20th Revised Edition of UN Model Regulations and Amendment 39–18 of IMDG Code, the new “Articles containing hazardous materials, n.o.s.” entries apply to articles which contain only hazardous materials that exceed the permitted limited quantity amount for UN3363. The ICAO addressed the difference between the quantity authorized in the Technical Instructions and both the UN Model Regulations and the IMDG Code by amending ICAO special provision A107. The revised special provision A107 indicates that where the quantity of dangerous goods contained as an integral element in machinery or apparatus exceeds the limits permitted by ICAO Technical Instructions Packing Instruction 962 (same as the existing HMR authorization), and the dangerous goods meet the provisions of Special Provision 301 of the UN Model Regulations, the machinery or apparatus may be transported as UN3363 only with the prior approval of the appropriate authority of the State of Origin and the State of the Operator under the written conditions established by those authorities.
In order to more closely align with the UN Model Regulations and IMDG Code, for other than air transportation, PHMSA is proposing to increase the quantity limits for liquids and solids in paragraph (c) up to the limited quantity amount prescribed in the corresponding section of Part 173 referenced in Column (8A) of the § 172.101 Table. Without this amendment, the HMR would differ from the UN Model Regulations and IMDG Code for application of the new “Articles, n.o.s.” entries, and an approach used by the ICAO Technical Instructions would be necessary for all modes. The authorized quantity for gases would remain unchanged for all modes of transport.
Section 173.224 establishes packaging and control and emergency temperatures for self-reactive materials. The Self-Reactive Materials Table in paragraph (b)(7) of this section specifies self-reactive materials authorized for transportation without first being approved for transportation by the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, as well as requirements for transporting these materials. In paragraph (b)(7), PHMSA proposes to add a new entry “Phosphorothioic acid, O-[(cyanophenyl methylene) azanyl] O,O-diethyl ester” to the Self-Reactive Materials Table. In addition, a new “Note 5” assigned to this entry would be added to the list following the table.
Paragraph (c) of this section prescribes requirements for new self-reactive materials, formulations, and samples. In paragraph (c)(4), PHMSA proposes to authorize small samples of certain potentially explosive or self-reactive substances when transported for testing purposes. These substances usually consist of organic molecules which are active ingredients, building blocks, or intermediates for pharmaceutical or agricultural chemicals. The molecules of the substances often carry functional groups listed in tables A6.1 and/or A6.2 in Annex 6 (Screening Procedures) of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, that would indicate explosive or self-reactive properties; however, these substances are not designed to be explosives of Class 1. This amendment is necessary
Consistent with the UN Model Regulations, PHMSA is proposing to revise paragraph (b)(4) to authorize the transportation of self-reactive substances packed in accordance with packing method OP8 (non-bulk packaging authorization) where transport in IBCs or portable tanks is permitted in accordance with § 173.225, provided that the control and emergency temperatures specified in the instructions are complied with. This proposed change allows materials that are authorized in bulk packagings to also be transported in appropriate non-bulk packagings.
Section 173.225 prescribes packaging requirements and other provisions for organic peroxides. The UN Model Regulations continually update their Organic Peroxide Table based on data submitted by governments and industry groups with consultative status to account for new peroxides and formulations that have become commercially available. Consistent with revisions to the UN Model Regulations, PHMSA proposes to revise the Organic Peroxide Table in paragraph (c) by adding the entries: “Di-(4-tert-butylcyclohexyl)peroxydicarbonate [as a paste],” “Diisobutyryl peroxide [as a stable dispersion in water],” and “1-Phenylethyl hydroperoxide.” We propose to revise the Organic Peroxide IBC Table in paragraph (e) to maintain alignment with the UN Model Regulations by adding new entries for “Cumyl peroxyneodecanoate, not more than 52%, stable dispersion, in water,” “2,5-Dimethyl-2,5-di(tert-butylperoxy)hexane, not more than 52% in diluent type A,” “3,6,9-Triethyl-3,6,9-trimethyl-,4,7-triperoxonane not more than 27% diluent type A,” and “tert-Amyl peroxy-2-ethylhexanoate, not more than 62% in a diluent type A” and by adding a type 31HA1 IBC authorization to the existing entry for “tert-Butyl hydroperoxide, not more than 72% with water.”
In addition, consistent with the UN Model Regulations, PHMSA is proposing that organic peroxides may also be transported packed in accordance with packing method OP8 where transport in IBCs or portable tanks is permitted, provided that the control and emergency temperatures specified in the instructions are complied with.
New section 173.232 prescribes requirements for articles not otherwise specified by name in the HMR that contain hazardous materials of various hazard classes and divisions. This proposal addresses situations in which hazardous materials or hazardous materials residues are present in articles in quantities greater than the amounts authorized for dangerous goods in machinery or apparatus. This proposal authorizes a safe method to transport articles that may be too large to fit into typical packages. Absent these provisions to package and transport these materials safely, these articles may be offered for transport under provisions that do not adequately account for the physical and chemical properties of the substances and may require the issuance of an approval by PHMSA's Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. PHMSA believes this will be especially beneficial to new articles coming to market as they would no longer require an approval or an amendment to the Hazardous Materials Table to authorize transport.
Section 173.301b describes additional requirements when shipping gases in UN pressure receptacles. In paragraph (c)(1), PHMSA is proposing to incorporate ISO 17871:2015 containing specification and type testing requirements for quick release cylinder valves. In paragraph (d)(1), PHMSA is phasing out ISO 13340:2001, Transportable gas cylinders—Cylinder valves for non-refillables cylinders—Specification and prototype testing, which can be utilized until December 31, 2020. ISO 13340:2001 is being phased out because the applicable valve standard in ISO 13340:2001 has been incorporated into ISO 11118:2015.
Section 173.304b contains additional requirements for shipment of liquefied compressed gases in UN pressure receptacles. In this NPRM, consistent with a change made by in the 20th Revised Edition of the UN Model Regulations, PHMSA is proposing to amend paragraph (b)(5) by replacing “liquid phase” with “liquefied gas” and “compressed” with “compressed gas” to better describe the phases of the material being stored and to align with the UN language.
Section 173.422 contains additional requirements for excepted packages containing Class 7 (radioactive) materials. Shipments of excepted packages containing Class 7 materials are not required to meet the general shipping paper requirements found in the HMR. Amendments 39–18 of the IMDG Code adopted a requirement that vessels carrying these excepted packages include information concerning these packages (
In this NPRM, PHMSA proposes to add a new paragraph (f) that would require excepted packages of radioactive materials offered for transportation by vessel to have a special transport document such as a bill of lading, air waybill, or other similar document that includes the UN identification number for the material being offered, the name and address of the consignor and consignee, and a container packing certificate, in accordance with the requirements in § 176.27. This proposed amendment provides for the conveyance of necessary information to the vessel operator for creation of the DCM.
Section 174.50 prescribes regulations for the movement of nonconforming or leaking packages by rail. Under the HMR, no person may offer for transportation or transport a bulk hazmat packaging (typically a tank car) by rail unless that packaging is marked, represented, maintained, reconditioned, repaired, and retested in accordance with the HMR (§ 171.2(g)). However, § 174.50 authorizes the movement of a
Approvals issued by FRA's Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety are commonly referred to as One-Time Movement Approvals (OTMAs).
On July 12, 2007, Transport Canada published, “Regulations Amending the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (International Harmonization Update, 2016).” In this publication, Transport Canada indicated that recognition of OTMA may be included in a future amendment. This amendment aims to facilitate international transportation and at the same time ensures the safety of people, property, and the environment. Finally, for low-risk movements of non-conforming tank cars, Transport Canada authorizes the one-time movement without the need to obtain a temporary certificate (see TP–14877). For clarification, such movements under the TDG Regulations are already authorized by § 171.12, provided the movements are compliant with all applicable requirements in the TDG Regulations and § 171.12.
Section 175.10 specifies the conditions for which passengers, crew members, or an operator may carry hazardous materials aboard an aircraft. Consistent with revisions to the ICAO Technical Instructions, in this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing several revisions to this section.
PHMSA proposes to revise paragraph (a)(2) to account for lighters powered by lithium batteries (
PHMSA proposes to revise paragraph (a)(3), to authorize medical devices containing radioactive material fitted externally as the result of medical treatment, consistent with the ICAO Technical Instructions. In addition, the reference to implanted medical devices containing lithium batteries would be removed. For medical devices containing lithium batteries (including those implanted, externally fitted, or carried by passengers or crew members) the quantity limits provided in (a)(18)(i) or (ii) apply, as applicable.
PHMSA proposes to revise paragraph (a)(14) for consistency with the ICAO Technical Instructions and other paragraphs in this section. The first sentence is revised to clarify that the paragraph is applicable to battery powered heat-producing devices rather than “electrically powered” articles. For lithium battery powered devices, quantity limits would be added in new paragraphs (i) and (ii) consistent with the existing requirements applicable to portable electronic devices powered by lithium batteries and battery powered portable electronic smoking devices. The requirements for spare batteries would be revised to reference the provisions for spare batteries in paragraph (a)(18).
PHMSA proposes to revise paragraph (a)(15) by adding a new paragraph (vi) to separate and clarify the handling requirements applicable to each “non-spillable” and “dry sealed” batteries both presently prescribed in paragraph (v). PHMSA also proposes to add a new paragraph (vii) to authorize passengers with restricted mobility to carry a spare non-spillable or dry sealed battery for their mobility aid. Presently, spare lithium batteries are permitted for passengers with lithium battery-powered mobility aids; this was deemed acceptable for mobility aids equipped with non-spillable or dry sealed batteries.
PHMSA proposes to amend provisions for carriage of wheelchairs or other mobility aids equipped with a lithium ion battery by removing the requirement that “collapsible” mobility aids necessitate removal of the battery. The intent of the existing requirement was to allow the removal of the batteries from lightweight collapsible mobility aids when these do not afford any protection to the batteries. However, the existing text in both the HMR and ICAO Technical Instructions can be construed to mean that if the battery was designed to be removable from the mobility aid, that it must be removed in all circumstances, even when adequate protection to the batteries is provided. In cases when the batteries are adequately protected, it is preferable that they remain installed in the mobility aid; however, there may be situations when that is not possible or safe to do so and in these cases the batteries must be removed. Therefore, in this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to amend (a)(17)(v) by removing the word “collapsible” and clarifying that when the wheelchair or mobility aid does not provide adequate protection to the battery, that the battery must be removed and handled in accordance with the existing conditions prescribed in (a)(17)(v)(A) through (E).
PHMSA proposes to amend the provisions for carriage of personal electronic devices (PEDs) containing lithium batteries to address safety concerns related to recent security restrictions requiring passengers to carry personal electronic devices in checked baggage. Consistent with the ICAO
PHMSA proposes to revise the carriage requirements for battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices in paragraph (a)(19). The 2015–2016 Edition of the ICAO Technical Instructions incorporated provisions prohibiting passengers and crew from carrying such devices in checked baggage or recharging them in the cabin, and requiring that any spare batteries be protected from short circuit. In a working paper submitted by the United States at ICAO DGP/26 meeting, it was reported that even after the prohibition, ten incidents involving these devices were documented between May 2015 and May 2017. As described in the working paper, seven of the incidents occurred inside a passenger aircraft and three occurred inside an airport. These incidents typically involved the electronic smoking device while it was being transported in carry-on baggage, with the suspected cause of the majority of these incidents being the accidental activation of the device. Specifically, in this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to align the HMR with the ICAO Technical Instructions by requiring passengers or crew to take effective measures for preventing accidental activation of the heating element of the device when transporting such devices in carry-on baggage on board passenger aircraft. Examples of effective measures include, but are not limited to: Removing the battery from the electronic smoking device; separating the battery from the heating coil; placing the electronic smoking device into a protective case; using a protective cover, safety latch, or locking device on the electronic smoking device's heating coil activation button; and electronics or technology in the device designed to prevent accidental activation, such as those requiring the electronic smoking device to be powered on before the heating coil button can be activated. In most electronic smoking devices, the battery can either be easily removed or easily separated from the heating element.
PHMSA proposes to add a new paragraph (a)(26) that would amend the passenger provisions for carriage of baggage equipped with lithium batteries (
Section 175.33 establishes requirements for shipping papers and for the notification of the pilot-in-command when hazardous materials are transported by aircraft. In paragraph (a)(11), applicable to “UN 1845, Carbon dioxide, solid (dry ice),” PHMSA proposes that the text “hold” be replaced with the word “cargo compartment.” This would be consistent with use of the term “compartment” in other areas of the HMR and ICAO Technical Instructions. Consistent with revisions to the ICAO Technical Instructions, in paragraph (a)(13)(i), PHMSA proposes to include the airport at which the lithium batteries will be unloaded on the information to the pilot-in-command when a summary is used for lithium batteries. Including the airport at which the batteries will be unloaded is consistent with the authorization to use a summary instead of the default information to the pilot in command for “UN 1845, Carbon dioxide, solid (dry ice).”
Section 175.78 prescribes the stowage compatibility of hazardous materials offered for transportation by aircraft. Consistent with international standards, in a March 30, 2017, final rule [HM–215N; 82 FR 15795], PHMSA added new Class 3 HMT entry “UN 3528,” applicable to the fuel contained in engines and machinery powered by Class 3 flammable liquids. In accordance with the segregation requirements prescribed in this section, engines and machinery classified under the new UN 3528 entry in Class 3 are required to be segregated from dangerous goods with a primary or subsidiary hazard of Division 5.1. Prior to the addition of the UN 3528 HMT entry, such engines and machinery were classed in Class 9 and therefore not required to be segregated from Division 5.1 materials. The packing requirements by air for UN 3528 require engines to be drained and the tank caps fitted securely. These precautions ensure that there is only a negligible amount of residual fuel remaining. There is no indication that, as prepared for transport, UN 3528 poses any more hazard now that would require these items to be segregated than when these items were previously identified as a Class 9. Therefore, in this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to add an exception from the segregation requirement by adding a “Note 3” to the paragraph (b) Segregation Table and adding a new paragraph (c)(8) stating that materials consigned under UN 3528 need not be segregated from packages containing hazardous materials in Division 5.1.
Consistent with the ICAO Technical Instructions, PHMSA is proposing to require that packages and overpacks containing lithium cells and batteries that bear the Class 9 label must not be stowed on an aircraft next to, in contact with, or in a position that would allow interaction with, packages or overpacks containing other hazardous materials in Class 1 (other than Division 1.4S), Division 2.1, Class 3, Division 4.1 and Division 5.1. Specifically, the current paragraph (b) would be reformatted into two paragraphs. A new paragraph (b)(2) would be added to prescribe the segregation requirements applicable to lithium cells and batteries. The existing Segregation Table would be revised by adding the necessary columns and rows representing hazard classes not presently in the Table. These changes to the Table would indicate that hazardous materials in the classes described above must be segregated from packages and overpacks containing lithium cells or batteries prepared in accordance with § 173.185(b)(3) and (c)(4)(vi). PHMSA is proposing this action to promote consistency with the ICAO Technical Instructions and in response to a recommendation (A–16–001) from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) stemming from the investigation of the July 28, 2011, in-flight fire and crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 991 that resulted in the loss of the aircraft and
Section 176.30 prescribes requirements for DCM's, lists, or stowage plans required to be carried aboard vessels transporting hazardous materials. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to add a new paragraph (a)(9) to require that DCMs include information on shipments of excepted packages containing Class 7 materials. For shipments of excepted packages containing Class 7 material only the UN identification number, the name and address of the consignor and the consignee, and the stowage location of the hazardous material on board the vessel would be required to be entered on the DCM, list, or stowage plan carried aboard the vessel.
Section 176.84 prescribes the meanings and requirements for numbered or alphanumeric stowage provisions for vessel shipments listed in column (10B) of the § 172.101 HMT. The provisions in § 176.84 are broken down into general stowage provisions, which are defined in the “table of provisions” in paragraph (b), and the stowage provisions applicable to vessel shipments of Class 1 explosives, which are defined in the table in paragraph (c)(2). In a previous final rule [Docket No. PHMSA–2015–0273 (HM–215N); 82 FR 15796], a subsidiary hazard of 6.1 was added to the UN 2977 and UN 2978 uranium hexafluoride entries, and the primary hazard for UN 3507, Uranium hexafluoride, radioactive material, excepted package was changed from 8 to 6.1. Consequential amendment to the stowage and segregation requirements codes for these materials were not addressed at the time of these changes in the IMDG Code or the HMR. In this NPRM, we propose to create new stowage provisions that clarify what segregation requirements apply to shipments of uranium hexafluoride.
PHMSA proposes to create a new stowage provision 151 and assign it to the UN 2977 and UN 2978 uranium hexafluoride entries. This new stowage provision will require segregation for Class 7 materials to apply to uranium hexafluoride shipped under these two UN numbers.
Additionally, consistent with Amendment 39–18 of the IMDG Code, PHMSA proposes to create a new stowage provision 152 and assign it to UN 3507, Uranium hexafluoride, radioactive material, excepted package. This proposed new stowage provision requires segregation as for Class 8, but excepts segregation in relation to Class 7 materials. This exception to the general segregation requirements between Class 8 and Class 7 materials allows shipments of excepted packages of uranium hexafluoride to be stowed in close proximity to shipments of fully regulated uranium hexafluoride.
Based on changes to the IMDG Code to address the appropriate segregation requirements for shipments of uranium hexafluoride, PHMSA proposes to create a new stowage provision 153 and assign it to the UN 2977 and UN 2978 uranium hexafluoride HMT entries. This proposed new stowage provision requires these materials to be stowed “separated longitudinally by an intervening complete compartment or hold from” Divisions 1.1, 1.2, and 1.5.
Based on changes to the IMDG Code to provide additional flexibility in the stowage requirements for jet perforating guns, PHMSA proposes to create a new stowage provision 154 and assign it to the NA 0123, NA 0494, UN 0494, and UN 0124 jet perforating gun HMT entries. This proposed new stowage provision indicates that, notwithstanding the stowage category assigned to the entries in the HMT, jet perforating guns may be stowed in accordance with the provisions of packing instruction US 1 in § 173.62. These jet perforating guns are currently assigned to stowage categories “02” and “04.” Both stowage categories require stowage in closed cargo transport units. The inclusion of new stowage provision 154 clarifies that regardless of the stowage category assigned, jet perforating guns offered in accordance with US 1 in § 173.62 are not required to be offered for transport or transported in closed cargo transport units.
