Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Rural Utilities Service
The U.S. Codex Office
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Reclamation Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Fiscal Service
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services.
Final rule.
This final rule revises the regulations setting forth the appeals process that Medicare beneficiaries, providers, and suppliers must follow in order to appeal adverse determinations regarding claims for benefits under Medicare Part A and Part B or determinations for prescription drug coverage under Part D. These changes help to streamline the appeals process and reduce administrative burden on providers, suppliers, beneficiaries, and appeal adjudicators. These revisions, which include technical corrections, also help to ensure the regulations are clearly arranged and written to give stakeholders a better understanding of the appeals process.
These regulations are effective on July 8, 2019.
Joella Roland, (410) 786-7638 or Nishamarie Sherry, (410) 786-1189.
As specified under sections 1869 and 1860D-4 of the Social Security Act (the Act) and the implementing regulations, once Medicare makes a coverage or payment determination under Medicare Parts A, B, or D, affected parties have the right to appeal the decision through four levels of administrative review. If certain requirements, including a minimum amount in controversy (AIC), are met, parties can then appeal the decision to federal district court.
Section 1869 of the Act sets forth the process for appealing Parts A and B claim determinations. For most Part A and B claims, the initial determination is made by a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC). If a party is dissatisfied with the initial determination, the party may request a redetermination by the MAC, which is a review by MAC staff not involved in the initial determination. If a party is dissatisfied with the MAC's redetermination, the party may request a Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC) reconsideration consisting of an independent review of the administrative record, including the redetermination. Provided a minimum AIC is met, parties then have the option to appeal to the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA) where they may receive either a hearing or review of the administrative record by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), or a review of the administrative record by an attorney adjudicator. Parties then have the option to appeal to the Medicare Appeals Council (the Council) within the Departmental Appeals Board, where an Administrative Appeals Judge examines their claim. A party can then appeal the decision to federal district court if certain requirements are met, including a minimum AIC.
The appeals process described previously for Parts A and B claim determinations was initially proposed in the November 15, 2002
Section 1860D-4 of the Act sets forth the appeals process for Part D coverage determinations. Under Medicare Part D, the Part D plan sponsor issues a coverage determination. If this coverage determination is appealed, the Part D plan sponsor reviews the determination, which is known as a redetermination. If a party is dissatisfied with the redetermination, the party may request a reconsideration by an independent review entity. Similar to the appeals process for Parts A and B claim determinations, provided a minimum AIC is met, parties then have the option to appeal to OMHA where they may receive either a hearing or review of the administrative record by an ALJ, or a review of the administrative record by an attorney adjudicator. If dissatisfied with OMHA's decision, a party then may appeal to the Council. The Council decision then may be appealed to federal district court if certain requirements are met, including a minimum AIC. These procedures are set forth in regulations at part 423, subparts M and U.
On January 17, 2017, we issued a final rule entitled “Medicare Program: Changes to the Medicare Claims and Entitlement, Medicare Advantage Organization Determination, and Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Determination Appeals Procedures” (82 FR 4974) (the January 17, 2017 final rule), which revised the Parts A, B, C, and D appeals procedures. The goals of this rulemaking were to streamline the appeals process, increase consistency in decision-making, improve efficiency for both appellants and adjudicators, and provide particular benefit to beneficiaries by clarifying processes and adding provisions for increased assistance when they are unrepresented. On April 16, 2018, we issued a final rule (83 FR 16440) that made additional changes to subparts M and U in order to implement section 704 of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-198), along with other changes.
Through our experience implementing the current appeals process, and through additional research, we have identified several opportunities to streamline the claims appeals process and reduce associated burden on providers, beneficiaries, and appeals adjudicators. We have also identified several technical corrections that should be made to correct cross references, inconsistent definitions, and confusing terminology.
In the October 2, 2018
We received approximately 15 timely pieces of correspondence on the proposed rule. Commenters included insurance industry associations and organizations, beneficiaries, providers and provider advocacy groups, and health insurance plans. Of the comments received, most commenters supported the rule, specifically the elimination of the requirement that appellants sign appeal requests.
We also note that some of the public comments were outside of the scope of the proposed rule. These out-of-scope public comments are not addressed in this final rule. Summaries of the public comments that are within the scope of the proposed rule and our responses to those public comments and our final policies are set forth as follows.
Existing regulations at part 405, subpart I, and part 423, subparts M and U, specify the required elements of requests for Medicare Parts A and B claims appeals and for Medicare Part D coverage determination appeals, respectively. Generally, when a contractor or plan issues a Part A or B initial determination or a Part D coverage determination, it notifies the provider, supplier, and/or beneficiary and offers the opportunity to appeal. If this determination is appealed, the contractor or plan reviews the determination, which, in Medicare Parts A, B and D appeals, is known as a redetermination (see §§ 405.940 and 423.580). This can be followed by a review by an independent contractor consisting of an independent review of the administrative record, including the redetermination, which is known as a reconsideration (§§ 405.960 and 423.600.) If a minimum AIC is met, parties then have the option to appeal to the OMHA where the administrative record may be reviewed by an attorney adjudicator or an ALJ or a hearing may be held by an ALJ (§§ 405.1000 through 405.1058 and 423.1968 through 423.2063). Parties then have the option to appeal to the Council within the Departmental Appeals Board where an Administrative Appeals Judge reviews their claim (§§ 405.1100 through 405.1140 and 423.2100 through 423.2140).
Appeal requests can be made using different standard forms. These standard forms include the following: Medicare Redetermination Request Form (CMS-20027); Medicare Reconsideration Request Form (CMS-20033); Request for Administrative Law Judge Hearing or Review of Dismissal (OMHA-100); and Request for Review of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Medicare Decision/Dismissal (DAB-101). A written request that is not made on a standard form is also accepted if it contains certain required elements. For example, see §§ 405.944(b), 405.964(b), 405.1014(a), 405.1112, 423.2014(a), 423.2112.
As discussed previously, all Medicare Parts A, B, and D appeal requests must contain the information specified in our regulations. In addition, for Parts A and B claims appeal requests at the redetermination, reconsideration, and Council review levels (§§ 405.944(b)(4), 405.964(b)(4), and 405.1112(a)), and for Part D coverage determination appeal requests at the Council level (§ 423.2112(a)(4)), the appellants must sign their appeal requests. However, there is no signature requirement when the appellant requests OMHA review of Parts A and B claim determinations, or when the appellant requests a redetermination, reconsideration, or OMHA review of Part D coverage determinations. In addition, there is no requirement that appellants sign appeals requests for appeals of Part C organization determinations.
In order to promote consistency between appeal levels, ensure transparency in developing our appeal request requirements, help ensure that we do not impose nonessential requirements on appellants, reduce the burden on appellants, and improve the appeals process based on our experience, we proposed that appellants in Medicare Parts A and B claim and Part D coverage determination appeals be allowed to submit appeal requests without a signature. Specifically, we proposed to revise §§ 405.944(b)(4), 405.964(b)(4), 405.1112(a), and 423.2112(a)(4) to remove the requirement of the appellant's signature for appeal requests (83 FR 49525 through 49529).
As discussed previously, there is no requirement that appellants sign appeal requests when appealing their cases to OMHA, for the Part C organization determination appeals process, or at the redetermination and reconsideration levels of Part D appeals. However, as we explained in the proposed rule (83 FR 49515), the other requirements for appeal requests are substantially similar between levels of appeal and appeals processes, or there is a clear reason for the differing requirements. For example, we stated that the requirements for Part A and B appeal requests at the redetermination and reconsideration levels are identical with the exception of the reconsideration requirement that the name of the contractor be listed on the reconsideration appeal request (§§ 405.944 and 405.964). We explained that the rationale for the requirement that the name of the contractor be included on reconsideration appeal requests is that without this information, the independent contractor does not have a method of determining which contractor made the initial determination and redetermination, and is unable to get the case file. Since the contractor doing the redetermination is the same contractor who performed the initial determination, we stated that it is not necessary that this information be included in the redetermination appeal request.
By contrast, we stated in the proposed rule (83 FR 49515) that we do not believe there is a compelling reason to require that a signature be included on redetermination, reconsideration, and Council-level appeal requests, but not on OMHA appeal requests. We explained that removing the requirement that appellants sign their appeal requests, would help promote consistency between appeal request requirements; thus making the appeals process easier for parties to understand.
As discussed in the proposed rule (83 FR 49515), eliminating the requirement that appellants sign their appeal requests would reduce the burden of
We stated in the proposed rule that, when we promulgated the requirement for appellants to sign the appeal requests in regulations, we included a signature on the appeal request to ensure that the person requesting the appeal was a proper party to the appeal. We explained that, through experience, we have found that, in practice, little verification of the signature is possible. To determine if the appeal requestor is a proper party to the appeal, the adjudicator uses the name of the beneficiary and name of the party listed on the appeal request, in addition to the information listed in the case file.
As we explained in the proposed rule (83 FR 49515), the other appeal request requirements consist of fields that are necessary for the adjudicators to properly process the appeal request. As discussed previously, the name of the contractor who made the redetermination is required for the independent contractor to review the case file. In addition, we stated that the Part A and B redetermination appeal request requirement to include the disputed service and/or item enables the contractor to determine the merit of the appellant's claim.
Thus, we stated in the proposed rule that we believe there is no need for a signature on an appeal request at this time and we proposed to eliminate that requirement (83 FR 49515). However, we noted that if we find in the future that there are other reasons that would warrant an appellant's signature on an appeal request (for example, for a good-faith attestation), we would reexamine the possibility of adding the requirement back in. However, we explained that, given that our existing statutory authority limits our ability to enforce certain attestations, we found the signature requirement unnecessary.
We received several comments on this proposal. Following are summaries of the comments we received and responses to these comments.
After review and consideration of the comments received, and for the reasons discussed previously and in the proposed rule, we are finalizing without modification our proposed revisions to §§ 405.944(b)(4), 405.964(b)(4), 405.1112(a), and 423.2112(a)(4).
The regulations at §§ 405.952(d), 405.972(d), 405.1052(e), and 423.2052(e) allow adjudicators to vacate a dismissal of an appeal request for a Medicare Part A or B claim or Medicare Part D coverage determination within 6 months of the date of the notice of dismissal. We stated in the proposed rule (83 FR 49515) that this allows sufficient time for adjudicators to carefully evaluate their dismissals while taking into account the principle of administrative finality.
As discussed in the proposed rule (83 FR 49515), through experience, we have concluded that the timeframe for vacating a dismissal would be better expressed in calendar days, rather than months, for two reasons. First, we stated that all timeframes in the regulations under part 405, subpart I, and part 423, subpart U, associated with the filing of appeal requests, adjudication periods, reopening of prior determinations, and other time-limited procedural actions are expressed in calendar days, not months. For example, see §§ 405.942 and 423.2056. Second, we stated that applying a timeframe based on days, rather than months, leads to more consistency in interpretation and actual timeframes. We explained that a timeframe based on months could be subject to varying interpretations, as the number of days in a consecutive 6-month period varies from 181 to 184 days. For example, if an ALJ or attorney adjudicator's dismissal is dated August 31 of one calendar year, advancing the timeframe 6 months to February could be confusing for parties and adjudicators because February does not contain 30 or 31 days. Also, given that February has only 28 or 29 days (in a leap year), any 6-month period that includes February would be shorter than other 6 month periods, leading to some inconsistency in the actual timeframe for vacating a dismissal.
To provide more consistency and predictability for appellants and adjudicators, and better conformity with other timeframes in part 405, subpart I, and part 423, subpart U, we proposed (83 FR 49525 through 49529) to revise the timeframe for vacating a dismissal from 6 months to 180 days in §§ 405.952(d), 405.972(d), 405.1052(e), and 423.2052(e).
We received no comments on these proposals. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed previously and in the proposed rule, we are finalizing without modification our proposed revisions to §§ 405.952(d), 405.972(d), 405.1052(e), and 423.2052(e).
Section 501 of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) (Pub. L. 114-10), added section 205(c)(2)(C)(xiii) of the Act to prohibit Social Security Numbers (or derivatives) from being displayed on Medicare cards. As a result, CMS issued new Medicare cards, which contain a randomly generated Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI), rather than the Social Security Number-based Health Insurance Claim Number (HICN) that, at the time of the proposed rule, was not on Medicare cards. As discussed in the proposed rule (83 FR 49516), in order to ensure that appellants can easily submit appointment of representative documentation and appeal requests, we would accept this documentation with HICNs or MBIs. Consistent with these efforts, we proposed to remove references to the Social Security Number-based HICN on Medicare cards that are included in the Medicare appeals regulations, and to replace them with references to Medicare number to clarify that either a HICN or MBI can be included on appointment of representative documentation and appeal requests (83 FR 49516). Accordingly, we proposed (83 FR 49527 through 49529) to revise the following provisions of Medicare regulations to remove the words “health insurance claim” from the phrase “Medicare health insurance claim number” so that there is only a reference to “Medicare number”: §§ 405.910(c)(5), 405.944(b)(2), 405.964(b)(2), 405.1014(a)(1)(i), 405.1112(a), 423.2014(a)(1)(i), and 423.2112(a)(4).
We received no comments on this proposal. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed previously and in the
The January 17, 2017 final rule revised certain Medicare procedures for appeals of payment and coverage determinations for items and services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries and enrollees. Since the publication of this final rule, we have identified four regulatory provisions in part 423, subpart U, that are redundant. In order to reduce potential confusion, we proposed to remove redundant provisions at §§ 423.1970, 423.1972, 423.1974, and 423.1976 and, where necessary, incorporate appropriate provisions in other sections of the regulations (83 FR 49516 through 49518).
Section 423.1970 of the regulations relating to the rights of enrollees to an ALJ hearing provides—
• In paragraph (a), that, if the amount remaining in controversy after the Independent Review Entity (IRE) reconsideration meets the threshold requirement established annually by the Secretary, an enrollee who is dissatisfied with the IRE reconsideration determination has a right to a hearing before an ALJ;
• In paragraph (b)(1), the methodology for computing the AIC when the basis for appeal is the refusal by the Part D plan sponsor to provide drug benefits;
• In paragraph (b)(2), the methodology for computing the AIC when the basis for appeal is an at-risk determination made under a drug management program in accordance with § 423.153(f); and
• In paragraph (c), the requirements for aggregating appeals to meet the AIC. Section 423.2002 also contains provisions on the right to an ALJ hearing. This section contains cross-references to the provisions in § 423.1970, and also—
• Establishes a 60-calendar day timeframe for filing a written request for an ALJ hearing following receipt of the written notice of the IRE's reconsideration; and indicates the AIC requirement must be met to be entitled to an ALJ hearing;
• Provides the circumstances under which an enrollee may request that an ALJ hearing be expedited;
• Establishes a 5-calendar day presumption for receipt of the reconsideration following the date of the written reconsideration, unless there is evidence to the contrary; and
• Provides that, for purposes of the section, requests for hearing are considered as filed on the date they are received by the office specified in the IRE's reconsideration.
Because §§ 423.1970 and 423.2002 both address the right to an ALJ hearing, and because there is a possibility that confusion may arise from having two sections with the same title in the same CFR subpart, we proposed to remove § 423.1970 (83 FR 49527). We stated that because § 423.1970(a) is redundant of §§ 423.2000(a) and 423.2002(a)(2) in describing that an enrollee has a right to an ALJ hearing when the enrollee is dissatisfied with an IRE reconsideration and meets the AIC requirement, we believe § 423.1970(a) should be eliminated. We proposed to relocate § 423.1970(b) and (c) to new proposed § 423.2006 (“Amount in controversy required for an ALJ hearing and judicial review”) as paragraphs (c) and (d), respectively (83 FR 49527 and 49528).
In addition, we proposed to remove the reference to “CMS” in § 423.1970(b) (relocated to proposed § 423.2006(c)) to clarify that adjudicators, not CMS, ultimately compute the amount remaining in controversy in determining whether the AIC threshold is met for an ALJ hearing or review of an IRE dismissal, and judicial review (83 FR 49528).
As discussed in the proposed rule (83 FR 49516), we believe having one section titled “Right to an ALJ hearing” at § 423.2002 and another section titled “Amount in controversy required for an ALJ hearing and judicial review” at § 423.2006 is more consistent with the corresponding rules in 42 CFR part 405, subpart I, for appeals of Medicare Part A and Part B initial determinations (§§ 405.1002 and 405.1006). For consistency with § 423.2000(a) and language we proposed to remove from § 423.1970(a), we also proposed to add language to § 423.2002(a) providing that the right to an ALJ hearing is available to enrollees who are dissatisfied with the IRE's reconsideration determination (83 FR 49527).
In order to further increase consistency with § 405.1006 and consolidate the Medicare Part D appeals rules regarding the AIC, we proposed to incorporate provisions in proposed new § 423.2006(a) and (b) that are similar to those provisions contained at § 405.1006(b) and (c), describing the amounts in controversy required for an ALJ hearing and judicial review, respectively, including the annual adjustment of these amounts. In order to more clearly state the AIC requirements for appeals of Part D prescription drug plan coverage determinations, without the need for multiple statutory and regulatory cross-references, we proposed that new § 423.2006 would include the following (83 FR 49527 and 49528):
• At proposed paragraph (a)(1), a provision similar to § 405.1006(b)(1) that the required amount remaining in controversy must be $100 increased by the percentage increase in the medical care component of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (U.S. city average) as measured from July 2003 to the July preceding the current year involved.
• At proposed paragraph (a)(2), a provision similar to § 405.1006(b)(2) that, if the figure in § 423.2006(a)(1) is not a multiple of $10, it is rounded to the nearest multiple of $10, and that the Secretary will publish changes to the AIC requirement in the
• At proposed paragraph (b), a provision similar to § 405.1006(c) that, to be entitled to judicial review, the enrollee must meet the AIC requirements of this subpart and have an amount remaining in controversy of $1000 or more, adjusted as specified in proposed § 423.2006(a)(1) and (2).
• At proposed paragraph (c), a provision similar to current § 423.1970(b) explaining how the amount remaining in controversy is calculated.
• At proposed paragraph (d), the text currently found in § 423.1970(c) concerning aggregation of appeals to meet the amount in controversy.
Finally, we proposed to update or remove the cross-references to § 423.1970 in §§ 423.562(b)(4)(iv), 423.576, 423.602(b)(2), 423.1984(c), 423.2002(a) introductory text, (a)(2), and (b)(3), 423.2004(a)(2), and 423.2044(c) and to add a cross-reference to § 423.2006 in § 423.1990(b)(3) in place of the language “established annually by the Secretary” (83 FR 49527 through 49529).
Section 423.1972, titled “Request for an ALJ hearing,” provides the procedures an enrollee must follow when filing a request for hearing as follows:
• Paragraph (a) provides that a written request must be filed with the
• Paragraph (b) provides the timeframe for filing a request.
• Paragraph (c)(1) states that if a request for hearing clearly shows that the AIC is less than that required under § 423.1970, the ALJ or attorney adjudicator dismisses the request.
• Paragraph (c)(2) provides that if, after a hearing is initiated, the ALJ finds that the AIC is less than the amount required under § 423.1970, the ALJ discontinues the hearing and does not rule on the substantive issues raised in the appeal.
