National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2019 Pacific cod total allowable catch apportioned to catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Effective 0000 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), January 1, 2019, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., June 10, 2019.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.
The A season allowance of the 2019 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 36 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the A season allowance of the 2019 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is necessary to account for the anticipated incidental catch in other fisheries. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 0 mt and is setting aside the remaining 36 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
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 directed fishing closure of Pacific cod by catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of December 21, 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
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Examination Guidance; Request for comments.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has prepared revised guidance (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility. The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance revises the procedures for determining whether a patent claim or patent application claim is directed to a judicial exception (laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas) under Step 2A of the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance in two ways. First, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance explains that abstract ideas can be grouped as,
Comments must be sent by electronic mail message over the internet addressed to:
Electronic comments submitted in plain text are preferred, but also may be submitted in ADOBE® portable document format or MICROSOFT WORD® format. Comments not submitted electronically should be submitted on paper in a format that facilitates convenient digital scanning into ADOBE® portable document format. The comments will be available for viewing via the USPTO's internet website (
June E. Cohan, Senior Legal Advisor, at 571-272-7744 or Carolyn Kosowski, Senior Legal Advisor, at 571-272-7688, both with the Office of Patent Legal Administration.
Patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been the subject of much attention over the past decade. Recently, much of that attention has focused on how to apply the U.S. Supreme Court's framework for evaluating eligibility (often called the
Since the
To address these and other concerns, the USPTO is revising its examination procedure with respect to the first step of the
Section I of this 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance explains that the judicial exceptions are for subject matter that has been identified as the “basic tools of scientific and technological work,”
Section II explains that the USPTO has set forth a revised procedure, rooted in Supreme Court caselaw, to determine whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception under the first step of the
Section III explains the revised procedure that will be applied by the USPTO. The procedure focuses on two aspects of Revised Step 2A: (1) Whether the claim recites a judicial exception; and (2) whether a recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Only when a claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, is the claim “directed to” a judicial exception, thereby triggering the need for further analysis pursuant to the second step of the
The USPTO is seeking public comment on its subject matter eligibility guidance, and particularly the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The USPTO is determined to continue its mission to provide predictable and reliable patent rights in accordance with this rapidly evolving area of the law. The USPTO's ultimate goal is to draw distinctions between claims to principles in the abstract and claims that integrate those principles into a practical application. To that end, the USPTO may issue further guidance, or modify the current guidance, in the future based on its review of the comments received, further experience of the USPTO and its stakeholders, and additional judicial actions. Implementation of examination guidance on eligibility is an iterative process and may continue with periodic supplements. The USPTO invites the public to submit suggestions on eligibility-related topics to address in future guidance supplements as part of their comments on the USPTO's subject matter eligibility guidance.
This guidance does not constitute substantive rulemaking and does not have the force and effect of law. The guidance sets out agency policy with respect to the USPTO's interpretation of the subject matter eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of decisions by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The guidance was developed as a tool for internal USPTO management and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the USPTO. Rejections will continue to be based upon the substantive law, and it is those rejections that are appealable to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the courts. All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance. Failure of USPTO personnel to follow the guidance, however, is not, in itself, a proper basis for either an appeal or a petition.
The Supreme Court has held that the patent eligibility statute, Section 101, contains an implicit exception for “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas,” which are “the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”
Since the
While that approach was effective soon after
The USPTO, therefore, aims to clarify the analysis. In accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve consistency and predictability, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions);
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind
Claims that do not recite matter that falls within these enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should not be treated as reciting abstract ideas, except as follows: In the rare circumstance in which a USPTO employee believes a claim limitation that does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should nonetheless be treated as reciting an abstract idea, the procedure described in Section III.C for analyzing the claim should be followed.
The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible).
In accordance with judicial precedent, and to increase consistency in examination practice, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance sets forth a procedure to determine whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. Under the procedure, if a claim recites a judicial exception (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea as grouped in Section I, above), it must then be analyzed to determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. A claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
Examiners should determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance with the criteria discussed in MPEP 2106,
As before, Step 1 of the USPTO's eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
• If the claim recites a judicial exception (
• If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or subject matter within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section I), then the claim is eligible at Prong One of revised Step 2A. This concludes the eligibility analysis, except in the rare circumstance described below.
• In the rare circumstance in which an examiner believes a claim limitation that does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should nonetheless be treated as reciting an abstract idea, the procedure described in Section III.C for analyzing the claim should be followed.