Section 178.71 prescribes specifications for UN pressure receptacles. Consistent with the UN Model Regulations, PHMSA proposes to amend paragraphs (d)(2), (i), (j), and (q)(12), to reflect the adoption of the latest ISO standards for the design, construction, and testing of gas cylinders and their associated service equipment. In paragraph (d)(2), PHMSA is proposing to phase out ISO 13340:2001, which is authorized for valves manufactured until December 31, 2020, and to incorporate by reference ISO 14246:2014 (E) “Gas cylinders—Cylinder valves—Manufacturing tests and examination”, which addresses initial inspection and testing requirements for valves. ISO 13340:2001 is being phased out because the applicable valve has been incorporated into ISO 11118:2015. In paragraph (f), PHMSA is proposing to amend the title of the paragraph to include pressure drums and to add ISO 21172–1:2015(E), “Gas cylinders—Welded steel pressure drums up to 3 000 litres capacity for the transport of gases—Design and construction—Part 1: Capacities up to 1 000 litres” in new paragraph (f)(4). A note was added to the UN Mode Regulations that authorizes welded steel gas pressure drums with dished ends convex to pressure to be used for the transport of corrosive substances provided all applicable additional requirements are met, irrespective of section 6.3.3.4 of this standard which prohibits such use. Therefore, PHMSA is proposing the same deviation from the ISO standard in (p).
In addition, in paragraph (i), PHMSA is proposing to phase out ISO 11118:1999 “Gas Cylinders for Non-refillable Metallic Gas Cylinders,” which is authorized until December 31, 2022, and to replace it with new standard, ISO 11118:2015. In paragraph (j), PHMSA is proposing to phase out ISO 111120:1999, “Gas Cylinders for Refillable Seamless Steel Tubes,” which is authorized until December 31, 2022, and to replace it with ISO 111120:2015. In paragraph (q)(12), PHMSA is incorporating ISO/TR 11364, “Gas cylinders—Compilation of national and international valve stem/gas cylinder neck threads and their identification and marking system” to specify a harmonized identification code and marking system for both cylinders and valves.
Section 178.75 prescribes specifications for MEGCs. In paragraph (d)(3)(v), PHMSA is proposing to phase out ISO 11120:1999, which is authorized for construction and testing of receptacles of MEGCs until December 31, 2020, and to authorize the new, updated standard ISO 11120:2015. Changes to the new edition of this standard include the addition of an annex outlining typical chemistry groupings for seamless steel tubes, the addition of nickel chromium molybdenum steel, the modification of ultrasonic examination provisions, and revisions to the provisions for the design of tubes for embrittling gases.
Section 178.601 prescribes the general requirements for test procedures for non-bulk packagings and packages. A test report must be prepared and made available to a user of a packaging or a DOT representative upon request. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to require in paragraph (l)(2)(viii) that the test report for plastic packagings that are subject to the hydraulic pressure test must include the temperature of the water used for the test. Tests with different water temperatures applied to one design type can produce different test results (pass or fail). This action is consistent with amendments to the UN Model Regulations.
Section 178.801 prescribes the general requirements for test procedures of an IBC containing a hazardous material. A test report for an IBC must be prepared and made available to a user of a packaging or a DOT representative upon request. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to require in paragraph (l)(2)(viii) that the test report for rigid plastics and composite IBCs that are subject to the hydraulic pressure test must include the temperature of the water used for the test. Tests with different water temperatures applied to one design type can produce different test results (pass or fail). The inclusion of the temperature of the water used for the test will allow for tests that more accurately simulate the original design type testing when such additional testing is performed.
Section 178.810 prescribes the requirements for an IBC drop test. In paragraph (c)(1), PHMSA proposes to clarify that the same IBC or a different IBC of the same design type may be utilized for the required drop tests.
Section 180.207 prescribes requirements for requalification of UN pressure receptacles. In March 2017, PHMSA published a final rule under Docket HM–215N [82 FR 15796 (March 30, 2017)]. In this rule, PHMSA amended the HMR to expand recognition of cylinders and pressure receptacles, cargo tank repair facilities, and certificates of equivalency in accordance with the Transport Canada TDG Regulations. The goal of these amendments is to promote flexibility and permit the use of advanced technology for the requalification and use of pressure receptacles, to provide for a broader selection of authorized pressure receptacles, reduce the need for special permits, and to facilitate cross-border transportation of these cylinders. In the HMR in § 171.12 (a)(4) permit the transportation of a cylinder authorized by Transport Canada TDG Regulations to, from, or within the United States. In HM–215N, PHMSA amended (a)(4)(ii) to authorize the use of Canadian manufactured cylinders. Specifically, PHMSA authorized the transportation of CTC, CRC, BTC, and TC cylinders that have a corresponding DOT specification cylinder prescribed in the HMR. HM–215N did not remove or amend existing requirements for DOT specification cylinders; rather, PHMSA is providing that a shipper may use either a DOT specification cylinder or a TC cylinder, as appropriate.
In this NPRM, PHMSA proposes to clarify the amendments in HM–215N and allow for the requalification of “CAN” marked UN cylinders in the United States. Cylinders marked with the letters “CAN” for Canada as a country of manufacture or a country of approval may be requalified in the United States, provided the requirements in §§ 178.69, 178.70, and 178.71, as applicable, are met. This amendment aims to facilitate international transportation, while ensuring the safety of people, property, and the environment
Consistent with changes to the UN Model Regulations, PHMSA proposes to revise paragraph (d)(1) to incorporate ISO 16148:2016, which addresses the requalification of seamless steel cylinders and tubes. This proposed addition will allow the internal inspection and hydraulic pressure test for seamless steel ISO cylinders and tubes to be replaced by non-destructive testing methods identified in ISO 16148:2018. Additionally, in paragraph (d)(4), PHMSA is proposing to phase out ISO 11623:2002, which is authorized for inspection and testing of composite UN cylinders until December 31, 2020, and authorizing the new standard, ISO 11623:2015. Finally, PHMSA proposes adding new paragraph (d)(6) to incorporate inspection and maintenance requirements for cylinder valves preformed during requalification, as found in ISO 22434:2006 “Transportable gas cylinders—Inspection and maintenance of cylinder valves.” Changes to the revised standard include; up-to-date terminology particularly for the various types of composite cylinders, up-to-date normative references for steel and aluminum-alloy liner materials, and an update of some photographs to provide sharper examples of damage.
This proposed rule is published under the statutory authority of Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101
The following external agencies were consulted in the development of this rule:
• Federal Aviation Administration;
• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration;
• Federal Railroad Administration; and
• U.S. Coast Guard.
Section 49 U.S.C. 5120(b) of Federal hazmat law authorizes the Secretary to ensure that, to the extent practicable, regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce are consistent with standards adopted by international authorities. This rule proposes to amend the HMR to maintain alignment with international standards by incorporating various amendments to facilitate the transport of hazardous material in international commerce. To this end, as discussed in detail above, PHMSA proposes to incorporate changes into the HMR based on the 20th Revised Edition of the UN Model Regulations, Amendment 39–18 to the IMDG Code
This notice is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This notice is not considered a significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034).
To estimate the benefits to affected industries from avoided compliance costs, PHMSA relies on a benefit-transfer value of the hazard communication cost savings utilized in previous PHMSA international harmonization rulemakings
Using this estimate of the avoided hazard communication costs, PHMSA estimated the potential benefits to exporters of harmonizing the HMR with international standards. PHMSA relied on the 2012 Bureau of Economic Analysis' (BEA) International Accounts Products for Detailed Goods Trade Data to value industry imports and exports.
PHSMA updated our estimate of value of hazardous materials involved in international trade by using U.S. trade in goods seasonally adjusted, Census-based total gross imports, and gross exports in the fuels and lubricants, chemicals, and medicinal/dental/pharmaceutical products industries for the 2016, the most recent year available.
• Gross imports: $343.431 billion.
○ Fuels and lubricants: $162.077 billion.
○ Chemicals: $69.655 billion.
○ Medicinal/dental/pharmaceutical products: $111.700 billion.
• Gross exports: $269.518 billion.
○ Fuels and lubricants: $112.462 billion.
○ Chemicals: $103.779 billion.
○ Medicinal/dental/pharmaceutical products: $53.277 billion.
• Gross imports plus gross exports: $612.949 billion.
For estimating benefits of this topic, according to the 2012 CFS, commodities worth $13,852,143 million were transported in the U.S. in 2012, of which $2,334,425 million worth were hazardous (or 16.9 percent).
Multiplying this $613 billion (rounded) figure by 10 percent (the estimated proportion of annual trade in these three industries that are hazardous products) by the average hazard communication cost per dollar of hazardous materials produced in the United States ($0.001) results in an estimate of benefits of $61.2 million (rounded) annually. Over the ten-year analysis period from 2019 to 2028, this equates to a net present value of $431 million to $522 million, using a 7 percent and 3 percent discount rate, respectively.
Because it is difficult to directly compare the scope and nature of changes made in the OSHA rule with those made by PHMSA in each HM–215 rulemaking series, the estimates developed should be considered illustrative of very rough and highly uncertain impacts of general harmonization, Given the high degree of uncertainty in these estimates, due to the inability of PHMSA to align provisions in this rule, and their potential impacts, with the OSHA rule we use to draw our estimate from, we do not consider these quantified cost savings, averted costs, or benefits. PHMSA requests comments on the general harmonization benefit methodology utilized as well as any qualitative or quantitative information that our stakeholders can provide on the impact of general harmonization to their operations.
PHMSA expects there to be cost savings to shippers of mixtures that chose to classify their materials using the new classification options instead of traditional testing methods (
These non-test methods have varying degrees of time required for determination of a classification. Methods such as dilution and batching are relatively straight forward and require minimal time to arrive at a classification determination. Methods such as bridging and calculation require more time to arrive at a classification determination. PHMSA does not have a reliable estimate of the time to perform these non-test classification methods. For the purposes of this analysis, we have utilized the most time-consuming calculation method. To arrive at a classification determination using the calculation method the person preforming the calculation must utilize data on the known components of the mixture, and using a formula arrive at a number that correlates to an assignment of a packing group. PHMSA assumes that data on components of a mixture will generally be available, and that preforming this calculation takes approximately 3 hours to complete. Utilizing a weighted hourly wage of $79.06,
PHSMA is challenged in monetizing total cost savings due to a lack of data describing baseline conditions, including a breakdown of the types of hazardous materials that make up the 2012 CFS total flow estimates and the total number of traditional tests industry currently conducts annually to comply with § 173.137. In addition, PHSMA does not have enough information to predict how this proposed rulemaking will change industry behavior. Absent more definitive data, PHMSA assumes 500 to 3,000 new mixtures tested per year. If all of these mixtures use the new non-testing methods, and cost savings equal $1,000.32 per test, total industry cost savings could equate to $0.4 to $3.9 million dollars per year. PHSMA seeks comment if these numbers represent an accurate estimate of new mixtures tested annually.
Please see the RIA for this rulemaking—a copy of which has been placed in the docket—for detailed analysis of the costs of various amendments proposed in this NPRM. Additionally, where noted below, please see the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this rulemaking for a detailed discussion of applicable proposals.
Based on the discussions of benefits and costs provided above, PHMSA estimates discounted net cost savings at 3 percent discount rate of approximately $97,000–$2.2 million per year and at 7 percent discount rate of approximately $60,000–$2.1 million per year. Please see the complete RIA for a more detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of this proposed rule.
This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) and is likely to result in an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action, as it will result in cost savings (see above for discussion of the Benefits and Costs of Harmonization).
This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). It preempts State, local, and Indian tribe requirements, but does not propose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
The Federal hazmat law (49 U.S.C. 5101
(1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous material;
(2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous material;
(3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to hazardous material and requirements related to the number, contents, and placement of those documents;
(4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; and
(5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, inspection, marking, maintenance, recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material in commerce.
This proposed rule addresses covered subject items (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) above and preempts State, local, and Indian tribe requirements not meeting the “substantively the same” standard. This proposed rule is necessary to incorporate changes adopted in international standards, effective January 1, 2019. If the proposed changes are not adopted in the HMR, U.S. companies—including numerous small entities competing in foreign markets—would be at an economic disadvantage because of their need to comply with a dual system of regulations. The changes in this proposed rulemaking are intended to avoid this result. Federal hazmat law provides at 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(2) that, if DOT issues a regulation concerning any of the covered subjects, DOT must determine and publish in the
This proposed rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this proposed rule does not have tribal implications, and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Many companies will realize economic benefits as a result of these amendments. Additionally, the changes effected by this NPRM will relieve U.S. companies, including small entities competing in foreign markets, from the burden of complying with a dual system of regulations. Therefore, PHMSA expects that these amendments will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, PHMSA solicits comments on the anticipated economic impacts to small entities.
This proposed rule has been developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”) and DOT's procedures and policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that potential impacts of draft rules on small entities are properly considered.
PHMSA is proposing to revise the approved information collections under the following Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Numbers: OMB Control No. 2137–0018, “Inspection and Testing of Portable Tanks and Intermediate Bulk Containers;” OMB Control No. 2137–0034, “Hazardous Materials Shipping Papers & Emergency Response Information;” OMB Control No. 2137–0557, “Approvals for Hazardous Materials;” OMB Control No. 2137–0572, “Testing Requirements for Non-Bulk Packaging (Formerly: Testing Requirements for Packaging);” OMB Control No. 2137–0559, “Rail Carriers and Tank Car Tank Requirements, Rail Tank Car Tanks—Transportation of Hazardous Materials by Rail.”
PHMSA estimates this rulemaking will result in an increase in burden due to the proposed requirement to indicate the water temperature during a hydraulic pressure test for rigid plastics and composite IBCs. PHMSA does not estimate an increase in the number of respondents or responses, because the proposed amendment only adds burden for respondents already pressure testing rigid plastics and composite IBCs. PHMSA estimates that it will take an average of 1 additional minute to add the additional information to the test report. This information collection, currently accounts for 20 respondents completing 100 test reports per year at 6 minutes per response. Increasing the burden time to 7 minutes per response increases the burden by 33 hours. At a mean hourly wage of $38.77,
PHMSA estimates that this NPRM will result in an overall increase in burden attributed to the proposed requirement to create a test summary for lithium cells and batteries manufactured after June 30, 2003. As currently proposed, lithium cell or battery manufacturers will need to create a test summary for all of the previously manufactured lithium cells and batteries. Following the publication of the final rule, PHMSA will revise the annual burden, as a test summary will only need to be created following manufacture of a new lithium cell and battery. Because this NPRM accounts for previously manufactured lithium cells and batteries, PHMSA believes that the burden will substantially decrease for subsequent years after a final rule goes into effect.
PHMSA identified 73 domestic lithium cell or battery manufacturers per U.S. Census' Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM) (NAICS code 335912).
The time to create a test summary is estimated conservatively at 30 minutes per document. PHMSA personnel obtained various existing test reports for lithium cells and batteries and
To determine the projected salary cost for preparing new test summaries, PHMSA estimates a mean hourly wage rate of approximately $67.03
This test summary requirement is also anticipated to increase the burden for recordkeeping requirements. As detailed in the proposed requirements, the test summary must be made available, including to subsequent distributors, upon request. For the purposes of this analysis PHMSA assumes that in order to make a test summary available manufacturers and downstream distributors of lithium cells and batteries will likely choose the alternative that results in the least amount of recordkeeping burden possible. PHMSA believes this least burdensome method would be to provide links to battery manufacturer websites where the information will be made available. This assumption presumes that infrastructure such as website storage capacity and upkeep are available and existing costs for cell and battery manufacturers and distributors. Each of these actions requires one recordkeeping action per test summary for cell and battery manufacturers and one record for each link generated by downstream distributors.
To attempt to quantify the burden hours and salary costs for this proposed recordkeeping requirement, PHMSA examined entities in NAICS codes for battery retailers, wholesalers, and merchants (NAICS 453998 & 423610) and identified the percentage of entities in each NAICS industry that is involved in distributing batteries based on the sub-NAICS product series information provided in the 2012 Economic Census by Industry. PHSMA multiplied this percent by the more recent, 2016 County Business Patterns estimate of the total number of entities to estimate the number of potentially impacted respondents. Based on these calculations, PHMSA estimates that 5,644 downstream distributors of lithium cells and batteries comprised of product manufacturers and distributors/retailers, in addition to the 73 domestic manufacturers identified above could be subject to additional recordkeeping requirements as a result of this proposal. We further estimate that product manufacturers utilize cells and batteries from an average of 5 different cell or battery manufacturers. Lastly, we estimate that distributors and retail outlets utilize cells and batteries from an average of 20 cell or battery manufacturers. See table 5 for a breakdown of the lithium cell and battery supply chain, the number of estimated entities, and the number of estimated test summaries that are required to be made available.
PHMSA estimates that ensuring test summaries are available will take 5 minutes utilizing the electronic methods noted above. This results in a total recordkeeping requirement of 3,363.33 annual burden hours (40,360 responses × 5 minutes). At an estimated mean annual salary wage of approximately $67.03
PHMSA is also proposing additional requirements that would affect the burden for OMB Control No. 2137–0034, but PHMSA believes that the overall effect on the number of respondents and burden hours are negligible in relationship to the number of respondents and burden hours currently associated with this information collection. The requirements include proposing: To require “TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED” on a shipping paper if not already indicated in the proper shipping, when appropriate; to remove 1-dodecene to the list of marine pollutants in Appendix B to § 172.101; to reduce the information required on a Dangerous Cargo Manifest for excepted packages containing Class 7 materials transported by vessel.