As we stated in the proposed rule (83 FR 49517), with the exception of paragraph (c)(2), all of the provisions in § 423.1972 are duplicative of or incorporate by reference other provisions found in § 423.2002(a) and (d) (Right to an ALJ hearing), § 423.2014(d)(2) and (e) (Request for an ALJ hearing or a review of an IRE dismissal), § 423.2020 (Time and place for a hearing before an ALJ), and § 423.2052(a)(2) (Dismissal of a request for a hearing before an ALJ or request for review of an IRE dismissal). In order to eliminate the redundancy and potential confusion, we proposed to remove § 423.1972 in its entirety (83 FR 49527). As a part of this proposed change, we also proposed to update or remove the cross-references to § 423.1972 in §§ 423.604, 423.1984(c), 423.2014(d) introductory text and (e)(1), and 423.2020(a). We stated in the proposed rule (83 FR 495174) that we do not believe it is necessary to retain § 423.1972(c)(2) in another location because ALJs have broad authority to regulate the course of the hearing. We further noted that, in the rare circumstances described in § 423.1972(c)(2) where an ALJ does not make a finding regarding the AIC until after a hearing is initiated, the ALJ may discontinue the hearing and issue a dismissal under §§ 423.2002(a)(2) and 423.2052(a)(2).
Section 423.1974, titled “Council review,” provides that an enrollee who is dissatisfied with an ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's decision or dismissal may request that the Council review the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's decision or dismissal as provided in § 423.2102. We stated in the proposed rule (83 FR 49517) that this provision is similar to § 423.2100, titled “Medicare Appeals Council review: general.” To eliminate the redundancy, we proposed (83 FR 49529) to remove the language of § 423.1974 and incorporate it in § 423.2100(a). This language would replace the language in § 423.2100(a). We also proposed (83 FR 49527) to update or remove the cross-references to § 423.1974 in §§ 423.562(b)(4)(v) and 423.1984(d).
Section 423.1976, titled “Judicial review,” provides the following:
• In paragraph (a), that an enrollee may request judicial review of an ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's decision if the Council denied the enrollee's request for review and the AIC meets the threshold requirement established annually by the Secretary.
• In paragraph (b), that the enrollee may request judicial review of a Council decision if it is the final decision of CMS and the AIC meets the threshold established in paragraph (a)(2).
• In paragraph (c), that, in order to request judicial review, an enrollee must file a civil action in a district court of the United States in accordance with section 205(g) of the Act.
As we stated in the proposed rule (83 FR 49517), with the exception of paragraph (a), these provisions are largely duplicative of other provisions contained in § 423.2136, also titled “Judicial review.” To eliminate this redundancy, we proposed to remove the provisions of § 423.1976 and revise § 423.2136 as follows:
• Section 423.2136(a) would be redesignated as § 423.2136(a)(1). The cross-reference to § 423.1976 would be removed, and language from § 423.1976(b) would be incorporated in § 423.2136(a)(1)(i) and (ii) and revised by replacing “CMS” with “the Secretary” for consistency with the language in section 1876(c)(5)(B) of the Act and § 423.2140, and replacing “paragraph (a)(2) of this section” with “§ 423.2006” which we proposed to add to the regulations to address the AIC requirements.
• Language at § 423.1976(a) would be revised to incorporate a reference to § 423.2006 and the authorizing language from § 423.2136(a) (proposed § 423.2136(a)(1)) and moved to new § 423.2136(a)(2).
• We also proposed to update or remove the cross-references to § 423.1976 in §§ 423.562(b)(4)(vi), 423.576, and 423.2136(b)(1). We sought comment on these proposed changes.
In summary, we proposed to remove or relocate language as shown in the following table:
We received no comments on the proposals described previously. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed previously and in the proposed rule, we are finalizing the proposed revisions without modification.
The regulations at §§ 405.1110(a) and (b)(2) and 423.2110(a) and (b)(2) give CMS or its contractors 60 calendar days after the date or issue date, respectively, of OMHA's decision or dismissal to refer the case to the Council. In the case of Part A and Part B appeals, CMS or its contractors are sent the decision notice when they are a party to the hearing or soon after the hearing occurred. For Part D appeals, as specified in § 423.2046(a)(1), the decision notice is sent to the enrollee, plan sponsor, and IRE.
As we discussed in the proposed rule (83 FR 49518), our regulations generally include regulatory timeframes that start when CMS or its contractors receive the decision notice, rather than the date the decision notice was issued. For example, § 405.1010(b)(3), which addresses the timing of when CMS or its contractor may elect to participate in an ALJ hearing, provides that CMS or its contractor must send notice of its intent to participate, if no hearing is scheduled, no later than 30 calendar days after notification that a request for hearing was filed or, if a hearing is scheduled, no later than 10 calendar days after receiving the notice of hearing. We explained that the rationale for starting the timeframe in § 405.1010(b)(3) after receipt of the notice was to ensure that CMS or its contractors have sufficient time to conduct a thorough evaluation of the facts and the case.
For the same reason, we proposed to revise the timeframe in §§ 405.1110(a) and (b)(2) and 423.2110(a) and (b)(2) for CMS or it contractors to refer a case to the Council such that the timeframe would begin after the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's decision or dismissal is received (83 FR 49527 and 49529). We stated that starting the timeframe after CMS or its contractor receives OMHA's written decision or dismissal would help ensure that CMS and its contractors have sufficient time to decide whether the case is the type of case that should be referred to the Council for review. In addition, we stated that this proposed change would help ensure that even if CMS and its contractors receive a delayed notice, they would have sufficient time to decide whether the case should be referred to the Council.
In order to ensure consistent implementation of this proposal, we also proposed to add new §§ 405.1110(e) and 423.2110(e) to provide that the date of receipt of the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's decision or dismissal is presumed to be 5 calendar days after the date of the notice of the decision or dismissal, unless there is evidence to the contrary (83 FR 49529). We explained that this would help facilitate the Council's determination on the timeliness of the referral by establishing a date by which the Council may presume that CMS or its contractor received the decision from OMHA. We stated that this 5-day mailing presumption is consistent with the presumption included in §§ 405.1102(a)(2) and 423.2102(a)(3) with respect to the timeframe for requesting Council review following an ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's decision or dismissal (83 FR 49518).
For these reasons, we proposed to revise the Council referral timeframes in §§ 405.1110(a) and (b)(2) and 423.2110(a) and (b)(2), and proposed to add §§ 405.1110(e) and 423.2110(e) as discussed previously (83 FR 49529).
Following is a summary of the comment we received and our response to this comment.
Accordingly, after review and consideration of the comment received, and for the reasons discussed previously and in the proposed rule, we are finalizing without modification our proposed revisions to §§ 405.1110(a) and (b)(2) and 423.2110(a) and (b)(2), and our proposals to add §§ 405.1110(e) and 423.2110(e).
The regulation at § 405.910 sets forth rules addressing the appointment of representatives in a Medicare Parts A and B claims appeals, including for secondary payer recovery claims. Specific rules regarding the duration of time that an appointment of representative instrument is valid are provided under § 405.910(e).
On February 27, 2015, we published a final rule entitled “Medicare Program; Right of Appeal for Medicare Secondary Payer Determinations Relating to Liability Insurance (Including Self-Insurance), No-Fault Insurance, and Workers' Compensation Laws and Plans (80 FR 10611). In that final rule, we added paragraph (e)(4) to § 405.910 in order to provide applicable plans with the benefit of the existing rule for Medicare secondary payers regarding the duration of appointment for an appointed representative. Within this added provision, we included a citation to § 405.906(a)(1)(iv), as the regulation establishing party status for applicable plans. As we stated in the proposed rule (83 FR 49518), this citation is an incorrect cross-reference; and the correct cross-reference is § 405.906(a)(4). We proposed to revise § 405.910(e)(4) to correct the cross-reference (83 FR 49525). We stated in the proposed rule that this proposed correction would not alter any existing processes or procedures within the Medicare claims appeals process.
We received no comments on this proposal. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed previously and in the proposed rule, we are finalizing the proposed revision without modification to § 405.910(e)(4).
The regulation at § 405.926 sets forth actions that are not considered initial determinations subject to the administrative appeals process under part 405, subpart I. On October 4, 2016, we issued a final rule entitled “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Reform of Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities” (81 FR 68688 through 68872) that moved the definition of “transfer and discharge” in § 483.12 to the definitions under § 483.5. Accordingly, we updated the cross-reference to “§ 483.5” within § 405.926(f) to the cross-reference to “§ 483.5(n)”. However, as we stated in the proposed rule (83 FR 49519), the citation of § 483.5(n) is an incorrect cross-reference.
To correct this error, we proposed to revise § 405.926(f) to remove the incorrect reference to “§ 483.5(n)” and replace it with the cross-reference “§ 483.5 definition of `transfer and discharge' ” (83 FR 49525). We stated
We received no comments on this proposal. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed previously and in the proposed rule, we are finalizing the proposed revision without modification to § 405.926(f).
Since we published the January 17, 2017 final rule, we have identified several provisions that, upon further review, pose unanticipated challenges with implementation, which are explained in this section. In addition, there are other regulatory provisions that we believe require additional clarification and the correction of technical errors and omissions. In the proposals listed in this section, we sought to help ensure the provisions are implemented as intended, provide clarification, and correct technical errors and omissions. Our proposed changes were as follows.
Section 405.1006 addresses the AIC required for an ALJ hearing and judicial review, and § 405.1006(d) provides the methodology for computing the AIC. In general, the AIC is computed as the amount that the provider or supplier bills for the items and services in the disputed claim, reduced by any Medicare payments already made or awarded for the items or services, and further reduced by any deductible and/or coinsurance amounts that may be collected for the items or services. In the January 17, 2017 final rule, we created several exceptions to this general computation methodology for situations where we believed an alternative methodology would more accurately describe the amount actually in dispute. Among these alternatives was the calculation methodology specified in § 405.1006(d)(4), which states that when an appeal involves an identified overpayment, the AIC is the amount of the overpayment specified in the demand letter for the items or services in the disputed claim. For appeals involving an estimated overpayment amount determined through the use of statistical sampling and extrapolation, § 405.1006(d)(4) further provides that the AIC is the total amount of the estimated overpayment determined through extrapolation, as specified in the demand letter.
As discussed in the proposed rule (83 FR 49519), when we created this exception, we did not account for the possibility that the amount of the overpayment or estimated overpayment specified in the demand letter might change throughout the administrative appeals process if, for example, an adjudicator finds that some of the items or services for which an overpayment was demanded are covered and payable, or alternatively, if an adjudicator raises a new issue that results in the denial of additional items or services. We explained that, even outside the administrative appeals process, the amount of an overpayment may be revised by a CMS contractor (for example, following a discussion period with the contractor that initially determined the overpayment). Although some of these situations may result in the issuance of a revised demand letter, such a letter may not always be issued during the pendency of the appeals process.
To account for situations where the amount of an overpayment specified in the demand letter does not reflect subsequent adjustments to the amount remaining in controversy, we proposed to revise § 405.1006(d)(4) to state that when an appeal involves an identified overpayment, the AIC is the amount of the overpayment specified in the demand letter, or the amount of the revised overpayment if the amount originally demanded changes as a result of a subsequent determination or appeal, for the items or services in the disputed claim (83 FR 49525). For appeals involving an estimated overpayment amount determined through the use of statistical sampling and extrapolation, we further proposed to revise § 405.1006(d)(4) to state that the AIC is the total amount of the estimated overpayment determined through extrapolation, as specified in the demand letter, or as subsequently revised (83 FR 49525).
Following is a summary of the comment we received and our response to this comment.
With regard to the commenter's request to clarify what the AIC would be if no revised demand letter is issued, as we explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 49519), the amount of an overpayment or estimated overpayment specified in a demand letter might change throughout the administrative appeals process as a result of appeals determinations, or outside the appeals process (for example, following a discussion period with the contractor that initially determined the overpayment). We further explained that, although some of these situations may result in the issuance of a revised demand letter, such a letter may not always be issued during the appeals process. It is for this reason that we proposed to revise § 405.1006(d)(4) to account for situations in which the amount of the overpayment or estimated overpayment specified in the demand letter (original or revised) no longer accurately reflects the AIC for an appeal. In these circumstances, an OMHA adjudicator would consider the amount of the overpayment or estimated overpayment specified in the most recent demand letter, factoring in any additional denied items or services, payment reductions, or payments awarded subsequent to the issuance of the demand letter. For purposes of determining whether an appeal meets the minimum AIC required for an ALJ hearing or review of a dismissal, we believe the demand letter, coupled with other available billing or payment information, would provide appellants and adjudicators with the necessary information to determine, or at least approximate, the effect of subsequent determinations or appeals and the amount of the revised overpayment. For estimated overpayments determined through the use of statistical sampling and extrapolation, because these estimated overpayments tend to far exceed the minimum AIC, we believe it would generally be unnecessary to calculate the exact amount of the revised estimate.
After review and consideration of the comments received, for the reasons discussed previously and in the proposed rule, we are finalizing the
In § 405.1010(b)(1), we state that if CMS or a CMS contractor elects to participate in the proceedings on a request for hearing before receipt of a notice of hearing, or when notice of hearing is not required, it must send written notice of its intent to participate to the parties who were sent a copy of the notice of reconsideration, and to the assigned ALJ or attorney adjudicator, or if the appeal is not assigned, to a designee of the Chief ALJ. We discussed in the January 17, 2017 final rule that the requirement to notify the parties who were sent a copy of the notice of reconsideration helps ensure that the potential parties to a hearing, if a hearing is conducted, would receive notice of the intent to participate (82 FR 5016). However, the final regulation at § 405.1010(b)(1) does not account for requests for reconsideration that are escalated from the QIC level to the OMHA level of appeal without a notice of reconsideration having been issued.
As discussed in the proposed rule (83 FR 49519), in order to help ensure that the potential parties to a hearing would receive notice of CMS' or the contractor's intent to participate and address reconsideration escalations from the QIC to OMHA, we proposed to revise § 405.1010(b)(1) to require that, for escalated requests for reconsideration, notice of the intent to participate would also be sent to any party that filed a request for reconsideration or was found liable for the services at issue subsequent to the initial determination, which we believe is consistent with circumstances under which a party would receive notice of a hearing under § 405.1020. (Section 405.1020(c)(1) also provides that a notice of hearing is sent to all parties that participated in the reconsideration. However, we stated we did not believe this provision is necessary in circumstances where the QIC has not issued a reconsideration because, in practice, there is generally no opportunity for participation in these circumstances by parties other than the party that filed the request for reconsideration.) For the same reason, we also proposed to revise § 405.1010(c)(3)(ii)(A), which currently requires that copies of CMS or contractor position papers or written testimony that are submitted before receipt of a notice of hearing must be sent to the parties who were sent a copy of the notice of reconsideration (83 FR 49525 and 49526). We proposed to revise § 405.1010(c)(3)(ii)(A) to instead provide that copies are sent to the parties that are required to be sent a copy of the notice of intent to participate in accordance with § 405.1010(b)(1). We noted that no corresponding revisions to § 423.2010 are needed because escalation is not available in Medicare Part D appeals (83 FR 49519).
In § 405.1010(b)(3)(ii), we state that if CMS or a CMS contractor elects to participate after a hearing is scheduled, it must send written notice of its intent to participate no later than 10 calendar days “after receiving the notice of hearing.” As discussed in the proposed rule (83 FR 49519 and 49520), upon reviewing the revised rules, we noticed an inconsistency between this language and the language in § 405.1012(a)(1), which requires CMS or a CMS contractor electing to be a party to a hearing to send written notice of its intent to be a party no later than 10 calendar days “after the QIC receives the notice of hearing.” We explained in the January 17, 2017 final rule (82 FR 5020) that the timeframe in § 405.1012(a)(1) was based on receipt of the notice of hearing by the QIC because notices of hearing are currently sent to the QIC in accordance with § 405.1020(c). We stated that we believe these requirements should be consistent and the timeframes should begin on the same date, regardless of whether CMS or a CMS contractor is electing to be a party or participant. We also stated that we believe that the regulations should provide flexibility for CMS to designate another contractor, other than the QIC, to receive notices of hearing under § 405.1020(c) if that contractor is then tasked with disseminating the notice of hearing to other CMS contractors. Therefore, and as discussed in this section with regard to notices of hearing, we proposed to revise § 405.1020(c)(1) to provide for this flexibility (83 FR 49526).
For conformity with proposed revised § 405.1020(c)(1) and to resolve the existing inconsistency in §§ 405.1010(b)(3)(ii) and 405.1012(a)(1), we proposed to revise both sections to provide that written notice of the intent to participate or intent to be a party must be submitted no later than 10 calendar days after receipt of the notice of hearing by the QIC or another contractor designated by CMS to receive the notice of hearing (83 FR 49526). We noted that no corresponding revision is needed to the part 423, subpart U, rules because notices of hearing are sent to both the Medicare Part D plan sponsor and the IRE (83 FR 49520).
In § 405.1010(c)(3)(i), we state that CMS or a CMS contractor that filed an election to participate must submit any position papers or written testimony within 14 calendar days of its election to participate if no hearing has been scheduled, or no later than 5 calendar days prior to the hearing if a hearing is scheduled, unless the ALJ grants additional time to submit the position paper or written testimony. In the January 17, 2017 final rule (82 FR 5017), we discussed that the requirement to submit any written testimony within 14 calendar days of the election to participate if no hearing has been scheduled helps to ensure that the position paper and/or written testimony are available when determinations are made to schedule a hearing or issue a decision based on the record in accordance with § 405.1038.
Although § 405.1010(c)(3)(i) allows an ALJ to extend the 5-calendar day submission timeframe for cases in which a hearing is scheduled, the regulation text may be unclear as to whether the same discretion is afforded to ALJs or attorney adjudicators with respect to the 14-calendar day submission timeframe for cases in which no hearing has been scheduled. Our intent was to apply this discretionary extension in both circumstances, as evidenced by the corresponding regulation at § 423.2010(d)(3)(i), which allows an ALJ or attorney adjudicator to grant additional time to submit a position paper or written testimony both in cases where a hearing has been scheduled and in cases where no hearing has been scheduled (82 FR 5019). Accordingly, to clarify our intent and help ensure consistency between part 405 and part 423, we proposed to revise § 405.1010(c)(3)(i) to clarify that an ALJ or attorney adjudicator may also extend the 14-calendar day timeframe for submission of position papers and written testimony in cases in which no hearing has been scheduled (83 FR 49525 and 49526).
In § 405.1012(b), we state that if CMS or a CMS contractor elects to be a party to the hearing, it must send written notice of its intent to the ALJ and to “the parties identified in the notice of hearing.” Upon reviewing the revised rules, we noticed an inconsistency between this language and the language in § 405.1010(b)(2), which states that if CMS or a CMS contractor elects to participate after receipt of a notice of hearing, it must to send written notice of its intent to participate to the ALJ and “the parties who were sent a copy of the notice of hearing.” Although the standard for who must receive notice is
Finally, § 405.1012(e)(1) states the circumstances under which an ALJ or attorney adjudicator may determine that a CMS or contractor election to be a party to a hearing made under § 405.1012 is invalid. Because § 405.1012(a) only permits CMS or a contractor to elect to be a party after the QIC receives a notice of hearing, and only an ALJ may schedule and conduct a hearing, we believe the determination as to whether an election made under § 405.1012 is valid should be left to the assigned ALJ. Therefore, we proposed in § 405.1012(e)(1) to replace the phrase “ALJ or attorney adjudicator” with “ALJ” (83 FR 49526). As we noted, no corresponding revision is needed to the part 423, subpart U, rules because only the enrollee is a party to a Medicare Part D appeal and CMS, the IRE, and the Part D plan sponsor may only request to be nonparty participants (83 FR 49520).