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This prong adds a more detailed eligibility analysis to step one of the
• If the recited exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is eligible at Prong Two of revised Step 2A. This concludes the eligibility analysis.
• If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an “inventive concept”).
The following discussion provides additional detail on this revised procedure.
In Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception,
For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance. To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (a) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. If the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I, analysis should proceed to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. When evaluating Prong One, examiners are no longer to use the USPTO's “Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet Identifying Abstract Ideas,” which has been superseded by this document.
In the rare circumstance in which an examiner believes a claim limitation that does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should nonetheless be treated as reciting an abstract idea, the procedure described in Section III.C for analyzing the claim should be followed.
For laws of nature and natural phenomena, Prong One does not represent a change. Examiners should continue to follow existing guidance to identify whether a claim recites one of these exceptions,
In Prong Two, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. When the exception is so integrated, then the claim is not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and is eligible. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an inventive concept), as explained in Section III.B of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance. The analysis under Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon.
Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (a) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond
In the context of revised Step 2A, the following exemplary considerations are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements)
• An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
This is not an exclusive list, and there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application.
The courts have also identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
• An additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
• an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
• an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
It is critical that examiners consider the claim as a whole when evaluating whether the judicial exception is meaningfully limited by integration into a practical application of the exception. Some elements may be enough on their own to meaningfully limit an exception, but other times it is the combination of elements that provide the practical application. When evaluating whether an element (or combination of elements) integrates an exception into a practical application, examiners should give careful consideration to both the element and how it is used or arranged in the claim as a whole. Because revised Step 2A does not evaluate whether an additional element is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, examiners are reminded that a claim that includes conventional elements may still integrate an exception into a practical application, thereby satisfying the subject matter eligibility requirement of Section 101.
It is possible that a claim that does not “integrate” a recited judicial exception is nonetheless patent eligible. For example the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in a separate claim element.
While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B, examiners should continue to consider in Step 2B whether an additional element or combination of elements:
• Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
For this reason, if an examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that,
In the rare circumstance in which an examiner believes a claim limitation that does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should
Regardless of whether a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is made, a complete examination should be made for every claim under each of the other patentability requirements: 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, 112, and 101 (utility, inventorship and double patenting) and non-statutory double patenting.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Examination guidance; request for comments.
This guidance will assist United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) personnel in the examination of claims in patent applications that contain functional language, particularly patent applications where functional language is used to claim computer-implemented inventions. Part I of this guidance addresses issues related to the examination of computer-implemented functional claims having means-plus-function limitations. Part II of this guidance addresses written description and enablement issues related to the examination of computer-implemented functional claims that recite only the idea of a solution or outcome to a problem but fail to recite details of how the solution or outcome is accomplished.
Comments must be sent by electronic mail message over the internet addressed to:
Electronic comments submitted in plain text are preferred, but also may be submitted in ADOBE® portable document format or MICROSOFT WORD® format. Comments not submitted electronically should be submitted on paper in a format that facilitates convenient digital scanning into ADOBE® portable document format. The comments will be available for viewing via the USPTO's internet website (
Nicole D. Haines, Senior Legal Advisor, at 571-272-7717 or Jeffrey R. West, Senior Legal Advisor, at 571-272-2226, both with the Office of Patent Legal Administration.
The patent examination process must ensure that: (1) The claims of an application have proper written description and enablement support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) has recognized a problem with broad functional claiming without adequate structural support in the specification.
Part I of this guidance focuses on claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and compliance with the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for example as discussed in the Federal Circuit decisions in
A claim limitation is presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) when it explicitly uses the term “means” and includes functional language. The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applies is overcome when the limitation further includes the structure necessary to perform the recited function.
The USPTO's examination practice regarding the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply to a claim limitation that does not use the term “means” is based on the Federal Circuit's standard set forth in
Even when a claim limitation uses the term “means” or a generic placeholder for the term “means,” a limitation will not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) if there is a structural modifier that further describes the term “means” or the generic placeholder.
At issue in
In view of
The BRI of a claim limitation that is subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(f), “is the structure, material or act described in the specification as performing the entire claimed function and equivalents to the disclosed structure, material or act.” MPEP § 2181. Thus, if the claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the specification must be consulted to determine the corresponding structure, material, or act for performing the claimed function.