We anticipate this NPRM will increase the overall burden for this information collection request. PHMSA is proposing to add special provision 347 to four entries on the HMT, which would require the articles to pass the 6(d) test from Part I of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria to maintain Compatibility Group “S” classification. It is estimated that this will increase the number of annual respondents by 54. PHMSA estimates that each respondent will submit 10 applications each year, for a total increase of 540 annual responses (54 respondents × 10 responses). PHMSA estimates that each application will take 4.75 hours to complete, for a total increase of 2,565 annual burden hours (2,500 response × 4.75 hours). At a mean hourly wage of $79.06,
PHMSA is also proposing additional requirements that would affect the burden for OMB Control No. 2137–0557, but PHMSA believes that the overall effect on the number of respondents and burden hours are negligible in relationship to the number of respondents and burden hours associated with this OMB Control Number. PHMSA expects a minimal increase due to the proposed revision of special provision A105, which would allow a person to obtain approval from the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety if the quantity of hazardous materials exceeds the quantity limits and applicability provisions of § 173.222(c). PHMSA also expects a minimal decrease in the number of approval applicants based on the adoption of a new entry in the § 173.224 Self-Reactive Materials Table and the adoption of three new entries in the § 173.225 Organic Peroxide Table. Respondents wishing to offer these materials in transportation, are no longer required to obtain approval by the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
PHMSA estimates this rulemaking will result in an increase in burden due to the proposed requirement to include the water temperature during the hydraulic pressure test for plastic non-bulk packagings. PHMSA does not estimate an increase in the number of respondents or responses, because the proposed amendment only adds burden to persons currently pressure testing plastic non-bulk packagings. PHMSA currently estimates that 5,000 respondents create 3 test reports per year, and that each test report takes 2 hours to complete. Based on the estimated percentage of respondents who currently requalify plastic non-bulk packagings, PHMSA estimates that it will take an average of 1 minute to add the water temperature on the requalification report, for an estimated increase of 250 burden hours. At a mean hourly wage of $68.58,
PHMSA anticipates this NPRM will result in a decrease in burden because of the proposed requirement to recognize Transport Canada issued Temporary Certificates for one time movements of non-compliant tank cars, in lieu of a DOT-issued OTMA when the tank car shipment's origin or destination is in Canada. Data from the FRA indicates that in calendar year 2017 there were 214 one time movement requests for tank car shipments with an origin or destination in Canada. PHMSA estimates that half of these movements will operate under a Temporary Certificate issued by Transport Canada, and thus not require PHMSA approval. Therefore, PHMSA estimates there will be a decrease in 54 annual respondents. Each of these respondents is estimated to annually request two OTMAs, for a decrease of 108 responses. PHMSA estimates that each application requires 4.75 hours to complete, resulting in a reduction of 513 burden hours. At an estimated mean hourly wage of $68.58,
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to respond to an information collection unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a valid OMB control number. Section 1320.8(d) of title 5 of the CFR requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies and opportunity to comment on information and recordkeeping requests. PHMSA specifically requests comments on the information collection and recordkeeping burdens associated with developing, implementing, and maintaining these proposed requirements. Address written comments to the Dockets Unit as identified in the
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $160.8 million or more, adjusted for inflation, to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one year, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4375, requires that Federal agencies analyze proposed actions to determine whether the action will have a significant impact on the human environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations that implement NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508) require Federal agencies to conduct an environmental review considering (1) the need for the proposed action, (2) alternatives to the proposed action, (3) probable environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and (4) the agencies and persons consulted during the consideration process.
This NPRM would amend the HMR (49 CFR parts 171–180) to maintain alignment with international standards by incorporating the 20th Revised Edition of the UN Model Regulations, Amendment 39–18 to the IMDG Code, the 2019–2020 ICAO Technical Instructions, and Transport Canada's newest amendments to TDG Regulations.
This action is necessary to incorporate changes adopted in the IMDG Code, the ICAO Technical Instructions, and the UN Model Regulations, effective January 1, 2019. If the changes in this proposed rule are not adopted in the HMR by this effective date, U.S. companies—including numerous small entities competing in foreign markets—would be at an economic disadvantage because of their need to comply with a dual system of regulations. The changes in this proposed rulemaking are intended to avoid this result.
The intended effect of this action is to align the HMR with international transport standards and requirements to the extent practicable in accordance with Federal hazmat law (see 49 U.S.C. 5120). When considering the adoption of international standards under the HMR, PHMSA reviews and evaluates each amendment on its own merit, on its overall impact on transportation safety, and on the economic implications associated with its adoption. Our goal is to harmonize internationally without diminishing the level of safety currently provided by the HMR or imposing undue burdens on the regulated public. PHMSA has provided a brief summary of each revision and the justification for the revision.
In proposing this rulemaking, PHMSA is considering the following alternatives:
If PHMSA were to select the No Action Alternative, current regulations would remain in place and no new provisions would be added.
This alternative is the current proposal as it appears in this NPRM, applying to transport of hazardous materials by various transport modes (highway, rail, vessel, and aircraft). The proposed amendments included in this alternative are more fully addressed in the preamble and regulatory text sections of this NPRM. However, they generally include:
(1) Updated references to various international hazardous materials transport standards;
(2) Amendments to the Hazardous Materials Table to include twelve new N.O.S. entries for articles containing dangerous goods, as well as additional defining criteria, authorized packagings, and safety requirements for transportation of these articles;
(3) Amendments to add, revise, or remove certain proper shipping names, packing groups, special provisions, packaging authorizations, bulk packaging requirements, and vessel stowage requirements. Additionally, changes throughout the packaging requirements in part 173 to authorize more flexibility when choosing packages for hazardous materials;
(4) Changes to the corrosivity classification procedures to include methods that do not involve testing for making a corrosivity classification determination for mixtures;
(5) The creation of a lithium cell or battery test summary; and
(6) Amendments to the HMR regarding the segregation of lithium cells and batteries offered for transport or transported on aircraft in relation to other hazardous materials.
If PHMSA were to select the No Action Alternative, current regulations would remain in place and no new provisions would be added. However, efficiencies gained through harmonization with updates to international transport standards—
Additionally, the No Action Alternative would not adopt enhanced and clarified regulatory requirements, which are intended to decrease the risk of environmental and safety incidents. For example, updates to corrosivity classification requirements are intended to better ensure that hazardous materials in this hazard class are properly identified. The lithium battery test summary and the lithium battery segregation requirements are intended to provide added protections against the risks that lithium batteries pose to air transportation. Also, the vessel stowage requirements seek to better separate materials that may be reactive to reduce the risks of serious incidents. While these are only a few examples, the provisions proposed in this Notice have been developed and vetted by the U.S. and international experts responsible for the following hazardous materials standards: UN Model Regulations, ICAO Technical Instructions, IMDG Code, and the Transport Canada TDG Regulations. Not adopting the proposed environmental and safety requirements in the NPRM under the No Action Alternative would result in a lost opportunity for reducing environmental and safety-related incidents.
Greenhouse gas emissions would remain relatively the same under the No Action Alternative. However, it is expected that fewer incidents result in fewer emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.
If PHMSA selects the provisions as proposed in this NPRM, we believe that safety and environmental risks would be reduced and that protections to human health and environmental resources would be increased. Potential environmental impacts of each proposed amendment in the preferred alternative are discussed as follows:
1.
PHMSA believes that this proposed amendment, which will increase standardization and consistency of regulations, will result in greater protection of human health and the environment. Consistency between U.S. and international regulations enhances the safety and environmental protection of international hazardous materials transportation through better understanding of the regulations, an increased level of industry compliance, the smooth flow of hazardous materials from their points of origin to their points of destination, and consistent emergency response procedures in the event of a hazardous materials incident. The HMR authorize shipments prepared in accordance with the ICAO Technical Instructions from transport by aircraft and for transport by motor vehicle either before or after being transported by aircraft. Similarly, the HMR authorize shipments prepared in accordance with the IMDG Code if all or part of the transportation is by vessel. The authorizations to use the ICAO Technical Instructions and the IMDG Code are subject to certain conditions and limitations outlined in part 171 subpart C.
Harmonization will result in more targeted and effective training, thereby facilitating enhanced environmental protection. This proposed amendment will eliminate inconsistent hazardous materials regulations, which hamper compliance training efforts. For ease of compliance with appropriate regulations, air and vessel carriers engaged in the transportation of hazardous materials generally elect to comply with the ICAO Technical Instructions and IMDG Code, as appropriate.
Greenhouse gas emissions would remain the same under this proposed amendment.
2.
Greenhouse gas emissions would remain the same under this proposed amendment.
3.
Inclusion of entries in the HMT reflects a degree of danger associated with a particular material and identifies appropriate packaging. These proposed inclusions in the HMT provide a greater level of protection against release and consistency across borders.
4.
PHMSA believes that this proposed amendment permits additional flexibility for classifying corrosive mixtures and allows offerors the ability to make a classification and packing group assignment without having to conduct physical tests. This allowance does not compromise environmental protection or safety. Increased use of not-test methods for classification of mixtures results in less product being utilized to conduct physical testing, less clean-up and disposal that occurs after testing, which provide environmental benefits along with expanded alternatives to traditional testing methods.
5.
PHMSA believes that these proposed amendments provide important additional information to downstream shippers and consumers of lithium batteries, including a standardized set of
6.
PHMSA believes that the proposed amendments requiring lithium batteries to be segregated from other listed dangerous goods would enhance safety and environmental protection by decreasing the risk posed by a fire involving lithium batteries or another dangerous good. The segregation requirements are intended to avoid the cumulative effects of a fire involving both goods simultaneously. PHMSA believes that this proposed amendment would provide for a net increase in environmental protection and safety by potentially lessening the severity of a fire aboard an aircraft, thus preventing release and damage to human health and the natural environment.
In summary, consistency between these international regulations and the HMR allows shippers and carriers to train their hazmat employees in a single set of requirements for classification, packaging, hazard communication, handling, stowage, etc., thereby minimizing the possibility of improperly preparing and transporting a shipment of hazardous materials because of differences between domestic and international regulations. These proposed changes mirror changes in the Dangerous Goods List of the 20th Revised Edition of the UN Model Regulations, the 2019–2020 ICAO Technical Instructions, and Amendment 39–18 to the IMDG Code. It is extremely important for the domestic HMR to mirror these international standards regarding the entries in the HMT to ensure consistent naming conventions across modes and international borders.
In some instances, the proposed changes in this Notice may result in a streamlining or reduction in burden to industry. However, in each case, PHMSA believes that those changes are consistent with safety and will not significantly increase the risk of release. Most of the proposed regulations in this Notice increase protections aimed at avoiding safety and environmental risks.
Greenhouse gas emissions would not significantly increase under this proposed amendment, but fewer incidents are expected to result in fewer emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.
This NPRM represents PHMSA's first action in the U.S. for this program area. PHMSA has coordinated with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard, in the development of this proposed rule. PHMSA will consider the views expressed in comments to the NPRM submitted by members of the public, state and local governments, and industry.
The provisions of this proposed rule build on current regulatory requirements in order to enhance the transportation safety and security of shipments of hazardous materials transported by highway, rail, aircraft, and vessel, thereby reducing the risks of an accidental or intentional release of hazardous materials and consequent environmental damage. PHMSA proposes to find that the net environmental impact of this proposal will be positive and that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with this proposed rule. PHMSA welcomes any views, data, or information related to environmental impacts that may result if the proposed requirements are adopted, as well as the “no action alternative” and other viable alternatives and their environmental impacts.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Under Executive Order 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”), agencies must consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
PHMSA participates in the establishment of international standards to protect the safety of the American public, and it has assessed the effects of the proposed rule to ensure that it does not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade. In fact, the rule is designed to facilitate international trade. Accordingly, this rulemaking is consistent with Executive Order 13609 and PHMSA's obligations under the Trade Agreement Act, as amended.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Education, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Markings, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference, Packaging and containers, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uranium.
Hazardous materials transportation, Rail carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
Air carriers, Hazardous materials transportation, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Maritime carriers, Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hazardous materials transportation, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Packaging and containers, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA proposes to amend 49 CFR chapter I as follows:
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; Pub. L. 101–410 section 4 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 104–134, section 31001; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.
The revisions and additions to read as follows:
(s) * * *
(2) Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources (International Atomic Energy Agency Code of Conduct), 2004, into § 172.800.
(t) * * *
(1) Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical Instructions), 2019–2020 Edition, copyright 2018, into §§ 171.8; 171.22; 171.23; 171.24; 172.101; 172.202; 172.401; 172.512; 172.519; 172.602; 173.56; 173.320; 175.10, 175.33; 178.3.
(v) * * *
(2) International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code), Incorporating Amendment 39–18 (English Edition), 2018 Edition, into §§ 171.22; 171.23; 171.25; 172.101; 172.202; 172.203; 172.401; 172.502; 172.519; 172.602; 173.21; 173.56; 176.2; 176.5; 176.11; 176.27; 176.30; 176.83; 176.84; 176.140; 176.720; 176.906; 178.3; 178.274.
(w) * * *
(1) ISO 535–1991(E) Paper and board—Determination of water absorptiveness—Cobb method, 1991, into §§ 178.707; 178.708; 178.516.
(2) ISO 1496–1: 1990 (E)—Series 1 freight containers—Specification and testing, Part 1: General cargo containers. Fifth Edition, (August 15, 1990), into § 173.411.
(3) ISO 1496–3(E)—Series 1 freight containers—Specification and testing—Part 3: Tank containers for liquids, gases and pressurized dry bulk, Fourth edition, March 1995, into §§ 178.74; 178.75; 178.274.
(4) ISO 1516:2002(E), Determination of flash/no flash—Closed cup equilibrium method, Third Edition, 2002–03–01, into § 173.120.
(5) ISO 1523:2002(E), Determination of flash point—Closed cup equilibrium method, Third Edition, 2002–03–01, into § 173.120.
(6) ISO 2431–1984(E) Standard Cup Method, 1984, into § 173.121.
(7) ISO 2592:2000(E), Determination of flash and fire points—Cleveland open cup method, Second Edition, 2000–09–15, into § 173.120.
(8) ISO 2719:2002(E), Determination of flash point—Pensky-Martens closed cup method, Third Edition, 2002–11–15, into § 173.120.
(9) ISO 2919:1999(E), Radiation Protection—Sealed radioactive sources—General requirements and classification, (ISO 2919), second edition, February 15, 1999, into § 173.469.
(10) ISO 3036–1975(E) Board—Determination of puncture resistance, 1975, into § 178.708.
(11) ISO 3405:2000(E), Petroleum products—Determination of distillation characteristics at atmospheric pressure, Third Edition, 2000–03–01, into § 173.121.
(12) ISO 3574–1986(E) Cold-reduced carbon steel sheet of commercial and drawing qualities, into § 178.503; part 178, appendix C.
(13) ISO 3679:2004(E), Determination of flash point—Rapid equilibrium closed cup method, Third Edition, 2004–04–01, into § 173.120.
(14) ISO 3680:2004(E), Determination of flash/no flash—Rapid equilibrium closed cup method, Fourth Edition, 2004–04–01, into § 173.120.
(15) ISO 3807–2(E), Cylinders for acetylene—Basic requirements—Part 2: Cylinders with fusible plugs, First edition, March 2000, into §§ 173.303; 178.71.
(16) ISO 3807:2013(E), Gas cylinders—Acetylene cylinders—Basic requirements and type testing, Second edition, 2013–09–01, into §§ 173.303; 178.71.
(17) ISO 3924:1999(E), Petroleum products—Determination of boiling range distribution—Gas chromatography method, Second Edition, 1999–08–01, into § 173.121.
(18) ISO 4126–1:2004(E): Safety devices for protection against excessive pressure—Part 1: Safety valves, Second edition 2004–02–15, into § 178.274.
(19) ISO 4126–7:2004(E): Safety devices for protection against excessive pressure—Part 7: Common data, First Edition 2004–02–15 into § 178.274.
(20) ISO 4126–7:2004/Cor.1:2006(E): Safety devices for protection against excessive pressure—Part 7: Common data, Technical Corrigendum 1, 2006–11–01, into § 178.274.
(21) ISO 4626:1980(E), Volatile organic liquids—Determination of boiling range of organic solvents used as raw materials, First Edition, 1980–03–01, into § 173.121.
(22) ISO 4706:2008(E), Gas cylinders—Refillable welded steel cylinders—Test pressure 60 bar and below, First Edition, 2008–07–014, Corrected Version, 2008–07–01, into § 178.71.
(23) ISO 6406(E), Gas cylinders—Seamless steel gas cylinders—Periodic inspection and testing, Second edition, February 2005, into § 180.207.
(24) ISO 6892 Metallic materials—Tensile testing, July 15, 1984, First Edition, into § 178.274.
(25) ISO 7225(E), Gas cylinders—Precautionary labels, Second Edition, July 2005, into § 178.71.
(26) ISO 7866(E), Gas cylinders—Refillable seamless aluminum alloy gas cylinders—Design, construction and testing, First edition, June 1999, into § 178.71.
(27) ISO 7866:2012(E), Gas cylinders—Refillable seamless aluminum alloy gas cylinders—Design, construction and testing, Second edition, 2012–09–01, into § 178.71.
(28) ISO 7866:2012/Cor.1:2014(E), Gas cylinders—Refillable seamless aluminum alloy gas cylinders—Design, construction and testing, Technical Corrigendum 1, 2014–04–15, into § 178.71.
(29) ISO 8115 Cotton bales—Dimensions and density, 1986 Edition, into § 172.102.
(30) ISO 9809–1:1999(E): Gas cylinders—Refillable seamless steel gas cylinders—Design, construction and testing—Part 1: Quenched and tempered steel cylinders with tensile strength less than 1100 MPa., First edition, June 1999, into §§ 178.37; 178.71; 178.75.
(31) ISO 9809–1:2010(E): Gas cylinders—Refillable seamless steel gas cylinders—Design, construction and testing—Part 1: Quenched and tempered steel cylinders with tensile strength less than 1 100 MPa., Second edition, 2010–04–15, into §§ 178.37; 178.71; 178.75.
(32) ISO 9809–2:2000(E): Gas cylinders—Refillable seamless steel gas cylinders—Design, construction and testing—Part 2: Quenched and tempered steel cylinders with tensile strength greater than or equal to 1 100 MPa., First edition, June 2000, into §§ 178.71; 178.75.
(33) ISO 9809–2:2010(E): Gas cylinders—Refillable seamless steel gas cylinders—Design, construction and testing—Part 2: Quenched and tempered steel cylinders with tensile strength greater than or equal to 1100 MPa., Second edition, 2010–04–15, into §§ 178.71; 178.75.
(34) ISO 9809–3:2000(E): Gas cylinders—Refillable seamless steel gas cylinders—Design, construction and testing—Part 3: Normalized steel cylinders, First edition, December 2000, into §§ 178.71; 178.75.
(35) ISO 9809–3:2010(E): Gas cylinders—Refillable seamless steel gas cylinders—Design, construction and testing—Part 3: Normalized steel cylinders, Second edition, 2010–04–15, into §§ 178.71; 178.75.