Following is a summary of the comment we received and our response to this comment.
Providing CMS with the flexibility to designate a different contractor to receive the notice of hearing does not add complexity to the hearing process. When a hearing is scheduled under the current regulations, OMHA sends the notice of hearing to a single CMS contractor. That contractor is then responsible for disseminating notice of the hearing to other CMS contractors, such as the MAC that issued the redetermination. This proposal, which we are finalizing, will allow CMS to assign the administrative responsibility of notifying the appropriate entities to a contractor other than the QIC. The QIC will still receive notice of the hearing, and would still have the opportunity to elect to participate in or be a party to the appeal, as applicable. Only CMS contractors that were involved with the claims, determinations, and decisions on appeal, or their successors, are notified of a hearing under the current process, and only those entities would be notified under the process we are finalizing.
Under current §§ 405.1010 and 405.1012, CMS or any of its contractors may elect to participate in the proceedings on a request for an ALJ hearing, and one of these entities may also elect to be a party to the proceedings if a hearing is scheduled and the appellant is not an unrepresented beneficiary. Neither the QIC nor any other CMS contractor is required to be a party (or a non-party participant) to a hearing. To join the proceedings as a party, a CMS contractor must affirmatively elect party status during the appropriate timeframe, and must notify the other parties identified in the notice of hearing of its intent to be a party to the hearing. Section 405.1012(a)(1), (b). Additionally, under § 405.1012(a)(2), an ALJ may request, but may not require, CMS and/or one or more of its contractors to be a party to a hearing and cannot draw any adverse inferences if CMS or the contractor decides not to be a party to the hearing. Our proposal does not undermine QIC accountability, as current § 405.1012 already provides flexibility for CMS or any CMS contractor, not just the QIC, to elect to join an appeal as a party, with the limitation that only the first entity to file its election after the notice of hearing is issued may attend the oral hearing. Our proposal to permit the designation of a contractor, other than the QIC, to perform the administrative role of disseminating hearing requests, would not change the ability of CMS or any of its contractors to elect to be a party to an OMHA appeal.
As for the commenter's concern about the current time frame for CMS or CMS contractor submission of position papers or written testimony when a hearing is scheduled, this comment is beyond the scope of the proposed rule, and we will not be addressing it in this final rule.
Finally, we thank the commenter for alerting us to the typographical error we inadvertently made in the preamble to the proposed rule by referring to § 405.1012(b)(2) instead of § 405.1012(b) in one place in the discussion. The proposed regulation text of the proposed rule (83 FR 49526) correctly reflected our proposal to modify § 405.1012(b).
After review and consideration of the comments received, and for the reasons discussed previously and in the proposed rule, we are finalizing these proposed changes without modification to §§ 405.1010(b)(1), (b)(3)(ii), (c)(3)(i), and (c)(3)(ii)(A) and 405.1012(a)(1), (b), and (e)(1).
Prior to the January 17, 2017 final rule, § 405.1014(c)(2) provided that any request for an extension of the time to request a hearing must be in writing, give the reasons why the request for a hearing was not filed within the stated time period, and must be filed with the entity specified in the notice of reconsideration. In the January 17, 2017 final rule, this provision was relocated to § 405.1014(e)(2) and revised, in part, to state that any request for an extension of the time to request a hearing or review of a QIC dismissal must be filed with the request for hearing or request
In order to remedy this situation, we proposed to revise § 405.1014(e)(2) to provide that requests for extension must be filed with the request for hearing or request for review, or upon notice that the request may be dismissed because it was not timely filed (83 FR 49520, 49521, and 49526). We also proposed a corresponding revision to § 423.2014(e)(3) for extension requests filed by Medicare Part D enrollees (83 FR 49520, 49521, and 49528).
We received no comments on this proposal. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed previously and in the proposed rule, we are finalizing the proposed revisions without modification to §§ 405.1014 and 423.2014.
In § 405.1020(c)(1), we require that a notice of hearing be sent to all parties that filed an appeal or participated in the reconsideration, any party who was found liable for the services at issue subsequent to the initial determination or may be found liable based on a review of the record, the QIC that issued the reconsideration, and CMS or a contractor that elected to participate in the proceedings in accordance with § 405.1010(b) or that the ALJ believes would be beneficial to the hearing, advising them of the proposed time and place of the hearing. However, this rule does not account for requests for reconsideration that are escalated from the QIC level to the OMHA level of appeal without a reconsideration having been issued.
To help ensure that the QIC, and other CMS contractors who receive notice of scheduled hearings through the QIC, receive notice of all scheduled hearings, we proposed to revise § 405.1020(c)(1) to require that notice be sent to the QIC that issued the reconsideration or from which the request for reconsideration was escalated (83 FR 49521 and 49526). As discussed in section II.H.2. of the proposed rule with regard to CMS and CMS contractor submissions, we proposed, and are finalizing a change to the regulation, to provide future flexibility for CMS to designate another contractor to receive notices of hearing by revising § 405.1020(c)(1) to state, in part, that the notice of hearing may instead be sent to another contractor designated by CMS to receive it. We noted that no corresponding revisions are needed in § 423.2020(c)(1) because escalation is not available in Medicare Part D appeals, and notices of hearing are sent to both the Medicare Part D plan sponsor and the IRE (83 FR 49521).
We received a comment on this proposal, which we have summarized and addressed as follows.
For the reasons discussed previously and in the proposed rule, we are finalizing this proposed change without modification to § 405.1020(c)(1).
Section 405.1020(i)(1) and (5) provides that if an unrepresented beneficiary who filed the request for hearing objects to a video-teleconference (VTC) hearing or to the ALJ's offer to conduct a hearing by telephone, or if a party other than an unrepresented beneficiary who filed the request for hearing objects to a telephone or VTC hearing, an ALJ may grant the unrepresented beneficiary's or other party's request for an in-person or VTC hearing if it satisfies the requirements in § 405.1020(i)(1) through (3), with the concurrence of the Chief ALJ or a designee and upon a finding of good cause. Prior to the January 17, 2017 final rule, § 405.1020(i) dealt exclusively with a party's request for an in-person hearing and § 405.1020(i)(5) required concurrence of the Managing Field Office ALJ and a finding of good cause for an ALJ to grant the request. (As we discussed in the January 17, 2017 final rule (82 FR 5046), the position of Managing Field Office ALJ was replaced by the position of Associate Chief ALJ, and we replaced the reference to “Managing Field Office ALJ” in § 405.1020(i)(5) with “Chief ALJ or a designee” to provide greater flexibility in the future as position titles change.) Managing Field Office ALJ concurrence and a finding of good cause were not required prior to the January 17, 2017 final rule for requests for a VTC hearing because VTC was the default method of hearing.
As we discussed in the proposed rule (83 FR 49521), when we revised § 405.1020(i) in the January 17, 2017 final rule to reflect the change from VTC to telephone hearing as the default method for appearances by parties other than unrepresented beneficiaries, we neglected to restrict the requirement for the concurrence of the Chief ALJ or designee to requests for in-person hearing, in accordance with § 405.1020(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii). In addition, we neglected to clarify that, because VTC is the default hearing method for unrepresented beneficiaries, a finding of good cause is not required when an unrepresented beneficiary who filed the request for hearing objects to
As further discussed in the proposed rule, in reviewing the January 17, 2017 final rule, we also noted potential confusion about whether § 405.1020(e) or (i) applies to objections to the place of a hearing when the objection is accompanied by a request for a VTC or an in-person hearing. While an objection to a hearing being conducted by telephone or VTC may broadly qualify as an objection to the place of the hearing under § 405.1020(e), our intent was for § 405.1020(i) to apply to such an objection when the objection is accompanied by a request for a different hearing format, because § 405.1020(i) is specific to an objection to the scheduled hearing format and request for an alternate hearing format. To mitigate the potential confusion as to which provisions applies, we proposed to revise § 405.1020(e) by adding paragraph (e)(5) to make clear that it applies only when the party's or enrollee's objection does not include a request for an in-person or VTC hearing (83 FR 49521 through 49526). We also proposed a corresponding revision to § 423.2020(e) concerning a Medicare Part D enrollee's objection to the time and place of hearing (83 FR 49528).
We received no comments on this proposal. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed previously and in the proposed rule, we are finalizing the revision proposed previously without modification.
Section 405.1052(a) describes the situations under which an ALJ may dismiss a request for hearing (other than withdrawals of requests for hearing, which are described in § 405.1052(c)). Although paragraph (a) pertains only to ALJ dismissals, paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4)(i), and (a)(5) and (6) contain inadvertent references to attorney adjudicators.
• Paragraph (a)(3) states that an ALJ may dismiss a request for hearing when the party did not request a hearing within the stated time period and the ALJ or attorney adjudicator has not found good cause for extending the deadline, as provided in § 405.1014(e).
• Paragraph (a)(4)(i) provides that when determining whether the beneficiary's surviving spouse or estate has a remaining financial interest, the ALJ or attorney adjudicator considers whether the surviving spouse or estate remains liable for the services that were denied or a Medicare contractor held the beneficiary liable for subsequent similar services under the limitation of liability provisions based on the denial of the services at issue. (As discussed in section II.H.10 of the proposed rule, we proposed to change the reference to “limitation of liability” to “limitation on liability.”)
• Paragraph (a)(5) states that an ALJ or attorney adjudicator dismisses a hearing request entirely or refuses to consider any one or more of the issues because a QIC, an ALJ or attorney adjudicator, or the Council has made a previous determination or decision under part 405, subpart I, about the appellant's rights on the same facts and on the same issue(s) or claim(s), and this previous determination or decision has become binding by either administrative or judicial action.
• Paragraph (a)(6) states that an ALJ or attorney adjudicator may conclude that an appellant has abandoned a request for hearing when OMHA attempts to schedule a hearing and is unable to contact the appellant after making reasonable efforts to do so.
As discussed in the January 17, 2017 final rule (82 FR 4982), our intent in finalizing the attorney adjudicator proposals was to provide authority for attorney adjudicators to dismiss a request for hearing only when an appellant withdraws his or her request for an ALJ hearing, and not under any other circumstances. We further explained that attorney adjudicators could not dismiss a request for hearing due to procedural issues or make a determination that would result in a dismissal of a request for an ALJ hearing (other than a determination that the appellant had withdrawn the request for hearing) (82 FR 5008 and 5009). Therefore, we proposed to revise § 405.1052(a)(3), (a)(4)(i), and (a)(6) to remove the reference to attorney adjudicators and paragraph (a)(5) to remove the first reference to an attorney adjudicator (83 FR 49526). We also proposed corresponding corrections to § 423.2052(a)(3), (5), and (6) for dismissals of Part D requests for hearing (83 FR 49529).
Prior to the January 17, 2017 final rule, § 405.1052(b) required that notice of a dismissal of a request for hearing be sent to all parties at their last known address. We explained in that rule that the requirement to send notice of the dismissal to all parties was overly inclusive and caused confusion by requiring notice of a dismissal to be sent to parties who have not received a copy of the request for hearing or request for review that is being dismissed (82 FR 5086). Therefore, we revised this provision (and moved it to § 405.1052(d)) to state that OMHA mails or otherwise transmits a written notice of a dismissal of a request for hearing or review to all parties who were sent a copy of the request for hearing or review at their last known address.
However, as we discussed in the proposed rule (83 FR 49522), in our effort to better tailor the list of recipients, we neglected to specify that notice is also sent to the appellant—who must receive notice of the dismissal, but would not have received a copy of its own request for hearing or review—and to account for CMS or a CMS contractor who elected to be a party to the appeal. We believe that CMS or a CMS contractor that is a party to an appeal has an interest in the outcome of the appeal and should be notified if the request for hearing or review is dismissed. Section 405.1046 helps ensure that CMS or CMS contractors who are a party to a hearing receive notice of the decision by requiring that the decision be sent to all parties at their last known address. In order to help ensure CMS and CMS contractors are afforded similar notice of dismissals, and that the appellant is notified of a dismissal of its request for hearing or review, we proposed to revise § 405.1052(d) to require that notice be sent to the appellant, all parties who were sent a copy of the request for hearing or review at their last known address, and to CMS or a CMS contractor that is a party to the proceedings on a request for hearing (83 FR 49526). We stated that no corresponding revision to § 423.2052 is needed because only the enrollee is a party to a Medicare Part D appeal and receives notice of the dismissal (83 FR 49522).
We received no comments on the proposals described previously.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed previously and in the proposed rule, we are finalizing the revisions proposed previously without modification.
Section 405.1056(a)(1) provides that if an ALJ or attorney adjudicator requests an official copy of a missing redetermination or reconsideration for an appealed claim in accordance with § 405.1034, and the QIC or another contractor does not furnish the copy within the timeframe specified in § 405.1034, the ALJ or attorney adjudicator may issue a remand directing the QIC or other contractor to reconstruct the record or, if it is not able to do so, initiate a new appeal adjudication. Section 405.1056(a)(2) provides that if the QIC does not furnish the case file for an appealed reconsideration, an ALJ or attorney adjudicator may issue a remand directing the QIC to reconstruct the record or, if it is not able to do so, initiate a new appeal adjudication. In § 405.1056(d), an ALJ or attorney adjudicator will remand a case to the appropriate QIC if the ALJ or attorney adjudicator determines that a QIC's dismissal of a request for reconsideration was in error.
As we stated in the proposed rule (83 FR 49522), occasionally, an ALJ or attorney adjudicator may need to remand a request for review of a dismissal of a reconsideration request for reasons similar to those specified in § 405.1056(a)(1) and (2) because the ALJ or attorney adjudicator is unable to obtain an official copy of the dismissal determination, or because the QIC does not furnish the case file for an appealed dismissal. We explained that, by restricting the bases for remand under § 405.1056(a)(1) and (2) to appeals of reconsiderations, we inadvertently made these reasons unavailable for remands of requests for review of a dismissal under § 405.1056(d). Therefore, we proposed to revise § 405.1056(d) by redesignating existing paragraph (d) as paragraph (d)(1), and adding paragraph (d)(2) to state that an ALJ or attorney adjudicator may also remand a request for review of a dismissal in accordance with the procedures in paragraph (a) of the section if an official copy of the notice of dismissal or case file cannot be obtained from the QIC (83 FR 48527). We also proposed corresponding revisions to § 423.2056(d) for Medicare Part D remands of a request for review of an IRE's dismissal of a request for reconsideration (83 FR 49529). We stated that this proposed change would necessitate two additional revisions.
First, §§ 405.1056(g) and 423.2056(g), which discuss reviews of remands by the Chief ALJ or designee, state that the review of remand procedures are not available for and do not apply to remands that are issued under § 405.1056(d) or § 423.2056(d), respectively. In the January 17, 2017 final rule, we explained that this limitation was due to the fact that remands issued on review of a QIC's or IRE's dismissal of a request for reconsideration (that is, based on a determination that the QIC's or IRE's dismissal was in error) are more akin to a determination than a purely procedural mechanism (82 FR 5069 through 5070). Because remands issued under new proposed §§ 405.1056(d)(2) and 423.2056(d)(2) would be procedural remands, we proposed to revise §§ 405.1056(g) and 423.2056(g) by replacing the references to paragraph (d) with a reference to paragraph (d)(1), so that remands issued under paragraph (d)(2) would be subject to the review of remand procedures in paragraph (g) (83 FR 49522, 49527, and 49529).
Second, we proposed to revise §§ 405.1034(a)(1) and 423.2034(a)(1) to provide that the request for information procedures in these paragraphs apply not only to requests for official copies of redeterminations and reconsiderations, but also to requests for official copies of dismissals of requests for redetermination or reconsideration (83 FR 49522 and 49526).
We received a comment on this proposal. Following is a summary of the comment we received and our response to this comment.
In proposed §§ 405.1056(d) and 423.2056(d), authorizing remands when an official copy of the notice of dismissal or a case file for an appealed dismissal of a request for reconsideration cannot be obtained from the QIC or IRE, OMHA would apply the same procedures that currently apply under §§ 405.1034(a) and 423.2034(a) for missing redeterminations, reconsiderations, and case files for appealed reconsiderations and the same joint operating procedures that are already in place for requesting case files. We further proposed to revise §§ 405.1034(a)(1) and 423.2034(a)(1) to require that OMHA first confirm whether an official copy of a missing notice of dismissal is available in the official system of record before issuing a request for information to the QIC or IRE (83 FR 49526 and 49528). Thus, the same safeguards that currently apply to prevent unnecessary requests for information and remands in appeals of reconsiderations would also apply to requests for review of a dismissal, and would help ensure appellants are not subjected to increased burdens or delays that may be associated with a remand. Rather than reducing accountability, we
In the rare circumstances where a missing dismissal or case file could not be obtained by OMHA because the QIC or IRE does not respond to OMHA's case file request, or because an electronic copy of the missing notice of dismissal is not available in the official system of record and the QIC or IRE does not respond to OMHA's request under § 405.1034(a) or § 423.2034(a), or because the QIC or IRE cannot locate the requested case file or dismissal, we believe a remand to the QIC or IRE that issued the dismissal would be the most efficient means to reconstruct the record or, if necessary, re-adjudicate the request for reconsideration. The commenter's suggestion that OMHA issue a fully favorable determination and reverse the denial is not appropriate, as it would require CMS or a plan to pay previously denied claims or authorize previously denied requests for coverage without regard to their merits. HHS is charged with maintaining Medicare program integrity against waste, fraud, and abuse, and has a statutory obligation to ensure that non-meritorious claims that do not meet statutory criteria for payment are not paid (see, for example, sections 1814, 1835, 1862(a), and 1893 of the Act).
After review and consideration of the comments received, for the reasons discussed previously and in the proposed rule, we are finalizing these proposed changes without modification to §§ 405.1034(a)(1), 405.1056(d) and (g), 423.2034(a)(1), and 423.2056(d) and (g).
Section 405.1056(f) provides that OMHA mails or otherwise transmits written notice of a remand of a request for hearing or request for review to all of the parties who were sent a copy of the request for hearing or review, at their last known address, and to CMS or a contractor that elected to be a participant in the proceedings or party to the hearing. However, as discussed in the proposed rule (83 FR 49522), § 405.1056(f) does not require that notice be sent to the appellant, who would not have received a copy of its own request for hearing or review. For the same reasons described previously with regard to notices of dismissal, we proposed to revise § 405.1056(f) to require that notice be sent to the appellant, all parties who were sent a copy of the request for hearing or review at their last known address, and to CMS or a contractor that elected to be a participant in the proceedings or party to the hearing (83 FR 49522, 49523, and 49527). We stated that no corresponding revision to part 423, subpart U, is needed because § 423.2056(f) already provides that notice is sent to the enrollee, who is the only party to a Part D appeal.