Special purpose computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitations will be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) when the specification fails to disclose an algorithm to perform the claimed function. For example, in
Moreover, the requirement for the disclosure of an algorithm cannot be avoided by arguing that one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of writing software to convert a general purpose computer to a special purpose computer to perform the claimed function.
Special purpose computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitations are also indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) when the specification discloses an algorithm but the algorithm is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function(s).
Similarly, in
A computer-implemented functional claim may also be indefinite when the 3-prong analysis for determining whether the claim limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is inconclusive because of ambiguous words in the claim. After taking into
When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (
In order to satisfy the written description requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. For instance, the specification must provide a sufficient description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve. The level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. Information that is well known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification. However, sufficient information must be provided to show that the inventor had possession of the invention as claimed.
The analysis of whether the specification complies with the written description requirement calls for the examiner to compare the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether applicant has demonstrated possession of the claimed invention.
Computer-implemented inventions are at times disclosed and claimed in terms of their functionality. For computer-implemented functional claims, the determination of the sufficiency of the disclosure will require an inquiry into the sufficiency of both the disclosed hardware and the disclosed software (
For example, in
To satisfy the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. All questions of enablement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are evaluated against the claimed subject matter with the focus of the examination inquiry being whether everything within the scope of the claim is enabled. Accordingly, examiners should determine what each claim recites and what subject matter is encompassed by the claim when the claim is considered as a whole, not when its parts are analyzed individually.
Not everything necessary to practice the invention need be disclosed.
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
With respect to the breadth of a claim, the relevant concern is whether the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. In making this determination, examiners should consider (1) how broad the claim is with respect to the disclosure and (2) whether one skilled in the art could make and use the entire scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of FirstLight CT Housatonic 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 January 15, 2019.
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 FirstLight MA Hydro 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 January 15, 2019.
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 FirstLight CT Hydro 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
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 CS Berlin Ops, Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is January 15, 2019.
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 Northfield Mountain 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 January 15, 2019.
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
(1) The designation of Mauritania as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country for purposes of section 506A of the Trade Act is terminated, effective January 1, 2019.
(2) In order to reflect in the HTS that beginning January 1, 2019, Mauritania shall no longer be designated as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country, general note 16(a) to the HTS is modified by deleting “Islamic Republic of Mauritania” from the list of beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries.
(3) The modification to the HTS set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this proclamation shall be effective with respect to articles that are entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after January 1, 2019.
(4) In order to implement United States tariff commitments under the 2004 Agreement through December 31, 2019, the HTS is modified as provided in Annex I of this proclamation.
(5) The modifications to the HTS set forth in Annex I of this proclamation shall be effective with respect to eligible agricultural products of Israel that are entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after January 1, 2019.
(6) The provisions of subchapter VIII of chapter 99 of the HTS, as modified by Annex I of this proclamation, shall continue in effect through December 31, 2019.
(7) In order to reflect the tariff preference for certain products from Nepal, the HTS is modified by adding “Nepal Preference Program.........NP” after “United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act.........PA” in general note 3(c)(i). The modification set forth in this paragraph shall be effective with respect to goods that are entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after January 1, 2019, and shall continue in effect through December 31, 2025.
(8) In order to provide for previously proclaimed duty-free treatment for originating guayabera-style shirts under the PATPA, the HTS is modified by deleting “heading 6205 or 6206” and by inserting in lieu thereof “heading 6205, 6206, or 6211” in U.S. note 41 to subchapter XXII of chapter 98. The modification set forth in this paragraph shall be effective with respect to goods that are entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after January 1, 2019.
(9) In order to correct a technical error in the administration of a tobacco tariff-rate quota, additional U.S. note 5(a) to chapter 24 is modified by deleting “2403.11.00”. The modification set forth in this paragraph shall be effective with respect to goods that are entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after January 1, 2019.
(10) In order to maintain the scope of the modification of the Section 301 action, U.S. note 20(f) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTS is modified by deleting “2009.89.60” and inserting “2009.89.65” and “2009.89.70” in numerical sequence. The modification set forth in this paragraph shall be effective with respect to goods that are entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after November 1, 2018.
(11) In order to reflect modifications to certain HTS subheadings made in Proclamation 9813 and to provide the intended tariff treatment under the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill of 2018, headings 9902.01.15, 9902.01.16, and 9902.01.17 of the HTS are each amended by deleting “subheading 2009.89.60” and inserting “subheading 2009.89.70” in lieu thereof. The modification set forth in this paragraph shall be effective with respect to goods that are entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after November 1, 2018.