(36) ISO 9809–4:2014(E), Gas cylinders—Refillable seamless steel gas cylinders—Design, construction and testing—Part 4: Stainless steel cylinders with an Rm value of less than 1 100 MPa, First edition, 2014–07–15, into §§ 178.71; 178.75.
(37) ISO 9978:1992(E)—Radiation protection—Sealed radioactive sources—Leakage test methods. First Edition, (February 15, 1992), into § 173.469.
(38) ISO 10156:2010(E): Gases and gas mixtures—Determination of fire potential and oxidizing ability for the selection of cylinder valve outlets, Third edition, 2010–04–01, into § 173.115.
(39) ISO 10156:2010/Cor.1:2010(E): Gases and gas mixtures—Determination of fire potential and oxidizing ability for the selection of cylinder valve outlets, Technical Corrigendum 1, 2010–09–01, into § 173.115.
(40) ISO 10297:1999(E), Gas cylinders—Refillable gas cylinder valves—Specification and type testing, First Edition, 1995–05–01, into §§ 173.301b; 178.71.
(41) ISO 10297:2006(E), Transportable gas cylinders—Cylinder valves—Specification and type testing, Second Edition, 2006–01–15, into §§ 173.301b; 178.71.
(42) ISO 10297:2014(E), Gas cylinders—Cylinder valves—Specification and type testing, Third Edition, 20014–07–15, into §§ 173.301b; 178.71.
(43) ISO 10461:2005(E), Gas cylinders—Seamless aluminum-alloy gas cylinders—Periodic inspection and testing, Second Edition, 2005–02–15 and Amendment 1, 2006–07–15, into § 180.207.
(44) ISO 10462 (E), Gas cylinders—Transportable cylinders for dissolved acetylene—Periodic inspection and maintenance, Second edition, February 2005, into § 180.207.
(45) ISO 10462:2013(E), Gas cylinders—Acetylene cylinders—Periodic inspection and maintenance, Third edition, 2013–12–15, into § 180.207.
(46) ISO 10692–2:2001(E), Gas cylinders—Gas cylinder valve connections for use in the micro-electronics industry—Part 2: Specification and type testing for valve to cylinder connections, First Edition, 2001–08–01, into §§ 173.40; 173.302c.
(47) ISO 11114–1:2012(E), Gas cylinders—Compatibility of cylinder and valve materials with gas contents—Part 1: Metallic materials, Second edition, 2012–03–15, into §§ 172.102; 173.301b; 178.71.
(48) ISO 11114–2:2013(E), Gas cylinders—Compatibility of cylinder and valve materials with gas contents—Part 2: Non-metallic materials, Second edition, 2013–04–01, into §§ 173.301b; 178.71.
(49) ISO 11117:1998(E): Gas cylinders—Valve protection caps and valve guards for industrial and medical gas cylinders.—Design, construction and tests, First edition, 1998–08–01, into § 173.301b.
(50) ISO 11117:2008(E): Gas cylinders—Valve protection caps and valve guards—Design, construction and tests, Second edition, 2008–09–01, into § 173.301b.
(51) ISO 11117:2008/Cor.1:2009(E): Gas cylinders—Valve protection caps and valve guards—Design, construction and tests, Technical Corrigendum 1, 2009–05–01, into § 173.301b.
(52) ISO 11118(E), Gas cylinders—Non-refillable metallic gas cylinders—Specification and test methods, First edition, October 1999, into § 178.71.
(53) ISO 11118(E), Gas cylinders—Non-refillable metallic gas cylinders—Specification and test methods, Second edition, 2015–09–15, into § 178.71.
(54) ISO 11119–1(E), Gas cylinders—Gas cylinders of composite construction—Specification and test methods—Part 1: Hoop-wrapped composite gas cylinders, First edition, May 2002, into § 178.71.
(55) ISO 11119–1:2012(E), Gas cylinders—Refillable composite gas cylinders and tubes—Design, construction and testing—Part 1: Hoop wrapped fibre reinforced composite gas cylinders and tubes up to 450 l, Second edition, 2012–08–01, into § 178.71.
(56) ISO 11119–2(E), Gas cylinders—Gas cylinders of composite construction—Specification and test methods—Part 2: Fully wrapped fibre reinforced composite gas cylinders with load-sharing metal liners, First edition, May 2002, into § 178.71.
(57) ISO 11119–2:2012(E), Gas cylinders—Refillable composite gas cylinders and tubes—Design, construction and testing—Part 2: Fully wrapped fibre reinforced composite gas cylinders and tubes up to 450 l with load-sharing metal liners, Second edition, 2012–07–15, into § 178.71.
(58) ISO 11119–2:2012/Amd.1:2014(E), Gas cylinders—Refillable composite gas cylinders and tubes—Design, construction and testing—Part 2: Fully wrapped fibre
(59) ISO 11119–3(E), Gas cylinders of composite construction—Specification and test methods—Part 3: Fully wrapped fibre reinforced composite gas cylinders with non-load-sharing metallic or non-metallic liners, First edition, September 2002, into § 178.71.
(60) ISO 11119–3:2013(E), Gas cylinders— Refillable composite gas cylinders and tubes—Design, construction and testing—Part 3: Fully wrapped fibre reinforced composite gas cylinders and tubes up to 450 l with non-load-sharing metallic or non-metallic liners, Second edition, 2013–04–15, into § 178.71.
(61) ISO 11120(E), Gas cylinders—Refillable seamless steel tubes of water capacity between 150 L and 3000 L—Design, construction and testing, First edition, March 1999, into §§ 178.71; 178.75.
(62) ISO 11120(E), Gas cylinders—Refillable seamless steel tubes of water capacity between 150 l and 3000 l—Design, construction and testing, Second Edition, 2015–02–01, into §§ 178.71; 178.75.
(63) ISO 11513:2011(E), Gas cylinders—Refillable welded steel cylinders containing materials for sub-atmospheric gas packaging (excluding acetylene)—Design, construction, testing, use and periodic inspection, First edition, 2011–09–12, into §§ 173.302c; 178.71; 180.207.
(64) ISO 11621(E), Gas cylinders—Procedures for change of gas service, First edition, April 1997, into §§ 173.302, 173.336, 173.337.
(65) ISO 11623(E), Transportable gas cylinders—Periodic inspection and testing of composite gas cylinders, First edition, March 2002, into § 180.207.
(66) ISO 11623(E), Transportable gas cylinders—Periodic inspection and testing of composite gas cylinders, Second edition, 2015–12–01, into § 180.207.
(67) ISO 13340:2001(E) Transportable gas cylinders—Cylinder valves for non-refillable cylinders—Specification and prototype testing, First edition, 2004–04–01, into §§ 173.301b; 178.71.
(68) ISO 13736:2008(E), Determination of flash point—Abel closed-cup method, Second Edition, 2008–09–15, into § 173.120.
(69) ISO 14246:2014(E), Gas cylinders—Cylinder valves—Manufacturing tests and examination, Second Edition, 2014–06–15, into § 178.71.
(70) ISO 16111:2008(E), Transportable gas storage devices—Hydrogen absorbed in reversible metal hydride, First Edition, 2008–11–15, into §§ 173.301b; 173.311; 178.71.
(71) ISO 16148:2016(E), Gas cylinders—Refillable seamless steel gas cylinders and tubes—Acoustic emission examination (AT) and follow-up ultrasonic examination (UT) for periodic inspection and testing, Second Edition, 2016–04–15, into § 180.207.
(72) ISO 17871:2015(E), Gas cylinders—Quick-release cylinder valves—Specification and type testing, First Edition, 2015–08–15, into 173.301.
(73) ISO 18172–1:2007(E), Gas cylinders—Refillable welded stainless steel cylinders—Part 1: Test pressure 6 MPa and below, First Edition, 2007–03–01, into § 178.71.
(74) ISO 20703:2006(E), Gas cylinders—Refillable welded aluminum-alloy cylinders—Design, construction and testing, First Edition, 2006–05–01, into § 178.71.
(75) ISO 21172–1:2015(E), Gas cylinders—Welded steel pressure drums up to 3 000 litres capacity for the transport of gases—Design and construction—Part 1: Capacities up to 1 000 litres, First edition, 2015–04–01, into § 178.71
(76) ISO 22434:2006(E), Transportable gas cylinders—Inspection and maintenance of cylinder valves, First Edition, 2006–09–01, into § 180.207.
(77) ISO/TR 11364:2012(E), Gas cylinders—Compilation of national and international valve system/gas cylinder neck threads and their identification and marking system, First Edition, 2012–12–01, into § 178.71.
(aa) * * *
(1) Test No. 404: Acute Dermal Irritation/Corrosion, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4: Health Effects, adopted 28 July 2015, into § 173.137.
(2) Test No. 430: In Vitro Skin Corrosion: Transcutaneous Electrical Resistance Test (TER), OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4: Health Effects, adopted 28 July 2015, into § 173.137.
(3) Test No. 431: In Vitro Skin Corrosion: Reconstructed Human Epidermis (RHE) Test Method, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4: Health Effects, adopted 28 July 2015, into § 173.137.
(4) Test No. 435: In Vitro Membrane Barrier Test Method for Skin Corrosion, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4: Health Effects, adopted 28 July 2015, into § 173.137.
(bb) * * *
(1) * * *
(xx) SOR/2016–95 June 1, 2016; and SOR/2017–253 published December 13, 2017.
(xxi) SOR/2017–137 July 12, 2017.
(xxii) SOR/2017–253 December 13, 2017.
(2) Containers for Transport of Dangerous Goods by Rail, TP 14877E, 12/2013, into § 171.12.
(dd) * * *
(1) UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Model Regulations (UN Recommendations), 20th revised edition, Volumes I and II (2017), into §§ 171.8; 171.12; 172.202; 172.401; 172.407; 172.502; 173.22; 173.24; 173.24b; 173.40; 173.56; 173.192; 173.302b; 173.304b; 178.75; 178.274.
(2) UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria, (Manual of Tests and Criteria), into §§ 171.24, 172.102; 173.21; 173.56; 173.57; 173.58; 173.60; 173.115; 173.124; 173.125; 173.127; 173.128; 173.137; 173.185; 173.220; 173.221; 173.225, part 173, appendix H; 176.905; 178.274:
(i) Sixth Revised Edition (2015)
(ii) Sixth Revised Edition, Amendment 1 (2017)
(3) UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), Seventh Revised Edition (2017), into § 172.401.
(a) * * *
(1) A hazardous material transported from Canada to the United States, from the United States to Canada, or transiting the United States to Canada or a foreign destination may be offered for transportation or transported by motor
(3) * * *
(v) Rail tank cars must conform to the requirements of Containers for Transport of Dangerous Goods by Rail (IBR, see § 171.7).
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.81, 1.96 and 1.97.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(e)
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
132 This description may only be used for ammonium nitrate-based compound fertilizers. They must be classified in accordance with the procedure as set out in the Manual of Tests and Criteria, part III, section 39 (IBR,
150 This description may only be used for ammonium nitrate-based fertilizers. They must be classified in accordance with the procedure as set out in the Manual of Tests and Criteria, part III, section 39 (IBR,
238 Neutron radiation detectors: Neutron radiation detectors containing non-pressurized boron trifluoride gas in excess of 1 gram (0.035 ounces) and radiation detection systems containing such neutron radiation detectors as components may be transported by highway, rail, vessel, or cargo aircraft in accordance with the following:
a. Each radiation detector must meet the following conditions:
(1) The pressure in each neutron radiation detector must not exceed 105 kPa absolute at 20 °C (68 °F);
(2) The amount of gas must not exceed 13 grams (0.45 ounces) per detector; and
(3) Each neutron radiation detector must be of welded metal construction with brazed metal to ceramic feed through assemblies. These detectors must have a minimum burst pressure of 1800 kPa as demonstrated by design type qualification testing; and
(4) Each detector must be tested to a 1 × 10
b. Radiation detectors transported as individual components must be transported as follows:
(1) They must be packed in a sealed intermediate plastic liner with sufficient absorbent or adsorbent material to absorb or adsorb the entire gas contents.
(2) They must be packed in strong outer packagings and the completed package must be capable of withstanding a 1.8 meter (5.9 feet) drop without leakage of gas contents from detectors.
(3) The total amount of gas from all detectors per outer packaging must not exceed 52 grams (1.83 ounces).
c. Completed neutron radiation detection systems containing detectors meeting the conditions of paragraph a of this special provision must be transported as follows:
(1) The detectors must be contained in a strong sealed outer casing;
(2) The casing must contain include sufficient absorbent or adsorbent material to absorb or adsorb the entire gas contents;
(3) The completed system must be packed in strong outer packagings capable of withstanding a 1.8 meter (5.9 feet) drop test without leakage unless a system's outer casing affords equivalent protection.
d. Except for transportation by aircraft, neutron radiation detectors and radiation detection systems containing such detectors transported in accordance with paragraph a of this special provision are not subject to the labeling and placarding requirements of part 172 of this subchapter.
e. When transported by highway, rail, vessel, or as cargo on an aircraft, neutron radiation detectors containing not more than 1 gram of boron trifluoride, including those with solder glass joints are not subject to any other requirements of this subchapter provided they meet the requirements in paragraph a of this special provision and are packed in accordance with paragraph b of this special provision. Radiation detection systems containing such detectors are not subject to any other requirements of this subchapter provided they are packed in accordance with paragraph c of this special provision.
369 In accordance with § 173.2a of this subchapter, this radioactive material in an excepted package possessing toxic and corrosive properties is classified in Division 6.1 with radioactivity and corrosive subsidiary risks. * * *
387 When materials are stabilized by temperature control, the provisions of § 173.21(f) of this subchapter apply. When chemical stabilization is employed, the person offering the material for transport shall ensure that the level of stabilization is sufficient to prevent the material as packaged from dangerous polymerization at 50 °C (122 °F). If chemical stabilization becomes ineffective at lower temperatures within the anticipated duration of transport, temperature control is required and is forbidden by aircraft. In making this determination factors to be taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, the capacity and geometry of the packaging and the effect of any insulation present, the temperature of the material when offered for transport, the duration of the journey, and the ambient temperature conditions typically encountered in the journey (considering also the season of year), the effectiveness and other properties of the stabilizer employed, applicable operational controls imposed by regulation (
388 a. Lithium batteries containing both primary lithium metal cells and rechargeable lithium ion cells that are not designed to be externally charged, must meet the following conditions:
i. The rechargeable lithium ion cells can only be charged from the primary lithium metal cells;
ii. Overcharge of the rechargeable lithium ion cells is precluded by design;
iii. The battery has been tested as a primary lithium battery; and
iv. Component cells of the battery must be of a type proved to meet the
b. Lithium batteries conforming to paragraph a. of this special provision must be assigned to UN Nos. 3090 or 3091, as appropriate. When such batteries are transported in accordance with § 173.185(c), the total lithium content of all lithium metal cells contained in the battery must not exceed 1.5 g and the total capacity of all lithium ion cells contained in the battery must not exceed 10 Wh.
389 This entry only applies to lithium ion batteries or lithium metal batteries installed in a cargo transport unit and designed only to provide power external to the cargo transport unit. The lithium batteries must meet the requirements of § 173.185(a) and contain the necessary systems to prevent overcharge and over discharge between the batteries. The batteries must be securely attached to the interior structure of the cargo transport unit (
391 Except for articles being transported by motor vehicle as a material of trade in accordance with § 173.6 of this subchapter, articles containing hazardous materials of Division 2.3, or Division 4.2, or Division 4.3, or Division 5.1, or Division 5.2, or Division 6.1 (substances with a inhalation toxicity of Packing Group I) and articles containing more than one of the following hazards: (1) Gases of Class 2; (2) Liquid desensitized explosives of Class 3; or (3) Self-reactive substances and solid desensitized explosives of Division 4.1, may only be offered for transportation and transported under conditions approved by the Associate Administrator.
392 In the case of non-fissile or fissile-excepted uranium hexafluoride, the material must be classified under UN2978.
421 This entry will no longer be effective on January 2, 2021, unless we terminate it earlier or extend it beyond that date by notice of a final rule in the
422 When labelling is required, the label to be used must be the label shown in § 172.447. When a placard is displayed, the placard must be the placard shown in § 172.560.
(2) * * *
A56 Radioactive material with a subsidiary hazard of Division 4.2, Packing Group I, must be transported in Type B packages when offered for transportation by aircraft. Where the subsidiary hazard material is “Forbidden” in column (9A) or (9B) of the § 172.101 Table, the radioactive material may only be offered for transportation and transported by aircraft under conditions approved by the Associate Administrator.
A105 a. This entry applies to machinery or apparatus containing hazardous materials as a residue or as an integral element of the machinery or apparatus. It must not be used for machinery or apparatus for which a proper shipping name already exists in the § 172.101 Table.
b. Where the quantity of hazardous materials contained as an integral element in machinery or apparatus exceeds the limits permitted by § 173.222(c)(2), and the hazardous materials meet the provisions of § 173.222(c), the machinery or apparatus may be transported by aircraft only with the prior approval of the Associate Administrator.
(3) * * *
B136 Non-specification closed bulk bins are authorized.
(8) * * *
(ii) * * *
TP10 A lead lining, not less than 5 mm thick, which shall be tested annually, or another suitable lining material approved by the competent authority, is required. A portable tank may be offered for transport after the date of expiry of the last lining inspection for a period not to exceed three months for purposes of performing the next required test or inspection, after emptying but before cleaning.
(o)
(1) If notification or competent authority approval is required, the shipping paper must contain a statement of approval of the classification and conditions of transport.
(2) For Division 4.1 (polymerizing substance and self-reactive) and Division 5.2 (organic peroxide) materials that require temperature control during transport, the words “TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED” must be added as part of the proper shipping name, unless already part of the proper shipping name. The control and emergency temperature must be included on the shipping paper.
(3) The word “SAMPLE” must be included in association with the basic description when a sample of a Division 4.1 (polymerizing substance and self-reactive) material (see § 173.224(c)(3) of this subchapter) or Division 5.2 (organic peroxide) material (see § 173.225(b)(2) of this subchapter) is offered for transportation.
(c) * * *
(1) Each diamond (square-on-point) label prescribed in this subpart must be at least 100 mm (3.9 inches) on each side with each side having a solid line inner border approximately 5 mm (.2 inches) inside and parallel to the edge. The 5 mm (.2 inches) measurement is from the outside edge of the label to the outside of the solid line forming the inner border.