In addition, § 405.1056(f) provides that the notice of remand states that there is a right to request that the Chief ALJ or a designee review the remand. However, § 405.1056(g) states that the review of remand procedures are not available for and do not apply to remands that are issued under § 405.1056(d) (which, as noted in section II.H.D.7. of the proposed rule, we proposed to redesignate as § 405.1056(d)(1)). To resolve this discrepancy and help ensure that parties receive accurate information regarding the availability of the review of remand procedures, we proposed to revise § 405.1056(f) to clarify that the notice of remand states that there is a right to request that the Chief ALJ or a designee review the remand, unless the remand was issued under § 405.1056(d)(1) (83 FR 49527). We also proposed corresponding changes to § 423.2056(f) (83 FR 49529).
We received no comments on the proposals described previously. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed previously and in the proposed rule, we are finalizing the proposed revisions without modification to §§ 405.1056(f) and 423.2056(f).
Section 423.2056(b) provides that if an ALJ or attorney adjudicator finds that the IRE issued a reconsideration and no redetermination was made with respect to the issue under appeal or the request for redetermination was dismissed, the reconsideration will be remanded to the IRE, or its successor, to readjudicate the request for reconsideration. However, as discussed in the proposed rule (83 FR 49523), when we finalized this provision in the January 17, 2017 final rule, we did not account for situations in which no redetermination was issued because the Medicare Part D plan sponsor failed to meet the timeframe for a standard or expedited redetermination, as provided in § 423.590. We stated that, in these situations, § 423.2056(b) does not provide a basis for remand because the failure of the Part D plan sponsor to provide a redetermination within the specified timeframe constitutes an adverse redetermination decision, and the Part D plan sponsor is required to forward the enrollee's request to the IRE within 24 hours of the expiration of the adjudication timeframe in accordance with § 423.590(c) (for requests for standard redeterminations) and (e) (for requests for expedited redeterminations). Accordingly, we proposed to revise § 423.2056(b) to clarify that this reason for remand does not apply when the request for redetermination was forwarded to the IRE in accordance with § 423.590(c) or (e) without a redetermination having been conducted (83 FR 49529).
We received no comments on this proposal. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed previously and in the proposed rule, we are finalizing the proposed revision without modification to § 423.2056(b).
In the January 17, 2017 final rule, we amended regulations throughout 42 CFR part 405, subparts I and J, part 422, subpart M, part 423, subparts M and U, and part 478, subpart B, by replacing certain references to ALJs, ALJ hearing offices, and unspecified entities with a reference to OMHA or an OMHA office. We explained that these changes were being made to provide clarity to the public on the role of OMHA in administering the ALJ hearing program, and to clearly identify where requests and other filings should be directed (82 FR 4992). However, as discussed in the proposed rule (83 FR 49523), we neglected to revise two existing references to ALJs in § 405.970(c)(2) and one existing reference to an ALJ in § 405.970(d). To correct our oversight, we proposed to revise § 405.970(c)(2) and (d) by replacing each instance of the phrase “to an ALJ” with “to OMHA” to clarify that appeals are escalated to OMHA, rather than an individual ALJ (83 FR 49525).
In the January 17, 2017 final rule, in order to reduce confusion with MACs, we revised references to the Medicare Appeals Council throughout part 405, subpart I, part 422, subpart M, and part 423, subparts M and U, by replacing “MAC” with “Council” (82 FR 4993). However, we stated in the proposed rule (83 FR 49523) that we neglected to change one reference to “MAC” in § 423.1990(d)(2)(ii). Accordingly, we proposed to revise § 423.1990(d)(2)(ii) by replacing “MAC” with “Council” (83 FR 49527).
In § 423.2010(d)(1), we stated that CMS, IRE, and/or Part D plan sponsor participation in an appeal may include filing position papers and/or providing testimony to clarify factual or policy issues in a case, but it does not include
Prior to the January 17, 2017 final rule, § 423.2016(b)(1) provided that an ALJ may consider the standard for granting an expedited hearing met if a lower-level adjudicator has granted a request for an expedited hearing. We revised this paragraph in the January 17, 2017 final rule to account for the possibility that a request for an expedited appeal could be granted by an attorney adjudicator. However, as we stated in the proposed rule (83 FR 49523), we neglected to correct the existing reference to a lower-level adjudicator having granted a request for an expedited hearing. Because lower-level adjudicators do not conduct hearings, we proposed to revise § 423.2016(b)(1) by replacing “hearing” with “decision” (83 FR 49528).
Section 423.2032(c) describes the circumstances in which a coverage determination on a drug that was not specified in a request for hearing may be added “to pending appeal.” As we discussed in the proposed rule, we inadvertently omitted the word “a” and proposed to revise § 423.2032(c) by removing the phrase “to pending appeal” and adding “to a pending appeal” in its place (83 FR 49523 and 49528).
Prior to the January 17, 2017 final rule, § 423.2036(g) stated, in part, that an ALJ may ask the witnesses at a hearing any questions relevant to the issues “and allow the enrollee or his or her appointed representative, as defined at § 423.560.” As discussed in the proposed rule (83 FR 49523), in the January 17, 2017 final rule, we redesignated this paragraph as paragraph (d), but neglected to correct the missing language at the end of the sentence. For consistency with § 405.1036(d), we proposed to revise § 423.2036(d) by adding “, to do so” at the end of the paragraph, before the period (83 FR 49529).
Section 423.2036(e) discusses what evidence is admissible at the hearing, and states that an ALJ may not consider evidence on any change in condition of a Part D enrollee after a coverage determination, and further provides that if an enrollee wishes for such evidence to be considered, the ALJ must remand the case to the Part D IRE as set forth in § 423.2034(b)(2). Prior to the January 17, 2017 final rule, § 423.2034(b)(2) stated that an ALJ will remand a case to the appropriate Part D IRE if the ALJ determines that the enrollee wishes evidence on his or her change in condition after the coverage determination to be considered in the appeal. As discussed in the proposed rule (83 FR 49523), in the January 17, 2017 final rule, we moved this provision to § 423.2056(e), but neglected to update the cross-reference to it in § 423.2036(e). Accordingly, we proposed to revise § 423.2036(e) to replace the reference to “§ 423.2034(b)(2)” with the reference “§ 423.2056(e)” (83 FR 49529).
In §§ 405.952(b)(4)(i), 405.972(b)(4)(i), 405.1052(a)(4)(i) and (b)(3)(i), and 405.1114(c)(1), when discussing determinations as to whether a beneficiary's surviving spouse or estate has a remaining financial interest in an appeal, we refer to limitation on liability under section 1879 of the Act as “limitation of liability.” To increase consistency with the language used in the statute and help reduce confusion as to which standard is being applied, we proposed to replace the phrase “limitation of liability” with “limitation on liability” in each of these sections (83 FR 49525 through 49527).
As we stated in the proposed rule (83 FR 49524), we identified one provision in part 405, subpart I, and two provisions in part 423, subpart U, where we used incorrect terminal punctuation at the end of a paragraph that is part of a list. To correct our errors, we proposed to revise §§ 405.1046(a)(2)(ii), 423.2002(b)(1), and 423.2010(b)(3)(ii) by replacing the period at the end of each paragraph with a semicolon (83 FR 49526 through 49528).
Lastly, we proposed to revise the authority citations for parts 405 and 423 to meet the current Office of the Federal Register regulatory drafting guidance (83 FR 49524, 49525, and 49527). As we stated in the proposed rule (83 FR 49524), the guidance requires that we use only the United States Code (U.S.C.) citations for statutory citations unless the citation does not exist.
We received no comments on the proposed technical changes discussed previously. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed previously and in the proposed rule, we are finalizing the revisions proposed previously without modification.
This final rule revises the appeals process regarding claims for benefits under Medicare Parts A and B and for Medicare prescription drug coverage determinations under Part D. Since appeals are an information collection requirement that is associated with an administrative action pertaining to specific individuals or entities (5 CFR 1320.4(a)(2) and (c)). The burden for preparing and filing an appeal is exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)), and Executive Order 13771 on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A RIA must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This rule does not reach the economic threshold and thus is not considered a major rule.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of less than $7.5 million to $38.5 million in any 1 year. Individuals and
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare an RIA if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area for Medicare payment regulations and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this rule would not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2019, that threshold is approximately $154 million. This rule would have no consequential effect on state, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this regulation does not impose any costs on state or local governments, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 are not applicable.
Executive Order 13771, titled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, was issued on January 30, 2017 and requires that the costs associated with significant new regulations “shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.” OMB's interim guidance, issued on April 5, 2017,
The final policy to remove the requirement that appellants sign appeal requests would result in a slight reduction of burden to appellants by allowing them to spend less time developing their appeal request and appealing dismissals of appeal requests for lack of a signature to the next level of review. Using the data from the number of appeal requests received, we estimate that approximately 4,465,000 appeal requests per year require a signature. We estimate that it takes 1 minute to sign the appeal request. Therefore, the reduction in administrative time spent would be 4,465,000 × .016 hour = 71,440.00 hours.
We used an adjusted hourly wage of $34.66 based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2016 website for occupation code 43-9199, “All other office and administrative support workers,” which gives a mean hourly salary of $17.33, which when multiplied by a factor of two to include overhead, and fringe benefits, results in $34.66 an hour. The consequent cost savings would be 71,440.00 × $34.66 = $2,476,110.40 for time spent signing the appeal requests.
Based on a sampling of the number of appeal requests that are dismissed for not containing a signature, we estimated that 284,486 appeal requests are dismissed per year for not containing a signature on them, and 5 minutes to request that the adjudicator vacate the dismissal or appeal the dismissal. For appellants, the reduction in administrative time spent would be 284,486 × .083 hours = 23,612 hours with a consequent savings of 23,612 hours × $34.66 per hour = $818,404.00. The total amount saved for appellants would be $3,294,514.40, which consists of $2,476,110.40 for time spent signing the appeal requests added to $818,404.00 for time saved appealing the dismissed appeal requests.
When the cost of contractors dismissing appeal requests for the lack of signature is factored in, the cost savings becomes $11,757,600. This cost is calculated by multiplying the number of appeal requests dismissed at the MAC and QIC levels multiplied by the cost that we pay the contractors to adjudicate a dismissal. The average cost for a MAC to dismiss an appeal request would be $25 × 200,000 appeals dismissed for a lack of signature per year, which equates to 5,000,000. The average cost for a QIC to dismiss an appeal request would be $80 × 84,470 appeal requests dismissed for a lack of signature per year, which equates to a savings of $6,757,600. When these two costs are added together the cost savings becomes $11,757,600.
We did not receive comments on the burden estimates outlined in the proposed rule.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Administrative practice and procedure, Diseases, Health facilities, Health professions, Medical devices, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping, Rural areas, X-rays.
Administrative practice and procedures, Emergency medical services, Health facilities, Health maintenance organizations (HMO), Medicare, Penalties, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services amends 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 263a, 405(a), 1302, 1320b-12, 1395x, 1395y(a), 1395ff, 1395hh, 1395kk, 1395rr, and 1395ww(k).
(d) * * *
(4)
(b) * * *
(1)
(i) The assigned ALJ or attorney adjudicator, or a designee of the Chief ALJ if the request for hearing is not yet assigned to an ALJ or attorney adjudicator; and
(ii) The parties who were sent a copy of the notice of reconsideration or, for escalated requests for reconsideration, any party that filed a request for reconsideration or was found liable for the services at issue subsequent to the initial determination.
(3) * * *
(ii) If a hearing is scheduled, no later than 10 calendar days after receipt of the notice of hearing by the QIC or another contractor designated by CMS to receive the notice of hearing.
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Unless the ALJ or attorney adjudicator grants additional time to submit the position paper or written testimony, a position paper or written testimony must be submitted within 14 calendar days of an election to participate if no hearing has been scheduled, or no later than 5 calendar days prior to the hearing if a hearing is scheduled.
(ii) * * *
(A) The parties that are required to be sent a copy of the notice of intent to participate in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if the position paper or written testimony is being submitted before receipt of a notice of hearing for the appeal; or
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) A notice of hearing is sent to all parties that filed an appeal or participated in the reconsideration; any party who was found liable for the services at issue subsequent to the initial determination or may be found liable based on a review of the record; the QIC that issued the reconsideration or from which the request for reconsideration was escalated, or another contractor designated to receive the notice of hearing by CMS; and CMS or a contractor that elected to participate in the proceedings in accordance with § 405.1010(b) or that the ALJ believes would be beneficial to the hearing, advising them of the proposed time and place of the hearing.
(e) * * *
(5) If the party's objection to the place of the hearing includes a request for an in-person or VTC hearing, the objection and request are considered in paragraph (i) of this section.
(i) * * *
(5) The ALJ may grant the request, with the concurrence of the Chief ALJ or designee if the request was for an in-person hearing, upon a finding of good cause and will reschedule the hearing for a time and place when the party may appear in person or by VTC before the ALJ. Good cause is not required for a request for VTC hearing made by an unrepresented beneficiary who filed the request for hearing and objects to an ALJ's offer to conduct a hearing by telephone.
(a) * * *
(1) Official copies of redeterminations and reconsiderations that were conducted on the appealed claims, and official copies of dismissals of a request for redetermination or reconsideration, can be provided only by CMS or its contractors. Prior to issuing a request for information to the QIC, OMHA will confirm whether an electronic copy of the redetermination, reconsideration, or dismissal is available in the official system of record, and if so will accept the electronic copy as an official copy.
(a) * * *
(3) The party did not request a hearing within the stated time period and the ALJ has not found good cause for extending the deadline, as provided in § 405.1014(e).
(4) * * *
(i) The request for hearing was filed by the beneficiary or the beneficiary's representative, and the beneficiary's surviving spouse or estate has no remaining financial interest in the case. In deciding this issue, the ALJ considers if the surviving spouse or estate remains liable for the services that were denied or a Medicare contractor held the beneficiary liable for subsequent similar services under the limitation on liability provisions based on the denial of the services at issue.
(5) The ALJ dismisses a hearing request entirely or refuses to consider any one or more of the issues because a QIC, an ALJ or attorney adjudicator, or the Council has made a previous determination or decision under this subpart about the appellant's rights on the same facts and on the same issue(s) or claim(s), and this previous determination or decision has become binding by either administrative or judicial action.
(6) The appellant abandons the request for hearing. An ALJ may conclude that an appellant has abandoned a request for hearing when OMHA attempts to schedule a hearing and is unable to contact the appellant after making reasonable efforts to do so.
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) The request for review was filed by the beneficiary or the beneficiary's representative, and the beneficiary's surviving spouse or estate has no remaining financial interest in the case. In deciding this issue, the ALJ or attorney adjudicator considers if the surviving spouse or estate remains liable for the services that were denied or a Medicare contractor held the beneficiary liable for subsequent similar services under the limitation on liability provisions based on the denial of the services at issue.
(d)
(e)
(d)
(2) If an official copy of the notice of dismissal or case file cannot be obtained from the QIC, an ALJ or attorney adjudicator may also remand a request for review of a dismissal in accordance with the procedures in paragraph (a) of this section.
(f)
(g)
The addition reads as follows:
(e)
42 U.S.C. 1302, 1306, 1395w-101 through 1395w-152, and 1395hh.
The revisions read as follows.
(a) An enrollee who is dissatisfied with the IRE reconsideration determination has a right to a hearing before an ALJ if—
(2) The enrollee meets the amount in controversy requirements of § 423.2006.
(b) * * *
(3) The enrollee meets the amount in controversy requirements of § 423.2006.
(a)
(1) For ALJ hearing requests, the required amount remaining in controversy must be $100, increased by the percentage increase in the medical care component of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (U.S. city average) as measured from July 2003 to the July preceding the current year involved.
(2) If the figure in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is not a multiple of $10, it is rounded to the nearest multiple of $10. The Secretary will publish changes to the amount in controversy requirement in the
(b)
(c)
(2) If the basis for the appeal is an at-risk determination made under a drug management program in accordance with § 423.153(f), the projected value of the drugs subject to the drug management program is used to compute the amount remaining in controversy. The projected value of the drugs subject to the drug management program shall include the value of any refills prescribed for the drug(s) in dispute during the plan year.
(d)
(i) The appeals have previously been reconsidered by an IRE;
(ii) The enrollee requests aggregation at the same time the requests for hearing are filed, and the request for aggregation and requests for hearing are filed within 60 calendar days after receipt of the notice of reconsideration for each of the reconsiderations being appealed, unless the deadline to file one or more of the requests for hearing has been extended in accordance with § 423.2014(d); and
(iii) The appeals the enrollee seeks to aggregate involve the delivery of prescription drugs to a single enrollee, as determined by an ALJ or attorney adjudicator. Only an ALJ may determine the appeals the enrollee seeks to aggregate do not involve the delivery of prescription drugs to a single enrollee.
(2)
(i) The appeals have previously been reconsidered by an IRE;
(ii) The enrollees request aggregation at the same time the requests for hearing are filed, and the request for aggregation and requests for hearing are filed within 60 calendar days after receipt of the notice of reconsideration for each of the reconsiderations being appealed, unless the deadline to file one or more of the requests for hearing has been extended in accordance with § 423.2014(d); and
(iii) The appeals the enrollees seek to aggregate involve the same prescription drugs, as determined by an ALJ or attorney adjudicator. Only an ALJ may determine the appeals the enrollees seek
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The name, address, telephone number, and Medicare number of the enrollee.
(d)
(e) * * *
(1) If the request for hearing or review is not filed within 60 calendar days of receipt of the written IRE's reconsideration or dismissal, an enrollee may request an extension for good cause.
(3) The request must be filed with the office specified in the notice of reconsideration or dismissal, must give the reasons why the request for a hearing or review was not filed within the stated time period, and must be filed with the request for hearing or request for review of an IRE dismissal, or upon notice that the request may be dismissed because it was not timely filed.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a)
(e) * * *
(5) If the enrollee's objection to the place of the hearing includes a request for an in-person or video-teleconferencing hearing, the objection and request are considered in paragraph (i) of this section.
(i) * * *
(5) The ALJ may grant the request, with the concurrence of the Chief ALJ or designee if the request was for an in-person hearing, upon a finding of good cause and will reschedule the hearing for a time and place when the enrollee may appear in person or by video-teleconference before the ALJ. Good cause is not required for a request for video-teleconferencing hearing made by an unrepresented enrollee who filed the request for hearing and objects to an ALJ's offer to conduct a hearing by telephone.
(a) * * *
(1) Official copies of redeterminations and reconsiderations that were conducted on the appealed issues, and official copies of dismissals of a request for redetermination or reconsideration, can be provided only by CMS, the IRE, and/or the Part D plan sponsor. Prior to issuing a request for information to the IRE, OMHA will confirm whether an electronic copy of the missing redetermination, reconsideration, or dismissal is available in the official system of record, and if so will accept the electronic copy as an official copy.
(b)
(d)
(2) If an official copy of the notice of dismissal or case file cannot be obtained from the IRE, an ALJ or attorney adjudicator may also remand a request for review of a dismissal in accordance with the procedures in paragraph (a) of this section.
(f)
(g)
(a) An enrollee who is dissatisfied with an ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's decision or dismissal may request that the Council review the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's decision or dismissal.
The addition reads as follows.
(e)
(a)
(i) It is a final decision of the Secretary; and
(ii) The amount in controversy meets the threshold requirements of § 423.2006.
(2)
(i) The Council denied the enrollee's request for review; and
(ii) The amount in controversy meets the threshold requirements of § 423.2006.
(b) * * *
(1) Any civil action described in paragraph (a) of this section must be filed in the District Court of the United States for the judicial district in which the enrollee resides.