(12) In order to modify the staging of duty treatment for specific goods of Korea under the terms of general note 33 to the HTS:
(13) In order to provide for the continuation of previously proclaimed staged duty reductions in the Rates of Duty 1-Special subcolumn for originating goods of Korea under the KORUS that are classifiable in the provisions modified by Annex III of Proclamation 9771 and entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after each of the dates specified in Proclamation 9771, the HTS is modified as follows:
(14) In order to implement agreed amendments to certain textile rules of origin under the USMFTA, general note 27 to the HTS is modified as set forth in Annex III of this proclamation. The modifications set forth in Annex III of this proclamation shall enter into effect on the first day of the month following the date the United States Trade Representative announces in a notice published in the
(15) Any provisions of previous proclamations and Executive Orders that are inconsistent with the actions taken in this proclamation are superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.
(a) Shared Management Priorities. The goal of Federal fire management policy for forests, rangelands, and other Federal lands shall be to agree on a set of shared priorities with Federal land managers, States, tribes, and other landowners to manage fire risk across landscapes.
(b) Coordinating Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Assets. Wildfire prevention and suppression and post-wildfire restoration require a variety of assets and skills across landscapes. Federal, State, tribal, and local governments should coordinate the deployment of appropriate assets and skills to restore our landscapes and communities after damage caused by fires and to help reduce hazardous fuels through active forest management in order to protect communities, critical infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources.
(c) Removing Hazardous Fuels, Increasing Active Management, and Supporting Rural Economies. Post-fire assessments show that reducing vegetation through hazardous fuel management and strategic forest health treatments is effective in reducing wildfire severity and loss. Actions must be taken across landscapes to prioritize treatments in order to enhance fuel reduction and forest-restoration projects that protect life and property, and to benefit rural economies through encouraging utilization of the by-products of forest restoration.
(A) Treating 750,000 acres of Department of the Interior (DOI)-administered lands to reduce fuel loads;
(B) Treating 500,000 acres of DOI-administered lands to protect water quality and mitigate severe flooding and erosion risks arising from forest fires;
(C) Treating 750,000 acres of DOI-administered lands for native and invasive species;
(D) Reducing vegetation giving rise to wildfire conditions through forest health treatments by increasing health treatments as part of DOI's offering for sale 600 million board feet of timber from DOI-administered lands; and
(E) Performing maintenance on public roads needed to provide access for emergency services and restoration work; and
(A) Treating 3.5 million acres of Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (FS) lands to reduce fuel load;
(B) Treating 2.2 million acres of USDA FS lands to protect water quality and mitigate severe flooding and erosion risks arising from forest fires;
(C) Treating 750,000 acres of USDA FS lands for native and invasive species;
(D) Reducing vegetation giving rise to wildfire conditions through forest health treatments by increasing health treatments as part of USDA's offering for sale at least 3.8 billion board feet of timber from USDA FS lands; and
(E) Performing maintenance on roads needed to provide access on USDA FS lands for emergency services and restoration work.
(b) For the years following establishment of the objectives in subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries shall consider annual treatment objectives that meet or exceed those established in subsection (a) of this section, using the full range of available and appropriate management tools, including prescribed burns and mechanical thinning. The Secretaries shall also refine and develop performance metrics to better capture the risk reduction benefits achieved through application of these management tools.
(c) In conjunction with establishment of goals, and by no later than March 31, 2019, the Secretaries shall identify salvage and log recovery options from lands damaged by fire during the 2017 and 2018 fire seasons, insects, or disease.
(a) Coordinate with the heads of all relevant Federal agencies to prioritize and promptly implement post-wildfire rehabilitation, salvage, and forest restoration;
(b) Streamline agency administrative and regulatory processes and policies relating to fuel reduction in forests, rangelands, and other Federal lands and forest restoration when appropriate by:
(b) In developing the strategy described in subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries shall:
(a) Supporting road activities needed to maintain forest, rangeland, and other Federal land health and to mitigate wildfire risk by expanding existing or entering into new Good Neighbor Authority agreements, consistent with applicable law; and
(b) Achieving the land management restoration goals set forth in section 2 of this order and reducing fuel loads by pursuing long-term stewardship contracts, including 20-year contracts, with States, tribes, non-profit organizations, communities, and the private sector, consistent with applicable law.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.