(i) If the size of the package so requires, the dimensions of the label and its features may be reduced proportionally provided the symbol and other elements of the label remain clearly visible.
(ii) Where dimensions are not specified, all features shall be in approximate proportion to those shown in §§ 172.411 through 172.448 of this subpart, as appropriate.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) For domestic transportation, a packaging labeled prior to January 1, 2017, and in conformance with the requirements of this paragraph in effect on December 31, 2014, may continue in service until the end of its useful life.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, each person who offers for transportation a bulk packaging which contains a hazardous material, shall affix the placards specified for the material in §§ 172.504 and 172.505.
(c) * * *
(3) A bulk packaging other than a portable tank, cargo tank, flexible bulk container, or tank car (
(d) A flexible bulk container may be placarded in two opposing positions.
(d) * * *
(2) Materials properly described under the following shipping names:
Battery powered equipment.
Battery powered vehicle.
Carbon dioxide, solid.
Castor bean.
Castor flake.
Castor meal.
Castor pomace.
Consumer commodity.
Dry ice.
Engine, fuel cell, flammable gas powered.
Engine, fuel cell, flammable liquid powered.
Engine, internal combustion.
Engine, internal combustion, flammable gas powered.
Engine, internal combustion, flammable liquid powered.
Fish meal, stabilized.
Fish scrap, stabilized.
Krill Meal, PG III.
Machinery, internal combustion.
Machinery, fuel cell, flammable gas powered.
Machinery, fuel cell, flammable liquid powered.
Machinery, internal combustion, flammable gas powered.
Machinery, internal combustion, flammable liquid powered.
Refrigerating machine.
Vehicle, flammable gas powered.
Vehicle, flammable liquid powered.
Wheelchair, electric.
(b) * * *
(15) International Atomic Energy Agency Code of Conduct (IBR, see § 171.7) Category 1 and 2 materials, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Category 1 and Category 2 radioactive materials as listed in Table 1, Appendix A to 10 CFR part 37, and Highway Route Controlled quantities as defined in 49 CFR 173.403.
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.81, 1.96 and 1.97.
(a)
(a) * * *
(7) For a material or article for which Column (5) of the Hazardous Materials Table in § 172.101 of this subchapter does not indicate a packing group. Authorized amounts are:
(i) For Classes or Divisions indicated in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the amounts shown in paragraph (a)(1)(ii).
(ii) For Division 4.3, the amounts shown in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(b) * * *
(3) Outer packagings are not required for receptacles (
(b) * * *
(c) * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) The capacity of the packaging is not more than 450 L (119 gallons); except that for transportation by passenger aircraft, the capacity of the package is not more than 30 L (7.9 gallons) and for transportation by cargo aircraft, the capacity of the package is not more than 100 L (26.3 gallons); and
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(iv) The provisions concerning polymerizing substances in paragraph (a)(4) will be effective until January 2, 2021.
(a) * * *
(1) A solid material, except for solid ammonium nitrate based fertilizer (see paragraph (3) of this paragraph), is classed as a Division 5.1 material if, when tested in accordance with the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter):
(i) If test O.1 is used (UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, sub-section 34.4.1), the mean burning time is less than or equal to the burning time of a 3:7 potassium bromate/cellulose mixture; or
(ii) If test O.3 is used (UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, sub-section 34.4.3), the mean burning rate is greater than or equal to the burning rate of a 1:2 calcium peroxide/cellulose mixture.
(3) Solid ammonium nitrate-based fertilizers must be classified in accordance with the procedure as set out in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, Section 39.
(a) * * *
(4)
(a) For the purpose of this subchapter, “corrosive material” (Class 8) means a liquid or solid that causes irreversible damage to human skin at the site of contact within a specified period of time. A liquid, or a solid which may become liquid during transportation, that has a severe corrosion rate on steel or aluminum based on the criteria in § 173.137(c)(2) is also a corrosive material. Whenever practical,
The packing group of a Class 8 material is indicated in Column 5 of the § 172.101 Table. When the § 172.101 Table provides more than one packing group for a Class 8 material, the packing group must be determined using data obtained from tests conducted in accordance with the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Number 435, “
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) That cause irreversible damage to intact skin tissue within an observation period of up to 14 days, starting after the exposure time of more than 60 minutes but not more than 4 hours; or
(2) That do not cause irreversible damage to intact skin tissue but exhibit a corrosion on either steel or aluminum surfaces exceeding 6.25 mm (0.25 inch) a year at a test temperature of 55 °C (130 °F) when tested on both materials. The corrosion may be determined in accordance with the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter) or other equivalent test methods.
(d)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(A) Two mixtures: (A+B) and (C+B);
(B) The concentration of ingredient B is the same in both mixtures;
(C) The concentration of ingredient A in mixture (A+B) equals the concentration of ingredient C in mixture (C+B);
(D) Data on skin corrosion for ingredients A and C are available and substantially equivalent,
(E) If the above mixture (A+B) or (C+B) is already classified based on test data, then the other mixture may be assigned to the same packing group.
(2)
(A) All Class 8 ingredients present at a concentration of ≥1% shall be taken into account, or <1% if these ingredients are still relevant for classifying the mixture to be corrosive to skin.
(B) When a specific concentration limit (SCL) is assigned to a substance following its entry in the Hazardous Materials Table or in a special provision, this limit shall be used instead of the generic concentration limits (GCL). This appears where 1% is used in the first step for the assessment of the packing group I substances, and where 5% is used for the other steps respectively in Appendix I of this part.
(C) The following formula must be used for each step of the calculation process. The criterion for a packing group is fulfilled when the result of the calculation is ≥1. The generic concentration limits to be used for the evaluation in each step of the calculation method are those found in Appendix I of this part. Where applicable, the generic concentration limit shall be substituted by the specific concentration limit assigned to the substance(s) (SCLi), and the adapted formula is a weighted average of the different concentration limits assigned to the different substances in the mixture:
When an initial test on either a steel or aluminum surface indicates the material being tested is corrosive, the follow up test on the other surface is not required.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Packaging each battery or each battery-powered device when practicable, in fully enclosed inner packagings made of electrically non-conductive material;
(ii) Separating or packaging batteries and battery-powered devices in a manner to prevent contact with other batteries, devices or electrically conductive materials (
(iii) Ensuring exposed terminals are protected with electrically non-conductive caps, electrically non-conductive tape, or by other appropriate means; and;
(d) * * *
(1) Electric storage batteries are firmly secured to skids or pallets capable of withstanding the shocks normally incident to transportation are authorized for transportation by rail, highway, or vessel. The height of the completed unit must not exceed 1
As used in this section,
(a)
(i) Cells and batteries manufactured according to a type meeting the requirements of sub-section 38.3 of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, Revision 3, Amendment 1 or any subsequent revision and amendment applicable at the date of the type testing may continue to be transported, unless otherwise provided in this subchapter.
(ii) Cell and battery types only meeting the requirements of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, Revision 3, are no longer valid. However, cells and batteries manufactured in conformity with such types before July 2003 may continue to be transported if all other applicable requirements are fulfilled.
(2) Each person who manufactures lithium cells or batteries must create a record of satisfactory completion of the testing (
(i) Maintain this record for as long as that design is offered for transportation and for one year thereafter; and
(ii) Make this record available to an authorized representative of the Federal, state or local government upon request.
(3) Each manufacturer and subsequent distributor of lithium cells or batteries manufactured after June 30, 2003, must make available upon request at reasonable times and locations, a test summary. The test summary must include the following elements:
(i) Name of cell, battery, or product manufacturer, as applicable;
(ii) Cell, battery, or product manufacturer's contact information to include address, telephone number, email address, and website for more information;
(iii) Name of the test laboratory, to include address, telephone number, email address, and website for more information;
(iv) A unique test report identification number;
(v) Date of test report;
(vi) Description of cell or battery to include at a minimum;
(A) Lithium ion or lithium metal cell or battery;
(B) Mass of cell or battery;
(C) Watt-hour rating, or lithium content;
(D) Physical description of the cell/battery; and
(E) Cell or battery model number or, alternatively, if the test summary is established for a product containing a
(vii) List of tests conducted and results (
(viii) Reference to assembled battery testing requirements (if applicable);
(ix) Reference to the revised edition of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria used and to amendments thereto, if any; and
(x) Signature with name and title of signatory as an indication of the validity of information provided.
(4) Except for cells or batteries meeting the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, each lithium cell or battery must:
(i) Incorporate a safety venting device or be designed to preclude a violent rupture under conditions normally incident to transport;
(ii) Be equipped with means of preventing external short circuits; and
(iii) Be equipped with a means of preventing dangerous reverse current flow (
(b)
(2) Lithium cells or batteries, including lithium cells or batteries packed with, or contained in, equipment, must be packaged in a manner to prevent:
(i) Short circuits;
(ii) Damage caused by movement or placement within the package; and
(iii) Accidental activation of the equipment.
(3) For packages containing lithium cells or batteries offered for transportation:
(i) The lithium cells or batteries must be placed in non-metallic inner packagings that completely enclose the cells or batteries, and separate the cells or batteries from contact with equipment, other devices, or electrically conductive materials (
(ii) The inner packagings containing lithium cells or batteries must be placed in one of the following packagings meeting the requirements of part 178, subparts L and M, of this subchapter at the Packing Group II level:
(A) Metal (4A, 4B, 4N), wooden (4C1, 4C2, 4D, 4F), fiberboard (4G), or solid plastic (4H1, 4H2) box;
(B) Metal (1A2, 1B2, 1N2), plywood (1D), fiber (1G), or plastic (1H2) drum;
(C) Metal (3A2, 3B2) or plastic (3H2) jerrican.
(iii) When packed with equipment, lithium cells or batteries must:
(A) Be placed in inner packagings that completely enclose the cell or battery, then placed in an outer packaging. The completed package for the cells or batteries must meet the Packing Group II performance requirements as specified in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section; or
(B) Be placed in inner packagings that completely enclose the cell or battery, then placed with equipment in a package that meets the Packing Group II performance requirements as specified in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section.
(4) When lithium cells or batteries are contained in equipment:
(i) The outer packaging, when used, must be constructed of suitable material of adequate strength and design in relation to the capacity and intended use of the packaging, unless the lithium cells or batteries are afforded equivalent protection by the equipment in which they are contained;
(ii) Equipment must be secured against movement within the outer packaging and be packed so as to prevent accidental operation during transport; and
(iii) Any spare lithium cells or batteries packed with the equipment must be packaged in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(5) Except for transportation by passenger-carrying aircraft, lithium batteries that weigh 12 kg (26.5 pounds) or more and have a strong, impact-resistant outer casing and assemblies of such batteries, may be packed in strong outer packagings; in protective enclosures (for example, in fully enclosed or wooden slatted crates); or on pallets or other handling devices, instead of packages meeting the UN performance packaging requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) and (b)(3)(iii) of this section. Batteries or battery assemblies must be secured to prevent inadvertent movement, and the terminals may not support the weight of other superimposed elements. Batteries or battery assemblies packaged in accordance with this paragraph may only be transported by cargo aircraft if approved by the Associate Administrator.
(6) Except for transportation by aircraft, the following rigid large packagings are authorized for a single battery, and for batteries contained in a single item of equipment, meeting provisions in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section and the requirements of part 178, subparts P and Q, of this subchapter at the Packing Group II level:
(i) Metal (50A, 50B, 50N) metal packagings must be fitted with an electrically non-conductive lining material (
(ii) Rigid plastic (50H);
(iii) Wooden (50C, 50D, 50F);
(iv) Rigid fiberboard (50G).
(7) For transportation by aircraft, lithium ion cells and batteries must not be packed in the same outer packaging with substances and articles of Class 1 (explosives) other than Division 1.4S, Division 2.1 (flammable gases), Class 3 (flammable liquids), Division 4.1 (flammable solids), or Division 5.1 (oxidizers).
(c)
(1)
(ii) The lithium content may not exceed 1 g for a lithium metal cell or 2 g for a lithium metal battery.
(iii) Except when lithium metal cells or batteries are packed with or contained in equipment in quantities not exceeding 5 kg net weight, the outer package that contains lithium metal cells or batteries must be marked: “PRIMARY LITHIUM BATTERIES—FORBIDDEN FOR TRANSPORT ABOARD PASSENGER AIRCRAFT” or “LITHIUM METAL BATTERIES—FORBIDDEN FOR TRANSPORT ABOARD PASSENGER AIRCRAFT” or labeled with a “CARGO AIRCRAFT ONLY” label specified in § 172.448 of this subchapter.
(iv) For transportation by highway or rail only, the lithium content of the cell and battery may be increased to 5 g for a lithium metal cell or 25 g for a lithium metal battery and 60 Wh for a lithium ion cell or 300 Wh for a lithium ion battery, provided the outer package is marked: “LITHIUM BATTERIES—FORBIDDEN FOR TRANSPORT ABOARD AIRCRAFT AND VESSEL.”
(v) The marking specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section must have a background of contrasting color, and the letters in the marking must be:
(A) At least 6 mm (0.25 inch) in height on packages having a gross weight of 30 kg (66 pounds) or less, except that smaller font may be used as necessary when package dimensions so require.
(B) At least 12 mm (0.5 inch) in height on packages having a gross weight of more than 30 kg (66 pounds).
(vi) Except when lithium cells or batteries are packed with, or contained in, equipment, each package must not exceed 30 kg (66 pounds) gross weight.
(2)
(3)
(i) The mark must indicate the UN number: “UN3090” for lithium metal cells or batteries; or “UN3480” for lithium ion cells or batteries. Where the lithium cells or batteries are contained in, or packed with, equipment, the UN number “UN3091” or “UN3481,” as appropriate, must be indicated. Where a package contains lithium cells or batteries assigned to different UN numbers, all applicable UN numbers must be indicated on one or more marks. The package must be of such size that there is adequate space to affix the mark on one side without the mark being folded.
(A) The mark must be in the form of a rectangle with hatched edging. The mark must be not less than 120 mm (4.7 inches) wide by 110 mm (4.3 inches) high and the minimum width of the hatching must be 5 mm (0.2 inches), except mars of 105 mm (4.1 inches) wide by 74 mm (2.9 inches) high may be used on a package containing lithium batteries when the package is too small for the larger mark;
(B) The symbols and letters must be black on white or suitable contrasting background and the hatching must be red;
(C) The “*” must be replaced by the appropriate UN number(s) and the “**” must be replaced by a telephone number for additional information; and
(D) Where dimensions are not specified, all features shall be in approximate proportion to those shown.
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) When packages are placed in an overpack, the lithium battery mark shall either be clearly visible through the overpack or be reproduced on the outside of the overpack and the overpack shall be marked with the word “OVERPACK”. The lettering of the “OVERPACK” mark shall be at least 12 mm (0.47 inches) high.
(4)
(ii) When packages required to bear the lithium battery mark in paragraph (c)(3)(i) are placed in an overpack, the lithium battery mark must either be clearly visible through the overpack, or the lithium battery mark must also be affixed on the outside of the overpack, and the overpack must be marked with the word “OVERPACK.” The lettering of the “OVERPACK” mark shall be at least 12 mm (0.47 inches) high.
(iii) Each shipment with packages required to bear the lithium battery mark must include an indication on the air waybill of compliance with this paragraph (c)(4) (or the applicable ICAO Technical Instructions Packing Instruction), when an air waybill is used.
(iv) For lithium batteries packed with, or contained in, equipment, the number of batteries in each package is limited to the minimum number required to power the piece of equipment, plus two spare sets, each equal to the number of individual cells or batteries that are required to power each piece of equipment. The total net quantity (mass) of the lithium cells or batteries in the completed package must not exceed 5 kg.
(v) Lithium cells and batteries must not be packed in the same outer packaging with other hazardous materials. Packages prepared in accordance with this paragraph (c)(4) must not be placed into an overpack with packages containing hazardous materials and articles of Class 1 (explosives) other than Division 1.4S, Division 2.1 (flammable gases), Class 3 (flammable liquids), Division 4.1 (flammable solids) or Division 5.1 (oxidizers).
(vi) Each person who prepares a package for transport containing lithium cells or batteries, including cells or batteries packed with, or contained in, equipment in accordance with the conditions and limitations in this paragraph, must receive adequate instruction on these conditions and limitations, commensurate with their responsibilities.
(vii) A package that exceeds the number or quantity (mass) limits in the table shown in this paragraph (c)(4) is subject to all applicable requirements of this subchapter, except that a package containing no more than 2.5 kg lithium metal cells or batteries or 10 kg lithium ion cells or batteries is not subject to the UN performance packaging requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) of this section when the package displays both the lithium battery mark and the Class 9 label. This paragraph does not apply to batteries or cells packed with or contained in equipment.
(d)
(1) A lithium cell or battery that meets the size, packaging, and hazard communication conditions in paragraph (c)(1) through (3) of this section is excepted from subparts C through H of part 172 of this subchapter.
(2) For a single battery, and for batteries contained in a single item of equipment, the following rigid large packagings are authorized:
(i) Metal (50A, 50B, 50N);
(ii) Rigid plastic (50H);
(iii) Plywood (50D).
(e)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(5) of this section, each cell or battery is individually packed in a non-metallic inner packaging, inside an outer packaging, and is surrounded by cushioning material that is non-combustible and electrically non-conductive, or contained in equipment. Equipment must be constructed or packaged in a manner as to prevent accidental operation during transport;
(2) Appropriate measures shall be taken to minimize the effects of vibration and shocks and prevent movement of the cells or batteries within the package that may lead to damage and a dangerous condition during transport. Cushioning material that is non-combustible and electrically non-conductive may be used to meet this requirement;
(3) The lithium cells or batteries are packed in inner packagings or contained in equipment. The inner packaging or equipment is placed in one of the following outer packagings that meet the requirements of part 178, subparts L and M, of this subchapter at the Packing Group I level. Cells and batteries, including equipment of different sizes, shapes or masses must be placed into an outer packaging of a tested design type listed in this section provided the total gross mass of the package does not exceed the gross mass for which the design type has been tested. A cell or battery with a net mass of more than 30 kg is limited to one cell or battery per outer packaging;
(i) Metal (4A, 4B, 4N), wooden (4C1, 4C2, 4D, 4F), or solid plastic (4H2) box;
(ii) Metal (1A2, 1B2, 1N2), plywood (1D), or plastic (1H2) drum.