Federal Communications Commission.
Petitions for reconsideration.
Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Michele A. Shuster, on behalf of Professional Association for Customer Engagement, and Alexi Maltas, on behalf of Competitive Carriers Association, CTIA and USTelecom—The Broadband Association.
Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before May 22, 2019. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before June 3, 2019.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Josh Zeldis, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), at (202) 418-0715, email:
This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3125, released April 29, 2019. The full text of the Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. They also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at:
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) eliminates the rate floor and, following a one-year period of monitoring residential retail rates, eliminates the accompanying reporting obligations after July 1, 2020.
Effective June 6, 2019.
Suzanne Yelen, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in WC Docket No. 10-90; FCC 19-32, adopted on April 12, 2019 and released on April 15, 2019. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554 or at the following internet address:
1. In 2011, the Commission adopted a rule aimed at limiting universal service support received by rural carriers whose rates are below a set minimum rate. This requirement is known as the “rate floor.” If a carrier chooses to charge its customers less than the rate floor amount for voice service, the difference between the amount charged and the rate floor is deducted from the amount of support that carrier receives through the Universal Service Fund (Fund). Intended to guard against artificial subsidization of rural end user rates significantly below the national urban average, the practical effect of this rule has been to increase the telephone rates of rural subscribers, who are often older Americans on fixed incomes, lower-income Americans, and individuals living on Tribal lands. These Americans are some of those least able to afford the needless rate increases caused by the rate floor. In 2017, after several years of experience with it, the Commission froze increases in the rate floor for two years to give us an opportunity to “revisit it to ensure our policies continue to further our statutory obligation to ensure `[q]uality services . . . available at just, reasonable, and affordable rates.' ”
2. After a thorough review of the record evidence, the Commission now eliminates the rate floor and, following a one-year period of monitoring residential retail rates, eliminates the accompanying reporting obligations after July 1, 2020. Doing so ends the de facto federal mandate to needlessly increase telephone service rates for many rural Americans above those carriers would otherwise assess, and avoids a further increase from $18 to $26.98 on July 1, 2019—an increase that would have reduced the affordability of telephone service for rural Americans, including the elderly, low-income individuals, veterans, and their families. As a result, the Commission ensures that rural consumers continue to receive quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates, while also ensuring that rural carriers continue to receive the predictable and sufficient universal service support needed to serve high-cost areas.
3. The Commission finds that the rate floor, which leverages the Commission's universal service support to penalize lower prices for rural Americans who may least be able to afford such increases, is not justified as a matter of policy. To the extent the rate floor ever served a public purpose, the Commission finds that purpose long since carried out. The Commission agrees with the diverse coalition including stakeholders like the AARP, the National Consumer Law Center, the National Tribal Telecommunications Association, and small, medium, and large rural telephone companies that the rate floor is inconsistent with the direction of the Communications Act to advance universal service while ensuring that rates are just, reasonable, and affordable. Accordingly, and based on an extensive and near-unanimous record, the Commission eliminates the rate floor.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. In short, the Commission finds that the costs of either increased rates or reduced support (and therefore reduced deployment) ultimately borne by rural consumers outweigh any putative benefits to the Fund. The record in this proceeding overwhelmingly supports elimination of the rate floor rule; commenters agree that the rule imposes significant costs with little benefit. And the Commission agrees with one commenter that, in essence, “the rate floor penalizes rural customers without any real benefit to the overall size of the fund.” Accordingly, the Commission eliminates the rate floor rule and its accompanying reporting obligation.
10. The Commission disagrees with the only commenter that supports maintaining the rate floor. Although NCTA argues that eliminating the rate floor would skew competition and increase subsidies at the expense of consumers, the Commission finds the opposite to be true. Rural carriers receiving high-cost loop support can only recover their operating costs and investments where they face high per-line costs of providing service. Commission rules already require carriers to use subsidies to offset demonstrated high costs—not to subsidize below-market rates. Rather, the rate floor itself skews competition by artificially inflating the prices that certain carriers may charge—requiring a carrier to charge above-market rates in a town, for example, for fear of losing its support in the surrounding countryside. Without the rate floor, prices in competitive areas can freely adjust to competitive levels. And the rate floor is a double penalty for consumers since carriers can maintain their subsidies so long as they also charge consumers higher rates.
11. Finally, the Commission eliminates the reporting obligations associated with the rate floor after July 1, 2020, thereafter relieving carriers of the obligation to report residential local service rates. Although the Commission does not expect that carriers will begin charging artificially low rates as a result of the elimination of the rate floor, maintaining this reporting obligation for one year will allow the Commission to monitor any unexpected and significant changes in residential local services rates reported by carriers in their July 1, 2019 and 2020 annual filings.
12. This document eliminates a reporting requirement and contains no new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
13. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
14.
15. Accordingly,
16.
17.
Communications common carriers, Health facilities, Infants and children, Internet, Libraries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Telecommunications, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302, unless otherwise noted.
(h) In their annual reporting due by July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2020, all incumbent local exchange carrier recipients of high-cost support must report all of their rates for residential local service for all portions of their service area, as well as state regulated fees, to the extent the sum of those rates and fees are below $18, and the number of lines for each rate specified. Carriers shall report lines and rates in effect as of June 1. For purposes of this subsection, state regulated fees shall be limited to state subscriber line charges, state universal service fees and mandatory extended area service charges.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Correcting amendment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, published a final rule in the
This correction is effective May 7, 2019.
Carey Galst, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-1954. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
On May 1, 2012, we published in the
The preamble to the 2012 rule explained that, for critical habitat that had already been designated before the effective date of that rule, “we also intend to remove the textual descriptions of final critical habitat boundaries set forth in the CFR in order to save the annual reprinting cost, but we must do so in separate rulemakings to ensure that removing the textual descriptions does not change the existing boundaries of those designations” (77 FR 25618). We have now begun applying this approach by publishing a series of separate rulemakings that remove textual descriptions for any critical habitat designations promulgated prior to the effective date of the 2012 final rule if the maps are sufficient to stand as the official delineation of the boundaries. On April 27, 2018, we published the second such rulemaking—a final rule to remove the textual descriptions of critical habitat boundaries from those designations for mammals, birds, amphibians, fishes, clams, snails, arachnids, crustaceans, and insects for which the maps have been determined to be sufficient to stand as the official delineation of critical habitat (83 FR 18698) (2018 rule). That rule, which is codified at 50 CFR 17.94(b), set forth the conditions under which a map appearing in a critical habitat entry for any of those species is or is not considered the definition of the boundaries of a critical habitat. It did not alter the locations of any critical habitat boundaries.
In the 2018 rule, we mistakenly removed, rather than revised, a map note in the critical habitat designation for the Waccamaw silverside at 50 CFR 17.95(e). Under 50 CFR 17.94(b), the omission of the map note in the critical habitat designation for the Waccamaw silverside could mislead readers into thinking that the map in that entry stands as the official delineation of critical habitat, but it does not. Adding the revised map note to the Waccamaw silverside designation is necessary to clarify that the map in that entry is for informational purposes only. This document makes the necessary correction to the critical habitat designation for the Waccamaw silverside.
As explained in the 2018 Rule and in the discussion above, neither the 2018 rule nor this amendment alters the locations of any critical habitat boundaries. However, there was an error in the 2018 Rule that could be perceived as altering the critical habitat boundary for the Waccamaw silverside, and this document is therefore necessary to correct that error and ensure that there is no change to that critical habitat boundary. Under these circumstances, we have determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 551(4) and 553(b)(3)(B), that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are impractical and unnecessary. Public comment could not inform this process in any meaningful way. We have further determined that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the agency has good cause to make this correction effective upon publication, which is to comply with our regulations as soon as practicable.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
For the reasons given in the preamble, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, with the following correcting amendment:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(e)
Waccamaw Silverside (
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A320-251N and -271N airplanes; and A321-251N, -253N, -271N, and -272N airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that during a calibration check, some torqueing tools used on the final assembly line have been found out of tolerance. This proposed AD would require retorqueing each affected connection of sense and fire extinguishing lines within the pylon area to a correct torque value, as specified in a European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 21, 2019.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For the incorporation by reference (IBR) material described in the “Related IBR material under 1 CFR part 51” section in
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0081, dated April 3, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019-0081”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A320-251N and -271N airplanes; and A321-251N, -253N, -271N, and -272N airplanes. The MCAI states:
During periodic calibration check, some torqueing tools used on the final assembly line have been found out-of-tolerance. The subsequent investigation determined that connections of sense and fire extinguishing lines within the pylon area have been under-torqued on a group of aeroplanes.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to leaks or disconnections of those lines, possibly resulting in reduced engine control and/or reduced safety margin in case of engine fire.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the applicable SB [service bulletin], providing instructions to restore the correct torque value of those affected connections.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires re-torqueing to the correct value the affected connections.
EASA AD 2019-0081 describes procedures for retorqueing each affected connection of sense and fire extinguishing lines within the pylon area to a correct torque value. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2019-0081, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. As a result, EASA AD 2019-0081 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with the provisions specified in EASA AD 2019-0081, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2019-0081 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2019-0081 will be available on the internet at
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed 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 proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by June 21, 2019.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A320-251N and -271N airplanes; and A321-251N, -253N, -271N, and -272N airplanes; certificated in any category, as identified in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0081, dated April 3, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019-0081”).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire protection.
This AD was prompted by a report that during a calibration check, some torqueing tools used on the final assembly line have been found out of tolerance. We are issuing this AD to address sense connections and fire extinguishing lines within the pylon area that have been under-torqued, which could lead to leaks or disconnections of those lines and possibly result in reduced engine control and reduced safety margin in case of engine fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2019-0081.
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where EASA AD 2019-0081 refers to its
(2) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2019-0081 does not apply to this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) For information about EASA AD 2019-0081, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 6017; email
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-20-06, which applies to certain Airbus SAS Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes. AD 2018-20-06 requires repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the aft lower deck cargo door (LDCD) frame forks; a one-time check of the LDCD clearances; and a one-time detailed visual inspection of hooks, eccentric bushes, and x-stops; and corrective actions if necessary. Since we issued AD 2018-20-06, we determined certain compliance times need to be revised, depending on frame fork configuration. This proposed AD would continue to require the actions of AD 2018-20-06 and would require new compliance times, depending on frame fork configuration. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 21, 2019.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 2018-20-06, Amendment 39-19440 (83 FR 49265, October 1, 2018) (“AD 2018-20-06”), for certain Airbus SAS Model A300 F4-
Since we issued AD 2018-20-06, we have determined that certain compliance times need to be reduced, depending on the frame fork configuration. In addition, certain compliance times are extended.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0266, dated December 11, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes. The MCAI states:
During scheduled maintenance at frames (FR) 61 and FR61A on the aft lower deck cargo door (LDCD) of two [Airbus SAS] A300-600F4 aeroplanes, two adjacent frame forks were found cracked. Subsequent analysis determined that, in case of cracked or ruptured aft cargo door frame(s), loads will be transferred to the remaining structural elements. However, these secondary load paths will be able to sustain the loads for a limited number of flight cycles (FC) only.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to the rupture of one or more vertical aft cargo door frame(s), resulting in reduced structural integrity of the aft cargo door.
To address this unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A52W011-15 to provide inspection instructions, and, consequently, EASA issued AD 2015-0152 to require repetitive inspections of the aft LDCD frame forks and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s). Subsequently, Airbus published the modification SB [service bulletin] to provide frame fork reinforcement instructions, and the inspection SB to provide instructions to inspect the cargo door for cracks, as well as for frame fork replacement, including provisions for extended inspection intervals. EASA revised the AD accordingly.
Since EASA AD 2015-0152R1 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2018-20-06] was issued, further investigations results allowed Airbus to define new thresholds and inspection intervals according to the frame fork configuration. Consequently, the inspection SB was revised to include these new thresholds and intervals.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2015-0152R1, which is superseded, and introduces new thresholds and intervals, depending on frame fork configuration.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
This proposed AD would require Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A52W011-15, Revision 00, including Appendices 1, 2, 3, and 4, dated July 23, 2015, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of January 26, 2017 (81 FR 93801, December 22, 2016).
This proposed AD would also require Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6085, Revision 01, dated May 2, 2018; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6086, Revision 01, dated May 29, 2018; which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of November 5, 2018 (83 FR 49265, October 1, 2018).
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain the actions of AD 2018-20-06. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 58 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The new requirements of this proposed AD add no additional economic burden.
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by June 21, 2019.
This AD replaces 2018-20-06, Amendment 39-19440 (83 FR 49265, October 1, 2018) (“AD 2018-20-06”).
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes, certificated in any category, on which Airbus modification 12046 has been embodied in production. Modification 12046 has been embodied in production on manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs) 0805 and above, except MSNs 0836, 0837, and 0838.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by a report of two adjacent frame forks that were found cracked on the aft lower deck cargo door (LDCD) of two airplanes during scheduled maintenance, and a determination that certain compliance times need to be revised. We are issuing this AD to address cracked or ruptured aft LDCD frames, which could allow loads to be transferred to the remaining structural elements. This condition could lead to the rupture of one or more vertical aft LDCD frames, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the aft LDCD.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purposes of this AD, an affected part is a frame fork having a part number identified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2018-20-06, with revised compliance language. At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, or before exceeding the threshold defined in figure 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD. Repeat the high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD at all LDCD frame fork stations having affected parts thereafter at intervals not to exceed the applicable times specified in figure 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD.
(1) A one-time check of the aft LDCD clearances “U” and “V” between the latching hooks and the eccentric bush at frame (FR) 60 through FR64A, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Alert Operators
(2) A one-time detailed inspection to detect signs of wear of the hooks, eccentric bushes, and x-stops, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A52W011-15, Revision 00, dated July 23, 2015. If any wear is found, do all applicable corrective actions before further flight, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A52W011-15, Revision 00, dated July 23, 2015.
(3) An HFEC inspection to detect cracking at all frame fork stations of the aft LDCD, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A52W011-15, Revision 00, dated July 23, 2015; or the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6086, Revision 01, dated May 29, 2018. If any crack is found, before further flight, replace the cracked frame fork, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A52W011-15, Revision 00, dated July 23, 2015; repair the cracked frame fork, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6086, Revision 01, dated May 29, 2018; or modify (reinforce) the cracked frame fork, including doing all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6085, Revision 01, dated May 2, 2018, except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD.
At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, do the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
(1) Before the accumulation of 4,500 total flight cycles.
(2) At the applicable time specified by paragraph (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes that have accumulated 8,000 or more total flight cycles as of January 26, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2016-25-03, Amendment 39-18729 (81 FR 93801, December 22, 2016) (“AD 2016-25-03”)): Within 100 flight cycles after January 26, 2017.
(ii) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 8,000 total flight cycles as of January 26, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2016-25-03): Within 400 flight cycles after January 26, 2017.
Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6085, Revision 01, dated May 2, 2018, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action: Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD.
Accomplishment of corrective actions on an airplane as required by paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, or repair, modification, or replacement of a frame fork as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, on the aft LDCD of an airplane does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive HFEC inspections required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD for that airplane.
Although the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A52W011-15, Revision 00, dated July 23, 2015; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6086, Revision 01, dated May 29, 2018; specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(3) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6086, Revision 00, dated December 25, 2016.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6085, Revision 00, dated December 22, 2016.
(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 2018-20-06 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0266, dated December 11, 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 Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 96-25-04, which applies to certain Airbus SAS Model A320 series airplanes. AD 96-25-04 requires repetitive inspections to detect chafing of the wire looms (bundles) in the wing and the horizontal stabilizer and in certain areas of the main landing gear (MLG) bays; repair or replacement, protection, and realignment, if necessary; installation of protective sleeves around the wire bundles; and realignment of bundles that are not guided centrally into the conduit end fittings. Since we issued AD 96-25-04, investigations identified issues with the previously installed protective sleeves. This proposed AD would partially retain the requirements of AD 96-25-04 and would require modification of the wing electrical installation, as specified in an European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 21, 2019.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For the incorporation by reference (IBR) material described in the “Related IBR material under 1 CFR part 51” section in
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 96-25-04, Amendment 39-9846 (61 FR 66881, December 19, 1996) (“AD 96-25-04”), for certain Airbus SAS Model A320 series airplanes. AD 96-25-04 requires inspections of the wire looms (bundles) in the wing and the horizontal stabilizer and in certain areas of the MLG bays; repair or replacement, protection, and realignment, if necessary; installation of protective sleeves around the wire bundles; and realignment of bundles that are not guided centrally into the conduit end fittings. AD 96-25-04 resulted from a report that electrical short-circuiting could occur in the wire bundles in the MLG bays. We issued AD 96-25-04 to address electrical short-circuiting due to chafing of the wire bundles in the wing, horizontal stabilizer, or MLG bay.
Since we issued AD 96-25-04, investigations identified issues with the previously installed protective sleeves. We have determined that a modification of the wing electrical installation, which includes a new protective sleeve, is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition.
The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0200, dated September 6, 2018 (“EASA AD 2018-0200”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Several cases of wire chafing were reported by operators, occurring in the trailing edge areas of zones 574 and 674 (both left-hand and right-hand wing) at the breakout of the electrical bundle from the conduit.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a short circuit, possibly resulting in a fire in the concerned areas. It was also determined that this failure mode can also affect other wires installed on the wing, horizontal stabilizer and in the main landing gear (MLG) bays.
To address this unsafe condition, Airbus issued SB [service bulletin] A320-24-1044 to provide instructions for inspection of the wires to detect chafing or signs of overheating, and SB A320-24-1045 introducing protective sleeves on electrical cables to prevent chafing.
Consequently, DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD 91-182-020(B) (later revised) [which corresponds to FAA AD 96-25-04] to require those repetitive inspections, or applicable repairs depending on findings, and to install protective sleeves as terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
Since [DGAC France] AD 91-182-020(B) R2 was issued, subsequent investigations identified, in those areas (zones 574 and 674), issues with the protective sleeves previously installed in production, through mod 22109, or in service through SB A320-24-1045.
Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued SB A320-92-1115, later revised, providing instructions for installation of a new protective sleeve on those cables localised in zones 574 and 674, and introduced in production (through mod 22626) new design electrical cables more resistant to chafing.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD partially retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 91-182-020(B) R2, which is superseded, and requires modification of the wing electrical installation [installation of new protective sleeves on the electrical cables, which includes an inspection of the cables and repair or replacement of damaged wires].
Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 96-25-04, this proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 96-25-04. Those requirements are referenced in EASA AD 2018-0200, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD.
Note 2 of AD 96-25-04 indicated that accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-24-1045, Revision 2, dated April 12, 1992, terminates the repetitive inspections specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of AD 96-25-04 (which correspond to paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2018-0200). However, this terminating action is not included in EASA AD 2018-0200, which would be incorporated by reference in the FAA AD.
EASA AD 2018-0200 describes procedures for repetitive inspections to detect chafing, signs of overheating, and misalignment of the wire looms (bundles) in the wing and the horizontal stabilizer and in certain areas of the MLG bays; repair or replacement, protection, and realignment, if necessary; realignment of bundles that are not guided centrally into the conduit end fittings; and modification of the wing electrical installation. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2018-0200 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. As a result, EASA AD 2018-0200 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with the provisions specified in EASA AD 2018-0200, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2018-0200 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2018-0200 will be available on the internet
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 27 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by June 21, 2019.
This AD replaces AD 96-25-04, Amendment 39-9846 (61 FR 66881, December 19, 1996) (“AD 96-25-04”).
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-0200, dated September 6, 2018 (“EASA AD 2018-0200”).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical power.
This AD was prompted by a report that electrical short-circuiting could occur in the wire bundles in the wing, horizontal stabilizer or main landing gear (MLG) bays. This AD was also prompted by a determination that there were issues with protective sleeves previously installed as specified in AD 96-25-04. We are issuing this AD to address electrical short circuiting due to chafing of the wire bundles in the wing, horizontal stabilizer, or MLG bay, which could result in a fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2018-0200.
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where EASA AD 2018-0200 refers to its
(2) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where EASA AD 2018-0200 refers to “the effective date of DGAC France AD 91-182-020 at original issue” or refers to “the effective date of DGAC France AD 91-182-020 at Rev.2,” this AD requires using January 27, 1997 (the effective date of AD 96-25-04).
(3) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2018-0200 does not apply to this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) For information about EASA AD 2018-0200, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 6017; email
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-07-22, which applies to all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes), and Model A310 series airplanes. AD 2016-07-22 requires modifying the electrical routing installation at the right-hand (RH) and left-hand (LH) wings to achieve a minimum distance between wiring bundles and surrounding structures. Since we issued AD 2016-07-22, we received reports of missing installation information for certain airplanes. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2016-07-22 and, for certain airplanes, add a requirement to further modify the electrical installations in both wings, as specified in an European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 21, 2019.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For the incorporation by reference (IBR) material described in the “Related IBR material under 1 CFR part 51” section in
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 2016-07-22, Amendment 39-18467 (81 FR 21236, April 11, 2016) (“AD 2016-07-22”), for all Model A300-600 series airplanes and Model A310 series airplanes. AD 2016-07-22 requires modifying the electrical routing installation at the RH and LH wings. AD 2016-07-22 resulted from reports of insufficient clearance for the electrical wiring bundles in the leading and trailing edges of the RH and LH wings. We issued AD 2016-07-22 to address insufficient clearance between wing structures and electrical wiring, which could lead to chafing damage and arcing, possibly resulting in an on-board fire.
Since we issued AD 2016-07-22, we received reports of missing installation information for certain airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6103, Revision 03, dated July 3, 2015, was used.
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0014, dated January 29, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019-0014”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Model A300-600 series airplanes and Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Following publication of Federal Aviation Administration SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88), EASA issued AD 2006-0076 requiring inspection and corrective action to improve the explosion risk protection system for the left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) wings on A300, A300-600, A300-600ST and A310 aeroplanes. For A300-600, A300-600ST and A310 aeroplanes, the required detailed visual inspections of electrical bundles located in the leading and trailing edges of the RH and LH wings and a review of the wing electrical installation on the final assembly line have shown that the wing electrical installation does not comply with the minimum distance inspection criteria to the surrounding structure in a few wing locations.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to damage on the electrical harnesses and on the surrounding structure.
To address this unsafe condition, Airbus developed an improvement of the wing electrical installation to prevent possible chafing and subsequent damage to the electrical harnesses and surrounding structure. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0034 to require installation of new bracket assemblies to ensure the clearance between the wiring and the structure, and installation of protective split sleeves as mechanical protection to the electrical harnesses.
After EASA AD 2014-0034 was issued, during embodiment of Airbus SB [service bulletin] A300-24-6103 Revision 02 on an aeroplane, an installation problem was identified, which prompted Airbus to revise SB A300-24-9014 Revision 01, and SB A300-24-6103 Revision 02. In addition, SB Information Transmission (SBIT) 14-0044 Revision 01 was issued to recommend to postpone embodiment of these two SBs, and to wait for the availability of Airbus SB A300-24-9014 Revision 02 and SB A300-24-6103 Revision 03. Subsequently, EASA issued AD 2015-0176, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0034, which was superseded, and requiring in addition, for A300-600 and A300-600ST aeroplanes only, installation of new bracket assemblies in shroud box (LH and RH side) to ensure adequate clearance between wirings and flap track carriage (LH and RH side).
After EASA AD 2015-0176 was issued, some operators reported that Airbus SB A300-24-6103 Revision 03 could not been implemented, due to missing installation information. Airbus supported the affected operators by providing the necessary installation information, and issued Airbus SB A300-24-6103 at Revision 04 to provide adequate installation information. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0172, retaining the requirement of EASA AD 2015-0176, which was superseded, and requiring additional work for certain A300-600 aeroplanes.
Since EASA AD 2016-0172 was issued, Airbus SB A300-24-6103 Revision 05 was issued to include two sets of additional work which were not clearly defined in Revision 04:
• Additional Work identified as A1 in the applicable SB is related to the installation of spacers to the guide Assembly for Group 1 and Group 3 aeroplanes (these spacers were removed at SB A300-24-6103 Revision 03).
• Additional Work identified as A2 in the applicable SB is related to the modification of the Clamp on the routing on Rib 1 on the passage way to the shroud box LH and RH sides, for Group 3 aeroplanes. SB A300-24-6103 Revision 04 instructed operators to contact Airbus for the clamps installation, and Revision 05 describes this additional work.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of the EASA AD 2016-0172, which is superseded, and requires implementation of additional work on certain A300-600 aeroplanes.
Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2016-07-22, this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2016-07-22. Those requirements are referenced in EASA AD 2019-0014, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD.
EASA AD 2019-0014 describes procedures for modifying the electrical installations in both wings (RH and LH). This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2019-0014 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. As a result, EASA AD 2019-0014 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with the provisions specified in EASA AD 2019-0014, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2019-0014 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2019-0014 will be available on the internet
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 123 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by June 21, 2019.
This AD replaces AD 2016-07-22, Amendment 39-18467 (81 FR 21236, April 11, 2016) (“AD 2016-07-22”).
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.
(2) Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
(3) Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
(4) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
(5) Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical power.
This AD was prompted by reports of insufficient clearance for the electrical wiring bundles in the leading and trailing edges of the right-hand (RH) and left-hand (LH) wings. We are issuing this AD to address insufficient clearance between wing structures and electrical wiring, which could lead to chafing damage and arcing, possibly resulting in an on-board fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0014, dated January 29, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019-0014”).
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where EASA AD 2019-0014 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2019-0014 specifies a compliance time of “Within 36 months after 19 February 2014,” for this AD, the compliance time for that paragraph
(3) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2019-0014 specifies a date of “06 September 2016,” for this AD, use “May 16, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-07-22).”
(4) For Group 1 and 3 airplanes: This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2019-0014, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6103, Revision 03, dated July 3, 2015, provided that the additional work specified in paragraphs (6) and (7) of EASA AD 2019-0014 is accomplished.
(5) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2019-0014 does not apply to this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) For information about EASA AD 2019-0014, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 6017; email
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracked flexible hoses of the oxygen crew and courier distribution system (OCCDS) on A330 freighter airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed inspections, including functional testing, of the OCCDS and replacement of affected part(s) if necessary, as specified in an European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 21, 2019.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For the incorporation by reference (IBR) material described in the “Related IBR material under 1 CFR part 51” section in
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0027, dated February 4, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019-0027”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Several occurrences were reported of finding cracked flexible hoses [part number] P/N 32209-series of the OCCDS on A330 freighter aeroplanes. These flexible hoses are steel braided hoses with polyurethane (PUR) inner tubes and steel inner springs. On A330 freighter aeroplanes, these hoses are located in the courier area and are not pressurized during normal operation.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to oxygen leakage in the flexible hose of the OCCDS, which, in combination with in-flight depressurization, smoke in cockpit or smoke evacuation procedure, could possibly result in cockpit crew injury and reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the SB [service bulletin] to provide inspection instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive detailed inspections (DET), including functional testing, of the OCCDS and, depending on findings, replacement of affected part(s).
EASA AD 2019-0027 describes procedures for repetitive inspections and replacement of OCCDS flexible hoses. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2019-0027 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. As a result, EASA AD 2019-0027 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with the provisions specified in EASA AD 2019-0027, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2019-0027 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2019-0027 will be available on the internet at
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by June 21, 2019.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracked flexible hoses of the oxygen crew and courier distribution system (OCCDS) on A330 freighter airplanes. We are issuing this AD to address cracked oxygen hoses. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to oxygen leakage in the flexible hose of the OCCDS, which, in combination with in-flight depressurization, smoke in the flight deck, or a smoke evacuation procedure, could result in crew injury and reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0027, dated February 4, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019-0027”).
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where EASA AD 2019-0027 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2019-0027 does not apply to this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) For information about EASA AD 2019-0027, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 6017; email
(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.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period; availability of supplemental information.
On November 14, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed several actions related to the attainment date for 11 areas classified as “Moderate” for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), including proposing to determine that the Baltimore, Maryland nonattainment area (Baltimore Area) attained the standard by the July 20, 2018 attainment date. Under the statute, EPA must determine whether ozone nonattainment areas attained the NAAQS by the attainment date, and, within six months of the attainment date, publish a document in the
The comment date for the proposed rule published November 14, 2018, at 83 FR 56781, is reopened. Written comments must be received on or before May 22, 2019.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0226 at
Maria A. Pino, (215) 814-2181, Planning & Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2181. Ms. Pino can also be reached via electronic mail at
On November 14, 2018, EPA proposed, among other actions, to determine that the Baltimore Area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the July 20, 2018 attainment date.
By letters and enclosures dated May 26, 2017 and October 20, 2017, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted EE demonstrations related to the May 25 and 26, 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire and the July 21 and 22, 2016 northwestern Canada wildfires. MDE determined that the Fort McMurray and northwestern Canada wildfires caused elevated ozone concentrations at 16 and 12 monitors, respectively, throughout Maryland. On December 26, 2017, EPA concurred on MDE's EE demonstration for numerous monitors, including three monitors in the Baltimore Area, which includes Baltimore City and the Counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard, all in Maryland. Pursuant to EPA's concurrence, EPA excluded the corresponding data affected by the wildfires from EPA's Air Quality System (AQS), the database in which air quality data is collected. Excluding this data affects the calculated design values at the affected monitors. Due to the exclusion of the EE data, the 2015-2017 design values of the Glen Burnie, Edgewood, and Furley monitors in the Baltimore area changed as shown in Table 1.
The design values shown in the column in Table 1 labelled “2015-2017 Design Value Excluding EE Data” are the design values upon which EPA relied in the Agency's November 14, 2018 proposal. EPA notes that the design values for the Glen Burnie and Furley monitors were below the level of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which is set at 75 ppb, before the EE data was excluded. However, the design value at the Edgewood monitor (monitor 240251001) only attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS when the EE data that EPA determined was influenced by the Fort McMurray and northwestern Canada wildfires was excluded from AQS. EPA's concurrence on this data exclusion, which influenced EPA's proposed determination of attainment by the attainment date for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, is now available in the docket for this action at
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Designations and classifications, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements and Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Designations and classifications, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Office of Government-wide Policy, U.S. General Services Administration (GSA).
Proposed rule.
The GSA is proposing to amend the FTR to change the definition of “payment in kind”. As proposed, a waived or discounted registration fee provided by the non-Federal sponsor of a meeting or similar function would not be a payment in kind to the agency for the day(s) an employee speaks, participates in a panel, or presents at the event. This proposed rule also makes miscellaneous related corrections.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat at one of the addresses shown below on or before July 8, 2019 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments identified by FTR Case 2019-301-2 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For clarification of content, contact Ms. Jill Denning, Program Analyst, Office of Government-wide Policy, at 202-208-7642. Contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, 202-501-4755, for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. Please cite FTR Case 2019-301-2.
GSA published a similar proposed rule in the
Because employees participate as a speaker, panelist, or presenter at these types of events to further the mission of their agency as a necessary and customary part of their work activities, GSA proposes to redefine the travel purpose codes found in Appendix C of Chapter 301, which agencies use for travel reporting purposes. GSA also proposes to amend Chapter 304 so that a waived or discounted registration fee for the day(s) an employee participates as a speaker, panelist, or presenter is not a payment in kind. These waived and discounted registration fees will not need to be reported to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE). Other types of travel expenses paid by a non-Federal source, such as transportation, lodging, meals, and attendance on non-speaking days, or other associated event or similar function-related activities, must continue to be reviewed and reported in accordance with Chapter 304.
GSA acknowledges that OGE's Standard of Conduct regulations at 5 CFR 2635.203(b)(8) and (g) permit employees, in their personal capacities, to accept free attendance, including meals, at an event provided by the event sponsor, on the day(s) the employee is presenting information on behalf of the agency. However, GSA's implementation of 31 U.S.C. 1353 applies a more restrictive acceptance of non-Federal source payments where acceptance lies with the Government, not the employee. In particular, 31 U.S.C. 1353 applies to payments from non-Federal sources for “travel, subsistence, and related expenses” for employees traveling on official business away from their designated post of duty and requires that meals be considered a “payment in kind”, accepted only with agency approval, and subject to a pro rata reduction to their per diem entitlement. Specifically, the language of 31 U.S.C. 1353, when read in conjunction with 5 U.S.C. 5701 and 5702 (prescribing an entitlement for payment of subsistence expenses and defining “subsistence” to include meals) defines “payment” to include meals provided in kind by a non-Federal source. GSA's implementation of 31 U.S.C. 1353 in regulation therefore must include meals in the definition of “payment in kind.”
Accordingly, this proposed rule instructs employees whose agencies have authorized the acceptance of meal(s) under 31 U.S.C. 1353, to deduct meal(s) from their meals and incidental expenses per diem on their travel voucher using the deduction amounts listed for the locality at
Readers of the original proposed rule will note that GSA initially proposed that agencies could accept a registration fee waiver for the duration of a multi-day meeting or similar function, even if the employee is only a speaker, panelist, or presenter on one day. While GSA recognizes that permitting agencies to waive the registration fee for the duration of a multi-day meeting or similar function might have provided additional efficiency for agency authorizing officials, such proposal is inconsistent with 5 CFR 2635.203(b)(8) of the OGE standards of ethical conduct regulations.
Finally, the amendment updates website links in the definitions portion of Chapter 304, updates a CFR reference at the note accompanying § 304-3.19(d), and adds a sentence to an explanatory note to the aforementioned subsection noting the difference between employee acceptance of gifts in their personal capacity per OGE standards of ethical conduct versus employees on official travel obtaining agency authorization to accept payments on the agency's behalf per 31 U.S.C. 1353.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule is a significant regulatory action, and therefore, was subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.
This proposed rule is not expected to be subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because this proposed rule is expected to be related to agency organization, management, or personnel.
This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the Federal Travel Regulation do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
This proposed rule is also exempt from Congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to agency management and personnel.
Government employees, travel and transportation expenses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under 5 U.S.C. 5701-5709, and 31 U.S.C. 1353, GSA proposes to amend 41 CFR Appendix C to Chapter 301, and parts 304-2, 304-3, 304-5, and 304-6 as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 5707.
The revisions read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 5707; 31 U.S.C. 1353.
The revisions read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 5707; 31 U.S.C. 1353.
No. Your agency's acceptance of a waived or discounted registration fee from the non-Federal sponsor of the event is not a payment in kind for the day(s) you are participating as a speaker, panelist, or presenter. However, your agency's acceptance of a waived or discounted registration fee is a payment in kind for the days you only attend the event (
Lodging, transportation, meals, event tickets, or other similar items of value provided by a non-Federal source are a payment in kind. If these types of expenses are included in a registration fee that is waived or discounted on the day(s) you are participating as a speaker, panelist, or presenter, you may accept them only with your agency's approval in accordance with this chapter. Specifically, if the registration fee includes meal(s), the meal(s) are a payment in kind. You may accept the meal(s) only if authorized to do so by your agency. If your agency authorizes acceptance of meal(s), you must also deduct the meal(s) from your M&IE per diem on your travel voucher using the deduction amounts listed for the locality at
* * * (
5 U.S.C. 5707; 31 U.S.C. 1353.
(a) If the non-Federal sponsor or organizer of a meeting or similar function offers to waive or discount the registration fee of an employee who is only attending the event, you are not required to separately authorize acceptance of any items included in the registration fee. If applicable, acceptance of the registration fee must be reported to OGE in accordance with FTR Part 304-6.
(b) When a waived or discounted registration fee is not a payment in kind pursuant to § 304-3.10, the employee may only accept items that you authorize separately. If applicable, the value of any payments in kind so accepted should be reported to OGE in accordance with FTR Part 304-6. In particular, if a registration fee is waived or discounted on the day(s) an employee is participating as a speaker, panelist, or presenter, and the registration fee includes meal(s), the employee may accept meal(s) as a payment in kind only if you review the offer and authorize acceptance. Review the reporting guidelines at § 304-6.4 to see if the aggregated meal amounts (if more than one meal, or meals of both an employee and spouse) will need to be reported to OGE.
5 U.S.C. 5707; 31 U.S.C. 1353.
(a) For conference, training, or similar fees waived, discounted, or paid for by a non-Federal source on behalf of a meeting attendee, you must report the amount charged to other attendees. However, a waiver or discount of the registration fee by the non-Federal sponsor of the event for the day(s) the employee participated in the meeting or similar function as a speaker, panelist, or presenter is not a payment in kind and does not need to be reported.
(c) For meals, you must use the M&IE deduction chart for CONUS and OCONUS located at
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., licensee of television station WNLO(TV), channel 32, Buffalo, New York (WNLO), and WUTV Licensee, LLC (WUTV Licensee), licensee of television station WUTV(TV), channel 36, Buffalo, New York. The Joint Petitioners propose the substitution of channel 32 for channel 36 as WNLO's DTV allotment; and the substitution of channel 36 for channel 32 as WUTV's allotment. The Joint Petitioners also request a waiver of the Media Bureau's current freeze on the filing and processing of petition for digital channel substitutions and minor modification applications for changes to existing television service areas that would increase a full power television noise limited contour. The Joint Petitioners seek to exchange the channels of WNLO and WUTV so that after the swap, WNLO would operate on channel 36 and WUTV would operate on channel 32. WUTV would continue to operate form its existing pre-auction location and WNLO would move the Nexstar shared facilities in the site previously vacated by WIVB-TV (Buffalo, New York (CBS) (WIVB). The channel substitution serves the public interest because it would allow for a more efficient allocation of UHF television channels and resolve significant over-the-air reception problems in WIVB's prior service area.
Comments must be filed on or before May 22, 2019; and reply comments on or before June 3, 2019.
Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., c/o Elizabeth Ryder, 345 E John Carpenter Freeway, Suite 700, Irving, Texas 75062 and WUTV Licensee, LLC, c/o Paul A. Cicelski, Esq., Lerman Senter PLLC, 2001 L Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036.
Varsha Mangal,
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 19-118, DA 19-316, RM-11838, adopted April 23, 2019, and released April 23, 2019. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419.
Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.
(i)
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by June 6, 2019 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
U.S. Codex Office, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The U.S Codex Office is sponsoring a public meeting on June 21, 2019. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions to be discussed at the 42nd Session of the of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), in Geneva, Switzerland, on July 8-12, 2019. The U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius and the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 42nd Session of the CAC and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for June 21, 2019, from 1:00-4:00 p.m. EDT.