(4) For a single battery, and for batteries contained in a single item of equipment, the following rigid large packagings are authorized:
(i) Metal (50A, 50B, 50N) metal packagings must be fitted with an electrically non-conductive lining material (
(ii) Rigid plastic (50H);
(iii) Plywood (50D).
(5) Lithium batteries, including lithium batteries contained in equipment, that weigh 12 kg (26.5 pounds) or more and have a strong, impact-resistant outer casing or assemblies of such batteries, may be packed in strong outer packagings, in
(6) Irrespective of the limit specified in column (9B) of the § 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table, the battery or battery assembly prepared for transport in accordance with this paragraph may have a mass exceeding 35 kg gross weight when transported by cargo aircraft;
(7) Batteries or battery assemblies packaged in accordance with this paragraph are not permitted for transportation by passenger-carrying aircraft, and may be transported by cargo aircraft only if approved by the Associate Administrator prior to transportation; and
(8) Shipping papers must include the following notation: “Transport in accordance with § 173.185(e).”
(f)
(1) Each cell or battery must be placed in individual, non-metallic inner packaging that completely encloses the cell or battery;
(2) The inner packaging must be surrounded by cushioning material that is non-combustible, electrically non-conductive, and absorbent; and
(3) Each inner packaging must be individually placed in one of the following packagings meeting the applicable requirements of part 178, subparts L, M, P, and Q of this subchapter at the Packing Group I level:
(i) Metal (4A, 4B, 4N), wooden (4C1, 4C2, 4D, 4F), or solid plastic (4H2) box;
(ii) Metal (1A2, 1B2, 1N2), plywood (1D), or plastic (1H2) drum; or
(iii) For a single battery, and for batteries contained in a single item of equipment, the following rigid large packagings are authorized:
(A) Metal (50A, 50B, 50N);
(B) Rigid plastic (50H);
(C) Plywood (50D); and
(4) The outer package must be marked with an indication that the package contains a “Damaged/defective lithium ion battery” and/or “Damaged/defective lithium metal battery” as appropriate. The marking required by this paragraph must be in characters at least 12 mm (0.47 inches) high.
(g)
(c) When fish scrap or fish meal is offered for transportation by vessel in bulk in freight containers, the fish scrap or fish meal shall contain at least 50 ppm (mg/kg) of ethoxyquin, 100 ppm (mg/kg) of butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) or 250 ppm (mg/kg) of tocopherol based antioxidant at the time of shipment.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) If a vehicle is powered by a flammable liquid and a flammable gas internal combustion engine, the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) of this section must also be met.
(d)
(c)(1) Except for transportation by aircraft, the total net quantity of hazardous materials contained in one item of machinery or apparatus must not exceed the following:
(i) In the case of solids or liquids, the limited quantity amount specified in the corresponding section referenced in Column (8A) of the § 172.101 Table;
(ii) 0.5 kg (1.1 pounds) in the case of Division 2.2 gases.
(iii) When machinery or apparatus contains multiple hazardous materials, the quantity of each hazardous material must not exceed the quantity specified in the corresponding section referenced in Column (8A) of the § 172.101 Table, or for gases, paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section.
(2) For transportation by aircraft, the total net quantity of hazardous materials contained in one item of machinery or apparatus must not exceed the following:
(i) 1 kg (2.2 pounds) in the case of solids;
(ii) 0.5 L (0.1 gallons) in the case of liquids;
(iii) 0.5 kg (1.1 pounds) in the case of Division 2.2 gases. Division 2.2 gases with subsidiary risks and refrigerated liquefied gases are not authorized;
(iv) A total quantity of not more than the aggregate of that permitted in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, for each category of material in the package, when a package contains hazardous materials in two or more of the categories in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section; and
(d) Except for transportation by aircraft, when a package contains hazardous materials in two or more of
(b) * * *
(4)
(c)
(2) Except as provided by an approval issued under § 173.124(a)(2)(iii), intermediate bulk and bulk packagings are not authorized.
(3)
(i) Data available to the person offering the material for transportation must indicate that the sample would pose a level of hazard no greater than that of a self-reactive material Type B and that the control temperature, if any, is sufficiently low to prevent any dangerous decomposition and sufficiently high to prevent any dangerous phase separation;
(ii) The sample must be packaged in accordance with packing method OP2;
(iii) Packages of the self-reactive material may be offered for transportation and transported in a quantity not to exceed 10 kg (22 pounds) per transport vehicle; and
(iv) One of the following shipping descriptions must be assigned:
(A) Self-reactive, liquid, type C, 4.1, UN 3223.
(B) Self-reactive, solid, type C, 4.1, UN 3224.
(C) Self-reactive, liquid, type C, temperature controlled, 4.1, UN 3233.
(D) Self-reactive, solid, type C, temperature controlled, 4.1, UN 3234.
(4)
(i) The samples do not contain any:
(A) Known explosives;
(B) Substances showing explosive effects in testing;
(C) Compounds designed with the view of producing a practical explosive or pyrotechnic effect;
(D) Components consisting of synthetic precursors of intentional explosives;
(ii) For mixtures, complexes or salts of inorganic oxidizing substances of Division 5.1 with organic material(s), the concentration of the inorganic oxidizing substance is:
(A) Less than 15%, by mass, if assigned to packing group I or II; or
(B) Less than 30%, by mass, if assigned to packing group III;
(iii) Available data does not allow a more precise classification;
(iv) The sample is not packed together with other goods;
(v) Must be packaged as follows:
(A) The quantity per individual inner cavity does not exceed 0.01 g for solids or 0.01 mL for liquids and the maximum net quantity per outer packaging does not exceed 20 g for solids or 20 mL for liquids, or in the case of mixed packing the sum of grams and mL does not exceed 20:
(
(
(B) The maximum content of each inner packaging does not exceed 1 g for solids or 1 mL for liquids and the maximum net quantity per outer packaging does not exceed 56 g for solids or 56 mL for liquids, or in the case of mixed packing the sum of grams and mL does not exceed 56:
(
(
(
(vi) When dry ice or liquid nitrogen is optionally used as a coolant for quality control measures, all applicable requirements of this subchapter must be met. Interior supports must be provided to secure the inner packagings in the original position after the ice or dry ice has dissipated. If ice is used, the outside packaging or overpack must be leakproof. If dry ice is used, the requirements in § 173.217 must be met. The inner and outer packagings must maintain their integrity at the temperature of the refrigerant used as well as the temperatures and the pressures which could result if refrigeration were lost.
(c) * * *
(8) * * *
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(e)
(g)
(a) Articles containing hazardous materials may be classified as otherwise provided by this subchapter under the proper shipping name for the hazardous materials they contain or in accordance with this section. For the purposes of this section, “article” means machinery, apparatus, or other devices containing one or more hazardous materials (or residues thereof) that are an integral element of the article, necessary for its functioning, and that cannot be removed for the purpose of transport. An inner packaging is not an article. For articles that do not have an existing proper shipping name and that contain only hazardous materials within the permitted limited quantity amounts specified in column (8A) of the § 172.101 Table, see UN3363, Dangerous goods in machinery or apparatus, as prescribed in § 172.102(c)(1), Special provision 136, and § 173.222.
(b) Such articles may contain batteries. Lithium batteries that are integral to the article must be of a type proven to meet the testing requirements of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, subsection 38.3 (IBR,
(c) This section does not apply to articles for which a more specific proper shipping name already exists in the § 172.101 Table. This section does not apply to hazardous materials of Class 1, Division 6.2, Class 7, or radioactive material contained in articles.
(d) Articles containing hazardous materials must be assigned to the appropriate class or division determined by the hazards present using, where applicable, the precedence criteria prescribed in § 173.2a for each of the hazardous materials contained in the article. If hazardous materials classified as Class 9 are contained within the article, all other hazardous materials present in the article must be considered to present a higher hazard.
(e) Subsidiary hazards must be representative of the primary hazard posed by the other hazardous materials contained within the article. When only one item of hazardous materials is present in the article, the subsidiary hazard(s), if any, is the subsidiary hazard(s) identified in column 6 of the § 172.101 Table. If the article contains more than one item of hazardous materials and these could react dangerously with one another during transport, each of the hazardous materials must be enclosed separately.
(f)(1) Packagings must conform to the Packing Group II performance level. The following packagings are authorized:
(i) Drums (1A2, 1B2, 1N2, 1H2, 1D, 1G);
(ii) Boxes (4A, 4B, 4N, 4C1, 4C2, 4D, 4F, 4G, 4H1, 4H2); and
(iii) Jerricans (3A2, 3B2, 3H2).
(2) In addition, for robust articles, the following non-specification packagings are authorized:
(i) Strong outer packagings constructed of suitable material and of adequate strength and design in relation to the packaging capacity and its intended use. Each package must conform to the packaging requirements of subpart B of this part, except for the requirements in §§ 173.24(a)(1) and 173.27(e).
(ii) Articles may be transported unpackaged or on pallets when the hazardous materials are afforded equivalent protection by the article in which they are contained.
(g) The nature of the containment must be as follows—
(1) In the event of damage to the receptacles containing the hazardous materials, no leakage of the hazardous materials from the machinery or apparatus is possible. A leakproof liner may be used to satisfy this requirement.
(2) Receptacles containing hazardous materials must be secured and cushioned so as to prevent their breakage or leakage and to control their movement within the machinery or apparatus during normal conditions of transportation. Cushioning material must not react dangerously with the content of the receptacles. Any leakage of the contents must not substantially impair the protective properties of the cushioning material.
(3) Receptacles for gases, their contents, and filling densities must conform to the applicable requirements of this subchapter, unless otherwise approved by the Associate Administrator.
(c) * * *
(1) When the use of a valve is prescribed, the valve must conform to the requirements in ISO 10297:2014(E) (IBR,
(d) * * *
(1) When the use of a valve is prescribed, the valve must conform to the requirements in ISO 11118:2015(E), (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter). Manufacture of valves to ISO 13340:2001(E) is authorized until December 31, 2020;
(b) * * *
(5) For liquefied gases charged with compressed gases, both components—the liquefied gas and the compressed gas—must be taken into consideration in the calculation of the internal pressure in the pressure receptacle. The maximum mass of contents per liter of water capacity shall not exceed 95 percent of the density of the liquid phase at 50 °C (122 °F); in addition, the liquid phase shall not completely fill the pressure receptacle at any temperature up to 60 °C (140 °F). When filled, the internal pressure at 65 °C (149 °F) shall not exceed the test pressure of the pressure receptacles. The vapor pressures and volumetric expansions of all substances in the pressure receptacles shall be considered. The maximum filling limits may be determined using the procedure in (3)(e) of P200 of the UN Recommendations.
(d) The training requirements of subpart H of part 172 of this subchapter;
(e) For a material that meets the definition of a hazardous substance or a hazardous waste, the shipping paper requirements of subpart C of part 172 of this subchapter, except that such shipments are not subject to shipping paper requirements applicable to Class 7 (radioactive) materials in §§ 172.202(a)(5), 172.202(a)(6), 172.203(d) and 172.204(c)(4); and
(f) For transportation by vessel—
(1) The following information must be shown on a special transport document such as a bill of lading, air waybill, or other similar document:
(i) The UN identification number for the material preceded by the letters “UN”, as shown in column (4) of the Hazardous Materials Table in § 172.101 of this subchapter; and
(ii) The name and address of the consignor and the consignee.
(2) The certificate requirements in § 176.27 must be met.
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.
A leaking non-bulk package may not be forwarded until repaired, reconditioned, or overpacked in
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.
(a) * * *
(2) One packet of safety matches or a lighter intended for use by an individual when carried on one's person or in carry-on baggage only. Lighter fuel, lighter refills, and lighters containing unabsorbed liquid fuel (other than liquefied gas) are not permitted on one's person or in carry-on or checked baggage. For lighters powered by lithium batteries (
(i) For lithium metal batteries, a lithium content of 2 grams; or
(ii) For lithium ion batteries, a Watt-hour (Wh) rating of 100 Wh.
(3) Implanted or externally fitted medical devices in humans or animals that contain radioactive materials (
(14) Battery powered heat-producing devices (
Each installed or spare lithium battery:
(i) For a lithium metal battery, a lithium content must not exceed 2 grams; or
(ii) For a lithium ion battery, the Watt-hour rating must not exceed 100 Wh.
(15) A wheelchair or other battery-powered mobility aid equipped with a non-spillable battery or a dry sealed battery when carried as checked baggage, provided—
(i) The battery conforms to the requirements of § 173.159a(d) of this subchapter for non-spillable batteries;
(ii) The battery conforms to the requirements of § 172.102(c)(1), Special provision 130 of this subchapter for dry sealed batteries, as applicable;
(iii) Visual inspection including removal of the battery, where necessary, reveals no obvious defects (removal of the battery from the housing should be performed by qualified airline personnel only);
(iv) The battery is disconnected and the battery terminals are protected to prevent short circuits, unless the wheelchair or mobility aid design provides an effective means of preventing unintentional activation;
(v) The non-spillable battery is—
(A) Securely attached to the wheelchair or mobility aid;
(B) Removed and placed in a strong, rigid packaging marked “NONSPILLABLE BATTERY” (unless fully enclosed in a rigid housing that is properly marked); or
or
(C) Is handled in accordance with paragraph (a)(16)(iv) of this section; and
(vi) The dry sealed battery is—
(A) Securely attached to the wheelchair or mobility aid; or
(B) Removed and placed in a strong, rigid packaging marked with the words “not restricted” in accordance with § 172.102(c)(2), special provision 130, of this subchapter;
(vii) A maximum of one spare battery that conforms to the requirements in (a)(15)(i) or (ii) may be carried per passenger if handled in accordance with paragraph (a)(15)(v) or (vi) of this section, as applicable.
(17) * * *
(v) Where a lithium ion battery-powered wheelchair or other mobility aid does not provide adequate protection to the battery:
(18) Except as provided in § 173.21 of this subchapter, portable electronic devices (
(i) For a lithium metal battery, the lithium content must not exceed 2 grams;
(ii) For a lithium ion battery, the Watt-hour rating must not exceed 100 Wh. With the approval of the operator, portable electronic devices may contain lithium ion batteries exceeding 100 Wh, but not exceeding 160 Wh and no more than two individually protected lithium ion batteries each exceeding 100 Wh, but not exceeding 160 Wh, may be
(iii) For a non-spillable battery, the battery and equipment must conform to § 173.159a(d). Each battery must not exceed a voltage greater than 12 volts and a watt-hour rating of not more than 100 Wh. No more than two individually protected spare batteries may be carried. Such equipment and spare batteries must be carried in checked or carry-on baggage.
(iv) Articles containing lithium metal or lithium ion cells or batteries the primary purpose of which is to provide power to another device must be carried as spare batteries in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph.
(19) Except as provided in § 173.21 of this subchapter, battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices (
(i) For a lithium metal battery, the lithium content must not exceed 2 grams; or
(ii) For a lithium ion battery, the Watt-hour rating must not exceed 100 Wh.
(26) Baggage equipped with lithium battery(ies) must be carried as carry-on baggage unless the battery(ies) is removed from the baggage. Removed battery(ies) must be carried in accordance with the provision for spare batteries prescribed in paragraph (a)(18) of this section. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to baggage equipped with lithium batteries not exceeding:
(i) For lithium metal batteries, a lithium content of 0.3 grams; or
(ii) For lithium ion batteries, a Watt-hour rating of 2.7 Wh
(a) * * *
(12) For UN1845, Carbon dioxide, solid (dry ice), the information required by paragraph (a) of this section may be replaced by the UN number, proper shipping name, hazard class, total quantity in each cargo compartment aboard the aircraft, and the airport at which the package(s) is to be unloaded must be provided.
(13)(i) For UN3480, Lithium ion batteries, and UN3090, Lithium metal batteries, the information required by paragraph (a) of this section may be replaced by the UN number, proper shipping name, class, total quantity at each specific loading location, the airport at which the package(s) is to be unloaded, and whether the package must be carried on cargo aircraft only. UN3480 (Lithium ion batteries) and UN3090 (Lithium metal batteries) carried under a special permit or a State exemption as prescribed in the ICAO Technical Instructions must meet all of the requirements of this section.
(b)(1) At a minimum, the segregation instructions prescribed in the following Segregation Table must be followed to maintain acceptable segregation between packages containing hazardous materials with different hazards. The Segregation Table instructions apply whether or not the class or division is the primary or subsidiary risk.
(2) Packages and overpacks containing articles of Identification Numbers UN3090 and UN3480 prepared in accordance with § 173.185(b)(3) and (c)(4)(vi) must not be stowed on an aircraft next to, in contact with, or in a position that would allow interaction with packages or overpacks containing hazardous materials that bear a Class 1 (other than Division 1.4S), Division 2.1, Class 3, Division 4.1, or Division 5.1 hazard label. To maintain acceptable segregation between packages and overpacks, the segregation requirements shown in the Segregation Table must be followed. The segregation requirements apply based on all hazard labels applied to the package or overpack, irrespective of whether the hazard is the primary or subsidiary hazard.
(c) * * *
(8) Note 3. “Note 3” at the intersection of a row and column means that UN3528, Engines, internal combustion, flammable liquid powered;
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.
(a) * * *
(9) For excepted packages containing Class 7 materials only the following information is required:
(i) The UN identification number for the material preceded by the letters “UN”;
(ii) The name and address of the consignor and the consignee; and
(iii) The stowage location of the hazardous material on board the vessel.
(b) * * *
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.
(d) * * *
(2) Service equipment must be configured or designed to prevent damage that could result in the release of the pressure receptacle contents during normal conditions of handling and transport. Manifold piping leading to shut-off valves must be sufficiently flexible to protect the valves and the piping from shearing or releasing the pressure receptacle contents. The filling and discharge valves and any protective caps must be secured against unintended opening. The valves must conform to ISO 10297:2014(E) or, for non-refillable pressure receptacles valves manufactured until December 31, 2020, ISO 13340:2001(E) (IBR,
(f)
(4) ISO 21172–1:2015(E) Gas cylinders—Welded steel pressure drums up to 3,000 litres capacity for the transport of gases—Design and construction—Part 1: Capacities up to 1,000 litres (IBR,
(i)
(j)
(q) * * *
(12) Identification of the cylinder thread type (
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(v) ISO 11120:2015(E) Gas cylinders—Refillable seamless steel tubes of water capacity between 150 L and 3000 L—Design, construction and testing (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter). Until December 31, 2020, pressure receptacles of a MEGC may be constructed and tested in accordance with ISO 11120:1999(E) Gas cylinders—Refillable seamless steel tubes of water capacity between 150 L and 3000 L—Design, construction and testing (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter).