The public meeting will take place at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Jamie L. Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 107-A, Washington, DC 20250. Documents related to the 42nd Session of the CAC will be accessible via the internet at the following address:
For further information about the 42nd Session of the CAC, contact U.S. Codex Office, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, Washington, DC 20250, Telephone:(202) 205-7760, Fax: (202) 720-3157, Email:
Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade; promotes coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and nongovernmental organizations; determines priorities, initiates, and guides the preparation of draft standards; finalizes the standards elaborated and publishes them in a Codex Alimentarius (food code) either as regional or worldwide standards, wherever this is practicable; and amends published standards, as appropriate, in the light of new developments.
The following items on the Agenda for the 42nd Session of the CAC will be discussed during the public meeting:
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat before the meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see
At the June 21, 2019, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 42nd Session of the CAC (see
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, the U.S. Codex Office will announce this
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is an extension, without change, of a currently approved collection for annual outcome data for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment and Training (E&T) programs, as mandated by Section 16(h)(5) of the Food and Nutrition Act (FNA) and as amended by section 4022 of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
Written comments must be received on or before July 8, 2019.
Comments may be sent to: Moira Johnston, Director, SNAP, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 806, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Moira Johnston at 703-305-2515.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The information collected on the annual outcome report includes: (1) The number and percentage of E&T participants who retain employment 2 quarters and 4 quarters after completing E&T; (2) the median wages for participants with earnings 2 quarters after completion of E&T; (3) the number and percentage of participants that completed a training, education, work experience or on-the-job training component; (4) certain unique characteristics of SNAP E&T participants; and (5) additional reporting requirements for State agencies that pledge to serve all at-risk Able-bodied Adults without Dependents (ABAWDs). State agencies are also required to identify appropriate outcome reporting measures for each proposed component that is intended to serve a threshold number of participants of at least 100 a year. The reporting measures for these components are identified in State agencies' E&T plans and the outcome data will be reported to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) in State agencies' annual outcome reports. State agencies are required to report outcome data annually.
With this information, FNS will be able to identify more, and less, successful E&T practices and work with State agencies to improve their E&T programs. This process is critical to building a more effective E&T operation nationally that will help move more individuals into the workforce.
State agencies use a combination of methods to collect the outcome data, including existing automated data systems, new data collection, sampling methods, and some direct contact with SNAP E&T participants. FNS estimates that the ongoing additional time burden will average no more than about 231 hours annually per State (about one and a half staff-months) on average (12,233 hours per year for all States).
The breakdown of the 231 hours is itemized in the table below. FNS believes this estimate may be somewhat high since more States have moved to collecting data through automated data systems which requires less time than data collected through direct contact with SNAP E&T participants.
See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.
Forest Service, USDA.
Withdrawal of notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
The Klamath National Forest is withdrawing its Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Pumice Vegetation Management Project. The original NOI was published in the
Questions concerning this notice and requests to be added to the project mailing list should be directed to Travis Coughlin via mail at Goosenest Ranger District, 37805 Highway 97, Macdoel, CA 96058; via telephone at 530-398-5790; or via email at
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will be requested.
Comments on this notice must be received by July 8, 2019.
Thomas P. Dickson, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulatory Team 2, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 1522, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492. Email
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of Rural Business-Cooperative Service's estimate of the burden to collect the required information, including the validity of the strategy used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments on the paperwork burden may be sent to: Thomas P. Dickson, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulatory Team 2, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 1522, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492. Email
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Diane M. Berger, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulatory Team, (715) 619-3124.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that the meeting of the Wyoming Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 1:00 p.m. (MDT) Thursday, May 23, 2019. The purpose of this meeting is for the Committee to begin planning for their hearing on hate crimes.
Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 1:00 p.m. MDT.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-667-5617, conference ID number: 5901228. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meetings at
Please click on “Committee Meetings” tab. Records generated from these meetings may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Advance notice of development of a satellite account to define and measure the ocean economy; request for comments.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is soliciting comments from the public on the development of a new set of national statistics that would provide information on the economic activity generated by ocean related transactions in the United States.
Comments must be received no later than 60 days after publication of this notice.
You may submit comments via email to
Kate Quigley, Economist, Office for Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, 2234 S Hobson Ave., North Charleston, South Carolina 29405; phone: (843) 740-1155 or via email at
A summary document of the activities to be measured by the OESA and the estimated ocean-related portions of these activities can be viewed and downloaded on the internet at
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are developing the Experimental Ocean Economy Satellite Account (OESA). This satellite account will provide a more detailed measurement of the role of the oceans and Great Lakes (herein referred to as “ocean”) in contributing to the annual output of goods and services in the United States. NOAA's mission is to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, to share that knowledge and information with others, and to conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources. BEA produces and maintains the national income and product accounts.
The Experimental OESA provides a first-of-its-kind look at the U.S. ocean economy. While BEA's current gross domestic product (GDP) statistics already embed economic activity associated with the ocean, the Experimental OESA separately identifies and highlights these activities in a way that is not possible with current statistics. Ultimately, creation of the OESA provides detailed data that will deepen the public's understanding of the economic impact of the ocean on the U.S. economy. The Experimental OESA also informs decision-makers and improves governance and long-term management of ocean and coastal areas. The first major step is to define the range of activities encompassed by the ocean economy, identify data useful for quantifying those activities, and determine the calculations used to estimate the portion of the activities that are ocean related.
NOAA developed a draft list of activities to be measured by the OESA. A summary document (
After NOAA finalizes these activities, data and calculations, NOAA and BEA will create prototype national-level economic activities that could include measures of gross output, value added, compensation of employees, and employment in the ocean economy (see BEA's website for definitions). The accuracy of these national level estimates will depend on the robustness of the data and methods used to inform decisions about which economic activities should be included in the accounts. Comments and data sources submitted in response to this notice will be used to improve the accuracy of these estimates.
NOAA invites comments from the public, private industry, state and local governments, non-profit organizations, and other interested parties. In particular, we are interested in feedback regarding the following:
1. What ocean related activities and items should be considered for measurement in the OESA?
2. What types of statistics would potential users of the OESA like to see presented in the account in addition to output, value added, employment, and compensation?
3. What data sets (please provide links and sources) could supplement NOAA and BEA's core statistics to help determine the ocean-related and non ocean-related shares of economic activity in the OESA?
4. What data sets (please provide links and sources) could be used to disaggregate national data to the state and local level?
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
Notice is hereby given that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has provided a Fishery Management and Evaluation Plan (FMEP), and the Nez Perce Tribe has provided a Tribal Resource Management Plan (TRMP), pursuant to the protective regulations promulgated for Pacific salmon and steelhead under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The FMEP and TRMP specify the implementation of fisheries targeting steelhead in the Snake River Basin. This document serves to notify the public of the availability of the FMEP, and a Proposed Evaluation and Pending Determination (PEPD) on the Nez Perce Tribe's TRMP, for comment prior to a decision by NMFS whether to approve the proposed fisheries.
Comments must be received at the appropriate address (see
Written comments on the application should be addressed to the NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. Comments may be submitted by email. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
Charlene Hurst, at phone number: (503) 230-5409, or via email:
Chinook salmon (
Steelhead (
Sockeye salmon (
The ODFW FMEP describes fisheries targeting adult adipose-fin-clipped, hatchery-origin steelhead within the Snake River Basin waters in the State of Oregon and in boundary waters with Washington and Idaho. The plan was submitted to NMFS under limit 4 of the ESA 4(d) Rule for salmon and steelhead. These fisheries were designed to support fishing opportunities while minimizing potential risks to ESA-listed species. The FMEP describes timing, location, harvest impact limits, licensing, and gear requirements, and requires that all fish caught with an intact adipose fin be released unharmed. A variety of monitoring and evaluation is included in the FMEP.
The Nez Perce Tribe TRMP describes fisheries targeting adult steelhead within the Snake River Basin. The plan was provided to NMFS under the ESA Tribal 4(d) Rule. The TRMP describes timing, location, harvest impact limits, and gear. A variety of monitoring and evaluation is included in the TRMP.
As specified in the July 10, 2000, ESA 4(d) rule for salmon and steelhead (65 FR 42422) and updated June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160), NMFS may approve an FMEP if it meets criteria set forth in 50 CFR 223.203(b)(4)(i)(A) through (I). Prior to approving an FMEP, NMFS must publish notification announcing the availability of the FMEP for public review and comment.
For Tribal plans, prior to making a final determination on the plan, NMFS must take comments on its pending determination as to whether or not implementation of the plan will appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the listed salmonids (50 CFR 223.204(b)(3)). While the provisions of Limit 4 of the 4(d) rule do not strictly apply in review of a Tribal plan, they contain appropriate considerations for NMFS as it reviews tribal harvest plans, and NMFS relies on them to guide its review here.
Under section 4 of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is required to adopt such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of species listed as threatened. The ESA salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) specifies categories of activities that contribute to the conservation of listed salmonids and sets out the criteria for such activities. Limit 4 of the updated 4(d) rule (50 CFR 223.203(b)(4)) further provides that the prohibitions of paragraph (a) of the updated 4(d) rule (50 CFR 223.203(a)) do not apply to fisheries provided that an FMEP has been approved by NMFS to be in accordance with the salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005).
The ESA Tribal 4(d) Rule (65 FR 42481, July 10, 2000) states that the ESA section 9 take prohibitions will not apply to Tribal Plans that will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery for the listed species.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
This action serves as a notice that NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), has found that the following stocks are subject to overfishing, overfished, or approaching an overfished condition. Atlantic herring and Georges Bank winter flounder are now approaching an overfished condition. South Atlantic blueline tilefish, Gulf of Mexico lane snapper, and Eastern Pacific Ocean yellowfin tuna are now subject to overfishing. Atlantic bigeye tuna is now overfished and remains subject to overfishing, Atlantic blue marlin and Pacific bluefin tuna remain both subject to overfishing and overfished. St. Matthew Island blue king crab is now overfished. NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, notifies the appropriate regional fishery management council (Council) whenever it determines that overfishing is occurring, a stock is in an overfished condition, or a stock is approaching an overfished condition.
Regina Spallone, (301) 427-8568.
Pursuant to section 304(e)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(2), NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, must notify Councils, and publish in the
NMFS has determined that Atlantic herring and Georges Bank winter flounder are approaching an overfished condition. The most recent assessment for Atlantic herring, finalized in 2018, indicates that the stock is approaching an overfished condition because the spawning stock biomass (SSB) is projected to be less than one half the amount of SSB needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (
NMFS has determined that South Atlantic blueline tilefish and Gulf of Mexico lane snapper are now subject to overfishing. The blueline tilefish determination is based on landings data from 2017. Landings data support a determination that this stock is subject to overfishing because 2017 landings were greater than the overfishing level (OFL). The Gulf of Mexico lane snapper determination is based on landings data from 2017. Landings data support a
NMFS has further determined that the Eastern Pacific Ocean yellowfin tuna is now subject to overfishing. This determination is based on a 2018 assessment by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) scientific staff, using data through 2017. Based on domestic status determination criteria, this stock is subject to overfishing because the fishing mortality rate (F) proxy is greater than the maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT). NMFS has determined that section 304(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act applies because the overfishing of Eastern Pacific yellowfin tuna stocks is due largely to excessive international fishing pressure and because it has not been determined that the management measures adopted by the IATTC in 2018 will end overfishing. NMFS has informed the Pacific Fishery Management Council of its obligations for domestic and international management under Magnuson-Stevens Act sections 304(i) to address domestic and international impacts.
NMFS has also determined that Atlantic bigeye tuna is now overfished and remains subject to overfishing. This determination is based on a 2018 assessment, using data through 2017. Based on the domestic status determination criteria for overfishing and overfished, the stock is overfished because SSB is calculated to be less than the MSST. The results indicate the stock is subject to overfishing because the F in 2017, compared to F at MSY, or F
NMFS has determined that both Atlantic blue marlin and Pacific bluefin tuna remain subject to overfishing and overfished. The Atlantic blue marlin determination is based on a 2018 assessment, using data through 2016. Based on the domestic status determination criteria for overfishing and overfished, this stock remains subject to overfishing because F
Finally, NMFS has determined that St. Matthew Island blue king crab is now overfished. This determination is based on a 2018 assessment, using survey data through 2018. The assessment supports a determination of overfished because the annual mature male biomass (MMB
Wednesday, May 8, 2019, 10:00 a.m.-11:00 p.m.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.
Briefing Matter: Fiscal Year 2019 Mid-Year Review.
A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
Alberta Mills, Office of the Secretariat, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled National Service Criminal History Check Recordkeeping Requirement for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by June 6, 2019.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or
(2) By email to:
Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling CNCS, Aaron Olszewski, at 202-606-6709 or email to
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to 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.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force.
Notice of intent.
Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations, the Department of the Air Force hereby gives notice of its intent to grant a partially exclusive (exclusive with respect to the field of chromium-doped zinc-nitro-antimony-gallium-tellurium infrared phosphors) patent license agreement to Battle Sight Technologies, LLC, a corporation of the State of Ohio, having a place of business at 714 E. Monument Ave. Suite 120, Dayton, OH 45402.
Written objections must be filed no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the date of publication of this Notice.
Submit written objections to the Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, Timothy Barlow, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Room 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433- 7109; Phone: (937) 904-5760; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; or Email:
Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, Timothy Barlow, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm. 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; Email:
The Department of the Air Force intends to grant the partially exclusive patent license agreement for the invention described in:
The Department of the Air Force may grant the prospective license unless a timely objection is received that sufficiently shows the grant of the license would be inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or implementing regulations. A competing application for a patent license agreement, completed in compliance with 37 CFR 404.8 and received by the Air Force within the period for timely objections, will be treated as an objection and may be considered as an alternative to the proposed license.
Notice of availability of a Record of Decision.
On April 25, 2019, the United States Air Force signed a Record of Decision (ROD) on the Emergency Beddown of the F-22 Formal Training Unit and Associated T-38 Aircraft from Tyndall Air Force Base to Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, Special Environmental Assessment.
For questions regarding this ROD please contact: Mr. Mike Spaits, Eglin AFB Public Affairs Office, 96 TW/PA, 101 West D Avenue, Room 238, Eglin AFB, FL 32542-5499; telephone: (850) 882-2836; or email:
The ROD contains the Air Force's finding that the temporary beddown and continuing operations of 31 F-22 Formal Training Unit (FTU) aircraft and 17 T-38 Talon adversary air support aircraft at Eglin AFB, Florida, is necessary to control the impacts of the emergency created by Hurricane Michael in early October 2018. It also reflects the Air Force's decision to continue the interim beddown and recurring operations of the F-22 FTU and its adversary air support at Eglin AFB, as analyzed in the three timeline-based scenarios of the Proposed Action in the April 2019 Final Special EA, in whole or in part, until it becomes superseded by the full implementation of the decision to be made in the ROD on the Final EIS for its permanent beddown. Additionally, it announces the Air Force's decision to reduce the rate of closed-pattern operations per sortie for both F-22s and T-38s throughout the period of construction-related closure of Runway 12/30.
The decision was based on matters discussed in the F-22 FTU and Associated T-38 Aircraft from Tyndall Air Force Base to Eglin Air Force Base, Florida Special Environmental Assessment (EA), contributions from the public and regulatory agencies, and other relevant factors. Public Notification was published in the Northwest Florida Daily News on February 28, 2019, announcing the availability of the Draft Special EA for a 30-day public review and comment period. The final Special EA and signed ROD are available at the following web page:
This Notice of Availability is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR part 1506.6) implementing the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.. 4321,
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.
Notice of availability.
On April 19, 2019, the United States Air Force signed an Addendum to the 26 June 2014 Record of Decision for the Final F-35 Beddown Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). This Addendum to the 26 June 2014 Record of Decision (AROD) documents the Air Force's decision regarding temporarily shifting the primary runway to Runway 01/19 (RW 01/19) and allowing short-term increases in previously limited operations for construction-related closure of Runway 12/30 (RW 12/30).
For questions rearding this AROD please contact: Mr. Mike Spaits, Eglin AFB Public Affairs Office, 96 TW/PA, 101 West D Avenue, Room 238, Eglin AFB, FL 32542-5499; telephone: (850) 882-2836; or email:
This AROD augments the ROD signed on 26 June 2014, for an approximately forty-five day period of RW 12/30 closure for necessary construction planned for April 19, 2019 to June 3, 2019.
The Final SEIS was made available to the public on February 28, 2014 through a NOA in the
This NOA is published pursuant to the relevant subsection of the regulations (40 CFR part 1506.6(b)2)) implementing the provisions of the NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321,
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU) will take place.
Friday, May 17, 2019 open to the public from 8:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. The closed session will occur from approximately 11:20 a.m. to 11:50 a.m.
Uniformed Services University, 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Joshua Barricklow, Designated Federal Officer, (301) 295-9805 (Voice),
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Designated Federal Officer, the Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the meeting on May 17, 2019 of the Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 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) (5 U.S.C., Appendix), the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Additional reports will be provided by the Dean of the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Dean of the Daniel K. Inouye Graduate School of Nursing, Executive Dean of the Postgraduate Dental College, Dean of the College of Allied Health Sciences, USU Registrar, and President of the USU Alumni Association. A closed session will be held, after the open session, to discuss active investigations and personnel actions.
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 6, 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 Kashka Kubzdela, 202-245-7377.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, May 29, 2019, 1:00 p.m.-5:15 p.m.
Ohkay Conference Center, Highway 68, 1 Mile North of Española, Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico 87566.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board (NNMCAB), 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email:
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice and request for OMB review and comment.
EIA submitted an information collection request for extension as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension with changes to its Petroleum Marketing Program, OMB Control Number 1905-0174. The Petroleum Marketing Program collects and publishes data on the nature, structure, and efficiency of petroleum markets at national, regional, and state levels. EIA uses this information to monitor volumes and prices for crude oil and petroleum products.
Comments on this information collection must be received no later than June 6, 2019. If you anticipate any difficulties in submitting your comments by the deadline, contact the DOE Desk Officer at (202) 395-4718.
Written comments should be sent to
And send a copy to
Tammy Heppner (202) 586-4748, email:
This information collection request contains
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
These data are published by EIA on its website,
(4a)
“The information you provide on Form EIA-877 will be used for statistical purposes only and is confidential by law. Per the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, Federal information systems are protected from malicious activities through cybersecurity screening of transmitted data. Every EIA employee, as well as every agent, is subject to a jail term, a fine, or both if he or she makes public any identifiable information you reported.”
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-275, codified as 15 U.S.C. 772(b) and the DOE Organization Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-91, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7101
Take notice that on April 18, 2019, Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gulf), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section 7(c) and section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting abandoning authority, authorizing the replacement of: (i) Approximately 1,350 feet (ft.) of existing 30-inch-diameter pipeline of Mainline 100; (ii) approximately 1,300 ft. of existing 30-inch-diameter pipeline of Mainline 200, referred to as the Mainline 100 and Mainline 200 Replacement Project. All as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Dave Hammel, U.S. Legal, Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana St, Houston, TX 77002-2700, by telephone at (832) 320-5861.
Columbia Gulf requests pre-determination of rolled-in treatment of rates and surcharges in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement in Docket No. PL99-3-000. The estimated cost of the project will be $18,919,720.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, 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
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities 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:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-730 (Report of Transmission Investment Activity) and submitting the information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. On February 25, 2019, the Commission published a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due June 6, 2019.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control No. 1902-0239, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC19-15-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
Congress enacted section 1241 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), adding section 219 to the Federal Power Act (FPA), to promote the operation, maintenance and enhancement of electric transmission infrastructure.