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii) Characteristics of test contents, including for plastic packagings subject to the hydrostatic pressure test in § 178.605 of this subpart, the temperature of the water used;
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii) Characteristics of test contents, including for rigid plastics and composite IBCs subject to the hydrostatic pressure test in § 178.814 of this subpart, the temperature of the water used;
(c) * * *
(1) Samples of all IBC design types must be dropped onto a rigid, non-resilient, smooth, flat, and horizontal surface. The point of impact must be the most vulnerable part of the base of the IBC being tested. Following the drop, the IBC must be restored to the upright position for observation. The same IBC or a different IBC of the same design may be used for each drop.
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.
(a) * * *
(2) No pressure receptacle due for requalification may be filled with a hazardous material and offered for transportation in commerce unless that pressure receptacle has been successfully requalified and marked in accordance with this subpart. A pressure receptacle may be requalified at any time during or before the month and year that the requalification is due. However, a pressure receptacle filled before the requalification becomes due may remain in service until it is emptied. In accordance with the Transport Canada TDG Regulations (IBR,
(d) * * *
(1) Seamless steel: Each seamless steel UN pressure receptacle, including MEGC's pressure receptacles, must be requalified in accordance with ISO 6406:2005(E) (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter). However, UN cylinders with a tensile strength greater than or equal to 950 MPa must be requalified by ultrasonic examination in accordance with ISO 6406:2005(E). For seamless steel cylinders and tubes, the internal inspection and hydraulic pressure test may be replaced by a procedure conforming to ISO 16148:2016(E) (IBR, see § 171.1).
(4) Composite UN cylinders: Each composite cylinder must be inspected and tested in accordance with ISO 11623:2015(E) (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter). Until December 31, 2020, ISO 11623:2002(E) (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter) may be used.
(6) Valves: Inspection and maintenance of cylinder valves must be carried out in accordance with ISO 22434:2006 Transportable gas cylinders—Inspection and maintenance of cylinder valves (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter).
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) updates its rules to provide new spectrum capacity and eliminate unnecessary restrictions in the Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) bands, while reducing administrative burdens on applicants and licensees.
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order and Order, FCC 18–143, adopted on October 19, 2018 and released on October 22, 2018. The complete text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
2.
3. In the
4. Based on the record before us, we make available to PLMR applicants additional frequencies that can be used without overlapping currently assignable frequencies and without causing harmful interference. Commenters support the proposal to add frequency pairs 451/456.00625 MHz and 451/456.0125 to the I/B Pool table. Although the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) objects generally to authorizing frequencies between the BAS spectrum and PLMR spectrum due to concerns about interference, it directs its comments to the use of frequency pair 451/456.000 MHz, which overlaps the BAS band, rather than to channels spectrally separated from the BAS band. Consequently, we amend our rules to add to the I/B Pool frequency table frequency pairs 451/456.00625 MHz and 451/456.0125 MHz, with the limitation that the authorized bandwidth not exceed six kilohertz.
5. We decline to add frequency pair 451/456.009375 MHz to the table, because use of this channel would conflict with frequency pairs 451/456.00625 MHz and 451/456.0125 MHz.
6. We also decline to add frequency pair 451/456.000 MHz to the table. This channel would overlap with BAS LPAS spectrum. NAB concurs that it would not serve the public interest to designate for PLMR use a channel that overlaps BAS LPAS spectrum. It argues that spectrum overlap would result in interference to BAS LPAS operations in the 450.000–451.000 MHz and 455.000–456.000 MHz bands. According to NAB, this spectrum will be used increasingly by broadcasters because the broadcast incentive auction reduced the amount of spectrum available for BAS use in the 470–698 MHz band. MRA argues that PLMR operation on frequency pair 451/456.000 MHz with a four kilohertz bandwidth would not cause interference because of the small amount of spectral overlap into the 450.000–451.000 MHz and 455.000–456.000 MHz bands.
7.
8. In the
9.
10. We reject MRA's proposal to designate for general I/B Pool use certain 454/459 MHz frequency pairs that are surrounded on both sides by spectrum designated for other uses.
11. Interstitial Channels in the 800 MHz Band. We also create new opportunities for licensees by adding channel capacity in the heavily used 800 MHz Mid-Band, subject to certain protections designed to safeguard adjacent-channel incumbents from interference. The addition of these interstitial channels will enable licensees to take advantage of the increased availability of equipment that uses narrower bandwidth than the 25 kilohertz bandwidth channels historically used in the 800 MHz band, such as equipment used in the PLMR bands below 470 MHz and the 700 MHz public safety band. Thus, the Commission's narrowbanding proceeding required all 150–174 MHz and 450–470 MHz band PLMR licensees to narrowband their facilities to operate within a 12.5 kilohertz channel or with equivalent efficiency,
12. In 2015, the Commission proposed to increase channel capacity in the 800 MHz Mid-Band by adding interstitial 12.5 kilohertz offset frequencies, or channels, between the existing 25 kilohertz channels in the band. The Commission requested comment on whether the introduction of interstitial channels would promote more effective
13. Most commenters support the addition of interstitial channels to the band, although commenters differed on how best to protect incumbents on adjacent channels from interference. In an attempt to develop a consensus to move forward, the Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC), which includes all of the part 90 frequency coordinators, proposed in its reply to comments to protect Mid-Band incumbents from adjacent-channel interference by using contour analysis in the frequency coordination process. Because LMCC filed its proposal during the reply comment phase of the proceeding, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) (collectively, the Bureaus) sought comment on the LMCC proposal in a public notice. Parties commenting in response to that public notice generally support the LMCC proposal. MRA, however, suggests certain modifications.
14.
15. We are persuaded by parties arguing that the new interstitial channels will leverage newer, more efficient narrowband technology to alleviate channel congestion and allow licensees in the 800 MHz Mid-Band to increase capacity. Data in the Commission's Universal Licensing System confirm that the Mid-Band is heavily used and that no standard channels are available in some major metropolitan areas. For example, there are no 800 Mid-Band channels available for application in the Interleaved Band, other than channels vacated by Sprint Corporation (Sprint), in New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, or Houston. The Sprint-vacated channels are reserved for public safety for three years following completion of rebanding, however, and for public safety and critical infrastructure applicants for the subsequent two years.
16. Providing additional channels in the 800 MHz band is consistent with the Commission's view that “[t]he 800 MHz spectrum is essential to the future expansion of private land mobile systems.” In many areas of the country, potential applicants have few, if any, options for initiating new service. In those areas, both the 800 MHz “standard” 25 kHz channels and channels in the VHF and UHF bands already are licensed to other parties. Cellular service is not a viable option because it lacks the “one-to-many” message capability inherent in PLMR systems,
17. We agree with commenters that suggest that potential applicants should not have to wait until the Commission announces the completion of band reconfiguration before interstitial channels become available for licensing in that region.
18. We find the likely costs of implementing this approach to be modest. First, any increase in capacity, whether using 25 kilohertz standard channels or the new 12.5 kilohertz interstitial channels would require the deployment of new equipment. The record does not suggest that narrowband capability will add to the cost of equipment. Some base station transmitters and individual subscriber units (user radios) are already capable of operating on the interstitial channels without the need for new equipment authorizations from the Commission. Others, only certified for the 25 kilohertz standard channels, will have to obtain new certifications. The certifications are based on tests conducted by Commission-approved Telecommunication Certification Bodies. Whether to obtain a new certification and enter the market for 12.5 kilohertz interstitial channel-capable equipment is a business decision to be made by the equipment manufacturer. Given the well-established use of 12.5 kHz technology in the VHF, UHF, and 700 MHz PLMR bands and emission masks and authorized bandwidth limits, we believe that manufacturers would have strong financial incentive to update their equipment authorizations to take advantage of an expanded 800 MHz PLMR market.
19. We reject the argument that interstitial channels should not be introduced because it will make it more difficult for 800 MHz Mid-Band licensees to increase capacity by implementing wideband technology. The Commission's current rules permit 800 MHz Mid-Band licensees seeking to deploy wideband technology to aggregate up to five contiguous standard channels based on a showing that single channel bandwidth is inadequate. Given the high level of 800 MHz usage, however, we believe that there will be far fewer opportunities going forward to aggregate standard channels than there will be to use interstitial channels, particularly in the busiest markets. Consequently, we conclude that spectrum efficiency is better served by introducing interstitial channels. Moreover, to the extent that channel aggregation continues to be feasible, the rules we adopt today do not limit licensees' ability to aggregate channels.
20. We also reject the suggestion from the State of Florida that interstitial channels should be 25 kilohertz rather
21.
22. We disagree with parties that claim interstitial channels would cause interference, especially to adjacent-channel operations. In particular, we reject Boeing's claim that the proposed channels could cause interference to its wideband Class B signal boosters
23. In response to SouthernLINC's concern about the potential impact of interstitial channels on its Enhanced SMR (ESMR) operations, we clarify that interstitial channels will only be available for licensing below the dividing line between the 800 MHz Mid-Band and ESMR segments of the band, including in regions of the United States where the Commission adopted alternate channel plans with extended ESMR segments and reduced Mid-Bands. This is reflected in administrative clarifications to the headings of several tables in our rules, as suggested by SouthernLINC, to define more accurately the frequency range of the Mid-Band in portions of the country with extended ESMR segments.
24.
25. Most parties, including LMCC, submit that contour protection is the optimum methodology for avoiding mutual interference between interstitial channels and standard 25 kilohertz-spaced facilities. However, to lessen the burden on applicants, we have specified that contour analysis need not be applied to applications that meet or exceed the distances specified in the Commission's co-channel spacing rules. Those rules furnish adequate interference protection independent of the technology used by the applicant and the incumbent licensee. We agree with LMCC that a matrix is the clearest way of displaying the contour protection values appropriate to different technologies.
26. We also are persuaded by parties' arguments that contour overlap analysis generally has worked well as a method for assessing interference and that licensees are familiar with it. Moreover, because results are easily understandable and easily replicated, we believe that contour overlap analysis will minimize the potential for disputes over whether an applicant is likely to cause interference to an incumbent operator under our revised channel plan. Furthermore, no commenting party has proposed a viable alternative to contour overlap analysis for determining potential adjacent-channel interference.
27. LMCC suggests that we adopt a contour values matrix but not incorporate it into the Commission's rules, which LMCC believes would allow the matrix to be modified without the need for rulemaking. We set forth below the contour matrix values that we adopt, and do not incorporate them into part 90. We note, however, that the Administrative Procedure Act still compels us to adopt any such modifications only after public notice and comment. Should there be a need to modify the values shown below,
28. LMCC proposes using the Commission's F(50,50) curves to assess both coverage and interference contours. Its rationale for deviating from the accepted procedure of using the F(50,50) curves for prediction of coverage and the F(50,10) curves for prediction of interference is not persuasive and is inconsistent with the Commission's rules respecting the calculation of interference to co-channel systems. Thus, the matrix we adopt retains the accepted approach for definition of coverage and interference.
29. We agree with MRA that a contour overlap analysis is unnecessary where four kilohertz, or less, technology is employed if there is no spectral overlap between the applicant's facilities and an incumbent's facilities operating on an adjacent channel, as this is consistent with our practice in other bands. We reject, however, MRA's proposal to use a 60 dBu interference contour for analysis of a four kilohertz narrowband applicant to an adjacent-channel 25 kilohertz TETRA incumbent system and to use a 40 dBu interference contour for analysis of a 25 kilohertz TETRA applicant to an adjacent-channel four kilohertz narrowband incumbent system. MRA has neither explained nor justified its proposed adjustments.
30. The Commission's 800 MHz rules currently require frequency coordinators to consider only co-channel spacing when recommending the most appropriate frequency for an applicant. We modify this requirement because of our addition of interstitial channels to the 800 MHz Mid-Band. Once interstitial channels become available for licensing in each NPSPAC region, frequency coordinators must verify compliance with the contour overlap protections when determining the most appropriate frequency for an applicant in that region. Frequency coordinators must also perform contour analysis to protect licensees outside the NPSPAC region that are sufficiently close to be
31. LMCC suggested that 800 MHz Mid-Band applicants pass both a forward and a reciprocal contour analysis.
32. Although APCO observes that the contour protection values advanced in this proceeding are untested and recommends that manufacturers of 800 MHz radios validate these values, it does not propose specific tests. Moreover, manufacturers have declined the invitation to validate the values. We find it significant that the values endorsed by LMCC and others arose from a consensus of frequency coordinators well versed in making coverage versus interference assessments. We note that previously, in similar contexts, we have accepted industry-recommended interference protection recommendations that have later been validated in the field. In particular, the Commission has for years used contour overlap analysis to provide interference protection between geographically proximate PLMR systems in various frequency bands licensed under part 90 of the rules. Accordingly, we believe that the contour protection values we adopt below will suffice to satisfy APCO's concerns but will revisit that determination if field experience shows otherwise.
33.
34. Although no commenters specifically address the costs and benefits of adopting the protected contour approach, the record demonstrates that the costs of the Commission's requirements will be minimal. For example, the cost of frequency coordination may increase because the new interference criteria are more complex to apply than the previous criteria. Currently, frequency coordination fees are in the range of $300 per channel.
35. The Commission sought comment on the bandwidth and emission mask limits applicable to the interstitial channels.
36. We do not, however, change the technical specifications for transmitters
37.
38. The Commission has already established standard channel allocations in the 800 MHz Mid-Band for General Category, Public Safety, B/ILT, and high-site SMR. No party has presented a compelling case for abandoning the current allocation of 800 MHz Mid-Band spectrum among the four usage categories. Although UTC and MPSFAC urge preferences that would benefit their constituencies, they have failed to show how the public interest would be advanced by so upsetting the allocation structure of the Mid-Band. By contrast, we agree with commenting parties that support linking eligibility for each interstitial channel to eligibility for the lower-adjacent standard 25 kilohertz bandwidth channel. This reserves a set of interstitial channels for each of the four user categories in the 800 MHz Mid-Band. We retain that allocation and assign eligibility for each interstitial channel based on the category of the lower-adjacent standard channel as proposed in the
39. In sum, we find that the existing reservation of channels as between the General Category, Public Safety, high-site SMR, and B/ILT classifications has proven equitable over time, and no party presents convincing evidence that it should be changed merely because interstitial channels are being introduced into the 800 MHz band.
40. For a three-year period, however, we afford priority access to 800 MHz Mid-Band interstitial channels to T-Band incumbents in the urban areas specified in section 90.303 of the Commission's rules.
41. Although the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council claims that interstitial channels will not provide “significant opportunities for relocation of T-Band operations in most T-Band areas” because applicants seeking to license interstitial channels must maintain geographic separation from incumbents operating on the standard 25 kilohertz bandwidth channels,” we agree with APCO that, even if the number of new interstitial channels in spectrum-congested markets will be “relatively small,” a limited preference can “provide partial relief for public safety licensees required to relinquish their T-Band spectrum.”
42. Finally, we find speculative Enterprise Wireless Alliance's (EWA's) warning of a “land rush” by what it considers “unqualified, entirely speculative applicants,” and reject its suggestion that the Commission “convene an industry meeting to address this matter” before any interstitial channels are made available. Bureau staff routinely reviews applications to verify qualifications. Should EWA or other parties identify specific instances of unqualified applicants, we will not hesitate to investigate, and, if warranted, deny their applications.
43.
44.
45. In 2014, LMCC petitioned the Commission to provide a six-month window for incumbent 800 MHz licensees in a market to acquire EB/GB channels to expand existing systems before accepting applications from new entrants. In the
46. EWA argues that SMR incumbents need channels to expand existing systems to meet customer demand,
47. In addition, we decline to adopt the proposal to afford priority to 800 MHz incumbents for EB B/ILT channels. Commenters opposing the proposal argue that incumbent priority is not supported by any distinction between PLMR and commercial licensees (because all businesses compete for customers, and therefore all have an economic incentive to use spectrum effectively and efficiently), and that a preference for incumbents would contravene the Commission's general policy of assigning spectrum through mechanisms that do not favor some applicants over others. Even some commenters that support the proposal recognize that there is no more public interest in favoring incumbent B/ILT systems and services than in favoring incumbent SMR systems and services. We therefore conclude that we should treat incumbent priority for B/ILT and SMR systems equally and not provide for priority in either case. Because the 12 EB B/ILT channels constitute only 15% of the EB/GB channels and are already scarce in some areas, we agree with PLMR frequency coordinators that priority access for just this small portion of the spectrum would not provide sufficient relief for B/ILT incumbents to merit further complicating the already-complex 800 MHz licensing regime.
48. Finally, we are not persuaded by EWA's suggestion that we impose additional conditions on EB/GB licensees to deter warehousing and encourage spectral efficiency. To the extent that EWA's proposal applies to licensees that obtain EB/GB channels outside the six-month window proposed in the
49.
50. We direct the Bureaus to announce by public notice the dates and procedures for submitting applications for EB/GB and vacated interleaved channels in those regions where rebanding is complete, and for EB/GB channels in those regions where EB/GB licensing was deferred pending the resolution of the LMCC request for incumbent priority.
51.
52. In the
53. Most commenters support the proposal. In addition, the Association of American Railroads submits that permitting such operations on frequencies 452/457.9000 MHz and 452/457.96875 MHz would increase the reliability of railroad safety and communications systems without causing interference to other users. The National Association of Manufacturers and MRFAC, Inc. (NAM/MRFAC), however, oppose use of higher power railroad signal boosters on these two channels, which overlap channels available to other users, due to concerns about interference in railroad yards or terminal areas near manufacturing plants. We conclude that NAM/MRFAC's concerns are misplaced. The proposed rule permits high-power trackside signal boosters only in areas where communication between the front and rear of trains is unsatisfactory due to distance or intervening terrain barriers. This is an exception to the general limits on signal booster power, and does not authorize such operations in most areas, such as typical urban or industrial settings.
54. We conclude that permitting higher power railroad signal boosters will serve the public interest. On balance, the safety benefits of permitting the proposed signal boosters on the 452/457 MHz frequencies coordinated by Association of American Railroads outweigh the concerns that have been raised. Authorizing these operations may increase rail safety by helping facilitate communications between the front and rear end of trains. We accordingly amend sections 90.219(d)(3) and 90.261(f) to permit railroad licensees to use single-channel Class A signal boosters with up to 30 watts ERP on frequencies 452/457.9000 MHz to 452/457.96875 MHz, but only in areas where communication between the front and rear of trains is unsatisfactory due to distance or intervening terrain barriers, and not in typical urban or industrial areas.
55.
56. In its petition asking the Commission to expand conditional authority to T-Band, 800 MHz, and 900 MHz band PLMR applicants, LMCC argued that experience had demonstrated that expansion of conditional authority is now appropriate. In the
57. We agree with the commenters that expanding conditional authority is in the public interest and that we should no longer restrict conditional authority to bands below 470 MHz. We find that such authority will expedite deployment of communications facilities and reduce administrative burdens on licensees and the Commission, without increasing the risk
58. We do not expand conditional licensing to the T-Band band. Acceptance of applications for new or expanded T-Band operations has been suspended in order to maintain a stable spectral landscape while the Commission determines how to proceed with respect to that spectrum, which Congress has designated for reallocation and reassignment. Commenters addressing the question assert that conditional authority should be expanded to T-Band applicants notwithstanding the current application freeze. We conclude, however, that there is no reason to make any changes to the T-Band licensing rules as long as the freeze is in effect. For similar reasons, we decline to expand conditional licensing to the 900 MHz band at this time, in light of the licensing freeze recently adopted as the Commission explores whether any rule changes may be appropriate to improve spectrum efficiency or expand flexibility in the 900 MHz band in order to better serve PLMR users' current and future communications needs.
59. We deny LMCC's request that we modify the
60. We also reject MRA's argument that conditional licensing should be limited to unopposed applications and that operations under conditional authority should be secondary to incumbent licensee operations.
61. We also decline the suggestion of the State of Florida to extend conditional authority beyond 180 days if the application remains pending. LMCC opposes Florida's proposal and encourages the Commission to enforce the 180-day limitation strictly. The Commission concluded in 1989 that 180 days is a reasonable period for conditional authorization because it corresponds with the Communications Act's 180-day limit on temporary authority. Expanding conditional licensing beyond 180 days would raise legal and policy issues that depart from Commission precedent and are not addressed in the current record. An applicant whose application is pending longer than 180 days must request and, if warranted, be granted special temporary authority if it wishes to continue operating.
62.
63. Ordinarily, an applicant is licensed on a frequency in the pool (General Category, Public Safety, B/ILT, or high-site SMR) for which it meets the eligibility criteria. However, the Commission's rules permit “inter-category sharing” in certain circumstances. An applicant eligible for licensing in the 800 MHz Public Safety Pool or B/ILT Pool may be licensed on channels outside of its pool if (a) a Commission-certified frequency coordinator certifies that no channels are available in the pool for which the applicant is eligible, and (b) the desired out-of-pool channel is available as certified by the out-of-pool channel coordinator. Formerly, the rules also permitted entities eligible for the SMR Pool or General Category Pool to obtain out-of-pool channels through inter-category sharing.
64. Because of a freeze on SMR applications on certain channels, by 1995, SMR applicants had obtained numerous inter-category sharing authorizations primarily for channels in the B/ILT Pool. This led B/ILT entities to file inter-category sharing requests for public safety channels. Concerned that this might lead to a shortage of public safety channels, WTB issued its “freeze order” suspending acceptance of applications proposing inter-category sharing in the 800 MHz band.
65. Over time, public safety began to use the 800 MHz band more intensely. This led to a shortage of public safety channels in some areas. Public safety agencies, unable to identify vacant public safety channels, began seeking waivers of the inter-category freeze to obtain channels in other pools.
66.
67. We envision no untoward effects from lifting the freeze. Applicants still must meet the prerequisites for inter-category sharing, and parties are still free to oppose a given inter-category sharing application. In the unlikely event that our action here results in difficulties similar to those that led to the institution of the 1995 freeze, we direct the Bureaus to reinstitute the freeze as necessary.
68. Termination of the freeze on inter-category sharing is procedural and therefore not subject to the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
69.
70. Only The Monitoring Association (formerly the Central Station Alarm Association) argues generally that the use restriction on these channels should be retained. It asserts that the restriction should not be removed at this time because an increasing percentage of alarm systems will use wireless devices to relay signals to the central station, and millions of existing users are expected to transition to central station channels in response to the sunset of 2G cellular service and decommissioning of telephone land lines.
71. The reservation of these channels for central station commercial protection services reflected the Commission's approach to PLMR spectrum at the time, when what is now the I/B Pool was divided into multiple industry-specific services. The Commission subsequently consolidated the separate services into the I/B Pool to encourage more efficient use of the spectrum and to reduce administrative burdens. It recognized, however, that “some types of radio users employ radio not just for day-to-day business needs but also to respond to emergencies that could be extremely dangerous to the general public.” Rather than leave that spectrum designated for those industries' exclusive use, the Commission required entities applying for frequencies formerly allocated solely to the Railroad, Power, Petroleum, or Automobile Emergency Radio Services to obtain coordination or concurrence from the certified frequency coordinator for that service. That coordinator could deny coordination or concurrence where an application “would have a demonstrable, material, adverse effect on safety.”
72. Consequently, we amend sections 90.35(c), 90.175(b), and 90.267(f) of the Commission's rules to require entities other than central station commercial protection services to obtain the concurrence of the central station alarm channel frequency coordinator
73. Finally, The Monitoring Association and LMCC suggest that the Commission modify section 90.35(c)(64) of the Commission's rules to ease limitations on central station use of primary channels for data signaling, which The Monitoring Association argues will make the channels more useful for alarm services. We agree that the purpose of the rule permitting data signaling—to allow central station licensees to improve their systems' operating efficiency and to facilitate immediate communication with police and fire departments in emergencies—is no longer served by the current technical restrictions, which are 40 years old. We amend section 90.35(c) to
74.
75.
76. In the Report and Order and Order, we introduce new, full power, interstitial 12.5 kilohertz bandwidth offset channels to the 809–817/854–862 MHz band (800 MHz Mid-Band), subject to certain protections designed to minimize the possibility of interference between licensees operating on adjacent channels. We also amend section 90.35 of our rules to make available for PLMR use particular frequencies located between the Industrial/Business (I/B) Pool and either General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) or Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) spectrum, to allow wider use of some frequencies currently designated for central station alarm operations, and to make updates and corrections; amends section 90.159 of our rules to extend conditional licensing authority to applicants for site-based licenses in specific bands above 470 MHz; and amend sections 90.219(d)(3) and 90.261(f) of our rules to accommodate certain railroad operations. In addition, we announce the completion of 800 MHz band reconfiguration in certain National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) regions, and terminate the freeze on inter-category sharing that was put into effect in 1995.
77. The following types of small entities may be affected by the rules adopted herein: Small businesses, small organizations, small governmental jurisdictions; private land mobile radio licensees; frequency coordinators; and radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment manufacturing.
78. PLMR entities seeking licenses are required to obtain coordination from certain frequency coordinators as specified in section 90.175 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 90.175.
79. To date, frequency coordinators only needed to consider co-channel mileage separation requirements when coordinating applications for the 800 MHz band. We are amending our rules, however, to require frequency coordinators to perform a contour overlap analysis when coordinating applications for the 800 MHz Mid-Band in order to minimize the potential for adjacent-channel interference. For frequency bands below 512 MHz, frequency coordinators are required to analyze adjacent channel interference. Thus, we anticipate the burden and cost levels would be comparable to the existing contour overlap analysis in the below 512 MHz band, which OMB approved. In that case, the Commission estimated it would it would take a frequency coordinator one hour to perform a contour overlap analysis and provide a concurrence letter to an applicant at an in-house rate of $40 per hour. The Commission estimated that frequency coordinators would receive 2,500 requests for contour analysis per year for a total annual cost burden of $100,000.
80. In addition, we adopt rules in the
81. The
82. In order to minimize the economic impact resulting from the rules we adopt today on small entities and other licensees in the 800 Mid-Band, we leave in place our existing licensing scheme and technical requirements for entities who seek to continue operating in the 800 MHz Mid-Band using 25 kilohertz bandwidth equipment. Thus, eligible entities will be permitted to continue applying to license facilities on standard 25 kilohertz bandwidth channels in the 800 MHz Mid-Band without needing to make changes to the 25 kilohertz bandwidth equipment they use today. Only entities who chose to operate on the newly established 12.5 kilohertz bandwidth offset channels in the 800 MHz Mid-Band will be required to employ equipment that conforms to the technical parameters we adopt in this
83. Finally, in the
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Claims, Communications common carriers, Cuba, Drug abuse, Environmental impact statements, Equal access to justice, Equal employment opportunity, Federal buildings and facilities, Government employees, Income taxes, Indemnity payments, Individuals with disabilities, Investigations, Lawyers, Metric system, Penalties, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Television, Wages.
Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Civil defense, Common carriers, Communications equipment, Emergency medical services, Individuals with disabilities, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1 and 90 as follows:
47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; Sec. 102(c), Div. P, Public Law 115–141, 132 Stat. 1084; 28 U.S.C. 2462, unless otherwise noted.
(b) * * *
(11) An applicant for an itinerant station license, an applicant for a new private land mobile radio station license in the frequency bands below 470 MHz or in the 769–775/799–805 MHz, the 806–824/851–866 MHz band, or the one-way paging 929–930 MHz band (other than a commercial mobile radio service applicant or licensee on these bands) or an applicant seeking to modify or acquire through assignment or transfer an existing station below 470 MHz or in the 769–775/799–805 MHz, the 806–824/851–866 MHz band, or the one-way paging 929–930 MHz band may operate the proposed station during the pendency of its application for a period of up to 180 days under a conditional permit. Conditional operations may commence upon the filing of a properly completed application that complies with § 90.127 if the application, when frequency coordination is required, is accompanied by evidence of frequency coordination in accordance with § 90.175 of this chapter. Operation under such a permit is evidenced by the properly executed Form 601 with certifications that satisfy the requirements of § 90.159(b).
47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7), 1401–1473.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3)
(c) * * *
(2) This frequency will be assigned with an authorized bandwidth not to exceed 4 kHz.
(61) * * *
(iv) The airports and their respective reference coordinates are (coordinates are referenced to North American Datum 1983 (NAD83)):
(63) Unless concurrence is obtained in accordance with § 90.175(b) of this chapter from the Commission-certified frequency coordinator for frequencies designated for central station alarm operations (central station alarm frequency coordinator), this frequency may be used within the boundaries of urbanized areas of 200,000 or more population, defined in the United States Census of Population, 1960, vol. 1, table 23, page 1–50, only by persons rendering a central station commercial protection service within the service area of the radio station using the frequency and may be used only for communications pertaining to safety of life and property, and for maintenance or testing of the protection facilities. Central station commercial protection service is defined as an electrical protection and supervisory service rendered to the public from and by a central station accepted and certified by one or more of the recognized rating agencies, or the Underwriters Laboratories' (UL), or Factory Mutual System. Other stations in the Industrial/Business Pool may be licensed on this frequency without the central station alarm frequency coordinator's concurrence only when all base, mobile relay and control stations are located at least 120 km (75 miles) from the city center or centers of the specified urban areas of 200,000 or more population. With respect to combination urbanized areas containing more than one city, 120 km (75 mile) separation shall be maintained from each city center which is included in the urbanized area. The locations of centers of cities are determined from appendix, page 226, of the U.S. Commerce publication “Air Line Distance Between Cities in the United States.”
(64) Persons who render a central station commercial protection service are authorized to operate fixed stations on this frequency for the transmission of tone or impulse signals on a co-primary basis to base/mobile operations. Fixed stations may be licensed as mobiles. Fixed stations used for central station alarm operations may use antennas mounted not more than 6.1 meters (20 feet) above a man-made supporting structure, including antenna structure.
(66) Unless concurrence is obtained in accordance with section 90.175(b) of this chapter from the Commission-certified frequency coordinator for frequencies designated for central station alarm operations, this frequency may be assigned only to persons rendering a central station commercial protection service, which is defined in paragraph (c)(63) of this section, within the service area of the radio station using the frequency.
(b) An applicant proposing to operate a new land mobile radio station or modify an existing station below 470 MHz or in the 769–775/799–805 MHz band, 806–824/851–866 MHz band, or the one-way paging 929–930 MHz band (other than a commercial mobile radio service applicant or licensee on these bands) that is required to submit a frequency coordination recommendation pursuant to paragraphs (b) through (h) of § 90.175 of this part may operate the proposed station during the pendency of its application for a period of up to one hundred eighty (180) days upon the filing of a properly completed formal Form 601 application that complies with § 90.127 of this part if the application is accompanied by evidence of frequency coordination in accordance with § 90.175 of this part and provided that the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The proposed station location is west of Line C as defined in § 90.7, and (for applicants proposing to operate below 470 MHz or in the 769–775/799–805 MHz band or the 806–824/851–866 MHz band) south of Line A as defined in § 90.7.
(c) An applicant proposing to operate an itinerant station or an applicant seeking the assignment of authorization or transfer of control for an existing station below 470 MHz or in the 769–775/799–805 MHz, the 806–824/851–866 MHz band, or the one-way paging 929–930 MHz band (other than a commercial mobile radio service applicant or licensee on these bands) may operate the proposed station during the pendency of its application for a period of up to one hundred eighty (180) days upon the filing of a properly completed formal Form 601 application that complies with § 90.127 of this part. Conditional authority ceases immediately if the application is dismissed by the Commission. All other categories of applications listed in § 90.175 of this part that do not require evidence of frequency coordination are excluded from the provisions of this section.
(b) * * *
(1) A statement is required from the applicable frequency coordinator as specified in §§ 90.20(c)(2) and 90.35(b) recommending the most appropriate frequency. In addition, for frequencies to which § 90.35(c)(63) or (66) is applicable, the written concurrence of
(2) On frequencies designated for coordination or concurrence by a specific frequency coordinator as specified in §§ 90.20(c)(3) and 90.35(b), and on frequencies designated for concurrence as specified in § 90.35(c)(63) or (66), the applicable frequency coordinator shall provide a written supporting statement in instances in which coordination or concurrence is denied. The supporting statement shall contain sufficient detail to permit discernment of the technical basis for the denial of concurrence. Concurrence may be denied only when a grant of the underlying application would have a demonstrable, material, adverse effect on safety.
(e) For frequencies between
(k)
The additions and revision read as follows:
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(8) Applicants may begin to license 12.5 kilohertz bandwidth channels in the 809–817/854–862 MHz band segment only after the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau jointly release a public notice announcing the availability of those channels for licensing in a National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee region.
(d) * * *
(3)(i) Except as set forth in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section, signal boosters must be deployed such that the radiated power of each retransmitted channel, on the forward link and on the reverse link, does not exceed 5 Watts effective radiated power (ERP).
(ii) Railroad licensees may operate Class A signal boosters transmitting on a single channel with up to 30 Watts ERP on frequencies 452/457.9000 to 452/457.96875 MHz in areas where communication between the front and rear of trains is unsatisfactory due to distance or intervening terrain barriers.
(f) Secondary fixed operations pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section will not be authorized on the following frequencies or on frequencies subject to § 90.267, except as provided in § 90.219(d)(3)(ii):
(f)
(2) Unless concurrence is obtained in accordance with section 90.175(b) of this chapter from the Commission-certified frequency coordinator for frequencies designated for central station alarm operations, Group D frequencies subject to § 90.35(c)(63) are limited to central station alarm use within the urban areas described in § 90.35(c)(63). Outside the urban areas described in § 90.35(c)(63), Group D frequencies subject to § 90.35(c)(63) are available for general Industrial/Business use on a coordinated basis, pursuant to § 90.35(b)(2) and § 90.175(b).
(3) Unless concurrence is obtained in accordance with section 90.175(b) of this chapter from the Commission-certified frequency coordinator for frequencies designated for central station alarm operations, Group D frequencies subject to § 90.35(c)(66) are limited to central station alarm use nationwide.
The General Category will consist of channels 231–260a and 511–550 at locations farther than 110 km (68.4 miles) from the U.S./Mexico border and 140 km (87 miles) from the U.S./Canadian border. All entities will be eligible for licensing on these channels except as described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(d) Applicants may begin to license interstitial channels (denoted with an “a” after the channel number) only after the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau jointly release a public notice announcing the availability of those channels for licensing in a National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee region.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(3) * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(l) Applicants may begin to license interstitial pool channels (denoted with an “a” after the channel number) listed in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section only after the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau jointly release a public notice announcing the availability of those channels for licensing in a National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee region.
(m) Incumbent licensees in the 470–512 MHz band in the urban areas specified in § 90.303 of the Commission's rules are given priority access over mutually exclusive applicants for a three-year period to all interstitial channel pairs in the public safety pool or the business/industrial/land transportation pool listed above for which they are eligible, provided that any relocating T-Band incumbent must commit to surrendering an equal amount of 470–512 MHz spectrum on a channel-for-channel basis. The three-year period begins on the date these channel pairs become available for licensing in a National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee region. Priority access applies to any applicant seeking to license a base station within 80 kilometers (50 miles) or mobile units or control stations within 128 kilometers (80 miles) of the geographic center of the urbanized areas listed in § 90.303 of the Commission's rules.
(6) * * *
(7) * * *
(8) * * *
(9) * * *
(b) Stations authorized on frequencies listed in this subpart, except for those stations authorized pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section and EA-based and MTA-based SMR systems, will be assigned co-channel frequencies solely on the basis of distance between fixed stations. In addition, contour overlap as detailed in paragraph (d) of this section will be the basis for geographic separation between fixed stations operating on adjacent-channel frequencies in the 809–817 MHz/854–862 MHz sub-band. The separation between co-channel systems will be a minimum of 113 km (70 mi) with one exception. For incumbent licensees in Channel Blocks F1 through V, that have received the consent of all affected parties or a certified frequency coordinator to use an 18 dBµV/m signal strength interference contour (see § 90.693), the separation between co-channel systems will be a minimum of 173 km (107 mi). The following exceptions to these separations shall apply:
(d) Geographic separation between fixed stations operating on adjacent channels in the 809–817 MHz/854–862 MHz band segment will be based on contour overlap as detailed below.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)