The Commission amended its regulations in 18 CFR 35.35 to identify the incentive ratemaking treatments allowed under FPA section 219. Incentives are required to be tailored to the type of transmission investments being made, and each applicant must demonstrate that its proposal meets the requirements of FPA section 219.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of PSEG Fossil Sewaren Urban Renewal LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 21, 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
Take notice that on April 18, 2019, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056-5310, filed in Docket No. CP19-191-000 an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations for authorization to construct its proposed Bernville Compressor Units Replacement Project (Project). The Project consists of replacing two existing compressor units and related facilities, with two new, more efficient compressor units at its Bernville Compressor Station located in Berks County, Pennsylvania. Texas Eastern asserts that the Project will allow this portion of its system to comply with future air emission reduction requirements in Pennsylvania.
Specifically, Texas Eastern is requesting authorization to replace two existing General Electric Company Frame 5 centrifugal natural gas-fired turbines consisting of one 22,000 horsepower (hp) unit installed in 1958, and one 19,800 hp unit installed in 1968, with a total station certificated horsepower of 41,800 hp. Texas Eastern proposes to replace these two existing units with one new 26,000 hp Solar Turbine, Inc. (Solar) Titan 250 natural gas-fired turbine and one new 18,100 hp Solar Titan 130 natural gas-fired turbine. Texas Eastern states that it will install software controls on the 26,000 hp Solar Titan 250 turbine to limit the horsepower on that turbine to 23,700 hp, so that the total designed horsepower and delivery capacity at the Bernville Compressor Station will remain substantially the same. Texas Eastern estimates the cost of the Project to be $125,443,261, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Lisa A. Connolly, Director, Rates and Certificates, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, by telephone at (713) 627-4102, by facsimile at (713) 627-5947, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18
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
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212) and has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed project. The project would be located on Grant Lake and Grant Creek, near the community of Moose Pass, in Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska, and occupy 1,688.7 acres of federal lands within the Chugach National Forest, administered by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service).
The final EIS contains staff's evaluations of the applicant's proposal and the alternatives for licensing the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric. The final EIS documents the views of governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicant, and Commission staff.
A copy of the final EIS is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. The final EIS also may be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
For further information, please contact Kenneth Hogan at (202) 502-8434 or 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 the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on April 30, 2019, pursuant to section 292.402 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules and Regulations,
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 on-line at
Comments: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 21, 2019.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On February 25, 2019, Grid Balance Hydropower, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Packer-Banks Pumped Storage Project to be located in Carbon County, Pennsylvania. 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.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new 9,500-foot-long, 80- to 120-foot-high roller-compacted concrete and/or rock-filled dam or dike forming an upper reservoir having a surface area of 120 acres and a total storage capacity of approximately 9,300 acre-feet at a normal maximum water surface elevation between approximately 1,960 and 1,860 feet above mean sea level (msl); (2) a lower reservoir with three different options: Option A (site 1) or B (site 2) would include a new 9,500-foot-long, 85- to 95-foot-high roller-compacted concrete and/or rock-filled dam or dike forming a lower reservoir having a surface area of 120 acres and a total storage capacity of approximately 9,300 acre-feet at a normal maximum water surface elevation between approximately 1,250 and 1,350 feet msl. Option C (site 3) would include a below grade mine pit with a surface area of 200 acres and a total storage capacity of approximately 10,000 acre-feet at a normal maximum water surface elevation between approximately 1,250 and 1,350 feet msl; (3) a 5,500-foot-long tunnel and/or penstock connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (4) a powerhouse containing four turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 400 megawatts; (5) a transmission line connecting to an existing 230-kilovolt transmission line traversing the site; and (6) appurtenant facilities. Initial fill and make-up water for the project would come from a nearby abandoned mine drainage source. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 1,680,000 megawatt-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
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of information collections and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collections, FERC Form Nos. 1 (Annual Report of Major Electric Utilities, Licensees, and Others), 1-F (Annual Report for Nonmajor Public Utilities and Licensees), and 3-Q (Quarterly Financial Report of Electric Utilities, Licensees, and Natural Gas Companies).
Comments on the collections of information are due July 8, 2019.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC19-22-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The FERC Form No.1 is designed to collect financial and operational information and is made available to the public. The FERC Form No.1 includes a basic set of financial statements:
• Comparative Balance Sheet,
• Statement of Income,
• Statement of Retained Earnings,
• Statement of Cash Flows,
• Statements of Accumulated Comprehensive Income,
• Comprehensive Income, and Hedging Activities, and
• Notes to Financial Statements.
Supporting schedules contain:
• Supplementary information and outlines of corporate structure and governance,
• Information on formula rates, and
• Description of important changes during the year.
Other schedules provide:
• Information on revenues and the related quantities of electric sales and electricity transmitted,
• Account balances for all electric operation and maintenance expenses,
• Selected plant cost data, and
• Other statistical information.
The FERC Form No.1-F is designed to collect financial and operational information and is made available to the public. The FERC Form No.1-F includes a basic set of financial statements:
• Comparative Balance Sheet,
• Statement of Retained Earnings,
• Statement of Cash Flows,
• Statement of Comprehensive Income and Hedging Activities, and
• Notes to Financial Statements.
Supporting schedules contain:
• Supplementary information and include revenues and the related quantities of electric sales and electricity transmitted,
• Account balances for all electric operation and maintenance expenses,
• Selected plant cost data; and
• Other statistical information.
FERC Form No. 3-Q includes a basic set of financial statements:
• Comparative Balance Sheet,
• Statement of Income and Statement of Retained Earnings,
• Statement of Cash Flows,
• Statement of Comprehensive Income and Hedging Activities, and
• Supporting schedules containing supplementary information.
Electric respondents report:
• Revenues and the related quantities of electric sales and electricity transmitted,
• Account balances for all electric operation and maintenance expenses,
• Selected plant cost data; and
• Other statistical information.
Natural gas respondents include:
• Monthly and quarterly quantities of gas transported and associated revenues,
• Storage, terminaling and processing services,
• Natural gas customer accounts and details of service, and
• Operational expenses, depreciation, depletion and amortization of gas plant.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance entitled “Requests for Feedback and Meetings for Medical Device Submissions: The Q-Submission Program.” This guidance document provides an overview of the mechanisms available to applicants through which they can request feedback from or a meeting with FDA regarding potential or planned medical device investigational device exemption (IDE) applications, premarket approval applications (PMAs), humanitarian device exemption (HDE) applications, evaluation of automatic class III designations (De Novo requests), premarket notification (510(k)) submissions, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) Waiver by Applications, Dual 510(k) and CLIA Waiver by Application Submissions, Accessory Classification Requests, and certain investigational new drug (IND) applications and biologics license applications (BLAs).
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Joshua Nipper, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1650, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6524; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-7911.
The pre-IDE program was established in 1995 to provide applicants a mechanism to obtain FDA feedback on future IDE applications prior to their submission. Over time, the pre-IDE program evolved to include feedback on PMA applications, HDE applications, De Novo requests, and 510(k) submissions, as well as to address whether a clinical study requires submission of an IDE.
To capture this evolution, the Secretary of Health and Human Services' 2012 Commitment Letter to Congress regarding the Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2012 (MDUFA III) included FDA's commitment to institute a structured process for managing these interactions, referring to them as “Pre-Submissions.” The Pre-Submission Guidance, published February 18, 2014, implemented the broader Q-Submission (Q-Sub) Program, which includes Pre-Submissions (Pre-Subs), as well as additional opportunities to engage with FDA.
As part of the Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2017 (MDUFA IV), industry and the Agency agreed to refine the Q-Sub Program with changes related to the scheduling of Pre-Sub meetings and a new performance goal on the timing of FDA feedback on Pre-Subs. This guidance reflects those changes and clarifies other elements of the Q-Sub program.
This guidance document provides an overview of the mechanisms available to submitters through which they can request feedback from or a meeting with FDA regarding potential or planned medical device IDE applications, PMAs, HDE applications, De Novo requests, 510(k) Submissions, CLIA Waiver by Application, Dual 510(k) and CLIA Waiver by Application Submissions, Accessory Classification Requests, and certain INDs and BLAs submitted to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. FDA considered comments received on the draft guidance, which was announced in the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in the following FDA regulations and guidance have been approved by OMB as listed in the following table:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the 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 Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women; which was published in the
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, June 7, 2019, 11:00 a.m. to June 7, 4:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and the committee name should be Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict: Neuroscience and Bioengineering.
The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory Neurological Disorders and Stroke Council, which was published in the
Added closed session for the HEAL MDWG on May 17, 2019. The meeting will now be partially closed to the public. The meeting will be closed from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on May 17, 2019.
The Office of Partnership and Engagement (OPE),The Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of partially closed Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Homeland Security Advisory Council (“HSAC” or “Council”) will meet in person on Tuesday, May 21, 2019. Members of the public may participate in person. The meeting will be partially closed to the public.
The Council will meet May 21, 2019, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. EDT. The meeting will be open to the public from 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. EDT. Please note the meeting may close early if the Council has completed its business. The meeting will be closed to the public from 8:45 a.m. to 12:50 p.m. EDT.
The public meeting will be held at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (“Wilson Center”), located at 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. All visitors will be processed through the lobby of the Wilson Center. For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Mike Miron at
•
•
•
•
Mike Miron at
Notice of this meeting is given under Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), which requires each FACA committee meeting to be open to the public.
The Council provides organizationally independent, strategic, timely, specific, actionable advice, and recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters related to homeland security. The Council is comprised of leaders of local law enforcement, first responders, Federal, State, and local government, the private sector, and academia.
The Council will meet in an open session between 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. EDT. The Council will swear in new members, they will receive an update from the Families and Children Care Panel subcommittee, and review and deliberate on reports from the; State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Cybersecurity; Emerging Technologies; and Countering Foreign Influence subcommittees. Following this, there will be a break for public commentary.
The Council will meet in a closed session from 8:45 a.m. to 12:50 p.m. EDT to receive sensitive operational information from senior officials on current counterterrorism threats, border security, aviation security, and cybersecurity.
The Council will receive closed session briefings at the For Official Use Only and Law Enforcement sensitive information from senior officials. These briefings will concern matters sensitive to homeland security within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E) and 552b(c)(9)(B). The Council will receive operational counterterrorism updates on the current threat environment and security measures associated with countering such threats, including those related to aviation security programs, border security, immigration enforcement, and cybersecurity.
The session is closed under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E) because disclosure of that information could reveal investigative techniques and procedures not generally available to the public, allowing terrorists and those with interests against the United States to circumvent the law and thwart the Department's strategic initiatives. Specifically, there will be material presented during the briefings regarding the latest viable threats against the United States and how DHS and other Federal agencies plan to address those threats. Disclosure of this information could frustrate the successful implementation of protective measures designed to keep our country safe. In addition, the session is closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) because disclosure of these techniques and procedures could frustrate the successful implementation of protective measures designed to keep our country safe.
Infrastructure Security Division (ISD), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
30-Day notice and request for comments; revision of information collection.
DHS CISA ISD 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. CISA previously published this ICR, in the
Comments are due by June 6, 2019.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to OMB Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency 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. 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.
Comments that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information (CVI),
Craig Conklin, 703-235-5263,
The CFATS Program identifies and regulates the security of high-risk chemical facilities using a risk-based approach. Congress initially authorized the CFATS Program under Section 550 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Public Law 109-295 (2006). Congress reauthorized the CFATS Program for an additional five years and three months under the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014 and the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program Extension Act.
CISA
In response to the 60-day notice
The first section of the current instrument is titled, “Identification of Facilities” and collects information on a voluntary basis when a facility ships and/or receives Chemicals of Interest (COI). The instrument collects: (1) Shipping and/or receiving procedures, (2) Invoices and receipts, and (3) Company names and locations that COI is shipped to and/or received from.
The second section is titled, “Assets at Risk” and collects information on a voluntary basis when the facility identifies a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA), Distributed Control System (DCS), Process Control Systems (PCS), or Industrial Control Systems (ICS). Specifically, the instrument collects information about: (1) Details on the system(s) that controls, monitors, and/or manages small to large production systems as well as how the system(s) operates; and (2) If it is standalone or connected to other systems or networks and document the specific brand and name of the system(s).
The commenter reviewed the current instrument and noticed that CISA's estimates about the number of respondents related to only the first section of the current instrument (
The current information collection estimated that each year 211 respondents would respond to this instrument. For this ICR, CISA estimates that the annual number of respondents will be 845, because CISA only requests this information from covered chemical facilities that undergo compliance inspections and ship chemicals of interest (COI). CISA completes approximately 1,920 compliance inspections per year. Of these, approximately 44 percent of the covered chemical facilities inspected ship COI. Therefore, CISA estimates 845 respondents for this instrument [= 1,920 facilities inspected × 44 percent of facilities ship COI].
The commenter concluded that CISA, based on the description provided in the 60-day notice about how the number of respondents was derived, could be seeking to revise the instrument and remove the second section (
With respect to the second section of the instrument (
CISA continues to rely on the analysis and resulting burden estimates provided in the 60-day notice for the: (1) Top-Screen, (2) Security Vulnerability Assessment (SVA) and Alternative Security Plan (ASP) submitted in lieu of an SVA, (3) SSP and ASP submitted in lieu of an SSP, (4) CFATS Help Desk, and (5) CSAT User Registration. CISA has revised its analysis and resulting burden estimates for the instrument, “Identification of Facilities and Assets at Risk.” CISA's analysis is described in the next section.
CISA would also like to clarify the scope and purpose of one aspect of the CSAT User Registration instrument that does not revise its burden estimate. Specifically, that CISA uses the Authorizer role in CSAT to send official correspondence.
The current information collection estimated that each year 211 respondents would respond to this instrument. In the 60-day notice, CISA estimated that the annual number of respondents to be 845. As a result of public comment CISA has revised its estimate in this notice from 845 to 3,426. This revised estimate is based upon the sum of 845 respondents for the first section of this instrument (see 60-day notice for the basis of this estimate) and 2,581 respondents for the second section of this instrument. CISA estimated 2,581 respondents for the second section by annualizing the number of interactions described earlier in this notice since October of 2016 (
In the current information collection, the estimated time per respondent is 0.17 hours (10 minutes). CISA believes that this estimate is reasonable for either the first or the second section of the instrument. Therefore, in this ICR, CISA maintains this estimate.
The annual burden estimate is 571 hours [ = 3,426 respondents × 1 response per respondent × 0.17 hours per respondent].
CISA assumes that SSOs will be responsible for providing this information. Therefore, to estimate the total annual burden, CISA multiplied the annual burden of 571 hours by the average hourly compensation rate of SSOs. The total annual burden for the Identification of Additional Facilities and Assets at Risk is $45,505 [ = 571 annual burden hours × $79.69 per hour].
In the current information collection, CISA estimated a one-time capital cost would be incurred by 3,000 respondents as a result of the CSAT 2.0 implementation. These capital costs were one-time costs for respondents and therefore have been removed from this information collection.
There is no recordkeeping burden for this instrument.
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 (
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or there forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 8, 2019.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to U.S. Geological Survey, Information Collections Officer, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 159, Reston, VA 20192; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Shonta E. Osborne by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the USGS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the USGS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the USGS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authorities for this action are the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice informs the public that the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs proclaimed approximately 212.15 acres, more or less, an addition to the reservation of the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, on April 17, 2019.
Ms. Sharlene M. Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1849 C Street NW, MS-4642-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, telephone (202) 208-3615.
This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual.
A proclamation was issued according to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 986; 25 U.S.C. 5110) for the lands described below. These lands were proclaimed to be part of the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation in Grays Harbor County and Thurston County, Washington.
That portion of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, lying Westerly of Railroad right of way and Southerly of Gibson Creek;
ALSO, Government Lot 3;
EXCEPT Railroad right of way;
AND EXCEPT State Road No. 9;
ALSO, ALL that portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, lying Westerly of the Northern Pacific Railway right of way;
ALSO Government Lot 4;
EXCEPT THE South 445.5 feet thereof; AND that portion of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, lying Westerly of the Northern Pacific Railway right of way; EXCEPT Elma-Gate County Road;
ALL in Section 3, Township 16 North, Range 5 West of the Willamette Meridian;
Situate in Grays Harbor County, State of Washington.
Containing 84.82 acres, more or less.
Parcel No. 55702400200: Parcel B of Boundary Line Adjustment No. BLA-15-109432 TC, as recorded September 21, 2015 under Auditor's File No. 4466252. (1.06 acres)
Parcel No. 55702400300: Tract 3 of Short Subdivision SS-0481, filed for record March 5, 1977, under the Thurston County Auditor's File No. 990946 and recorded in Volume 4 of Short Plats, page 602. (0.76 acres)
All in Section 11 and 12, Township 15 North, Range 3 West, Willamette Meridian, Thurston County, Washington.
Containing 1.82 acres more or less.
Parcel Numbers 160503210000 and 160503130010
Parcel A: All that portion of Government Lot 1 and of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 16 North, Range 5 West of the Willamette Meridian, lying Westerly of the right of way of the Northern Pacific Railway Company; ALSO: That portion of Government Lot 2 and that portion of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, lying Westerly of the Westerly margin of said right of way of the Northern Pacific Railway Company, which lies Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at the East Quarter corner of Section 3, Township 16 North, Range 5 West of the Willamette Meridian; Thence West 1812.1 feet; Thence North 440 feet; Thence North 81°45′ East 569 feet; Thence North 1°42′ East 508.2 feet to the true point of beginning of the line herein described; Thence West 2045 feet, more or less, to the Westerly line of said Government Lot 2, and the terminus of the said line; Situated in the County of Grays Harbor, State of Washington.
Parcel B: ALL that portion of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and of Government Lot 2 in Section 3, Township 16 North, Range 5 West of the Willamette Meridian lying Westerly of the right-of-way of the Northern Pacific Railway Company (now Burlington Northern, Inc.); EXCEPT that portion thereof lying Southerly of Gibson Creek; ALSO EXCEPT that portion lying North of the following described line: Beginning at the East Quarter corner of said Section 3; Thence West 1812.1 feet to the true point of beginning; Thence North 440 feet; Thence North 81°45′ East 569 feet to the West line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 3; Thence North 1°42′ East, along said West line, 508.2 feet to the true point of beginning of said line; Thence West 2045 feet, more or less, to the terminus of said line;
Situate in the County of Grays Harbor, State of Washington.
Containing 88.46 acres, more or less.
Parcel A: Parcel A of Boundary Line Adjustment No. BLA-1457, as recorded December 3, 1993 under Auditor's File No. 9312030011.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion conveyed to Thurston County by Deeds recorded February 10, 1998 under Auditor's File Nos. 3134732, 3134733 and 3134734.
ALSO EXCEPT those portions acquired by the State of Washington pursuant to Thurston County Superior Court Cause No. 10-2-00616-5. In Thurston County, Washington.
Parcel B: Tract B of Boundary Line Adjustment No. BLA-1457, as recorded December 3, 1993 Under Auditor's File No. 9312030011. In Thurston County, Washington.
Containing 5.70 acres, more or less.
(Parcel A 12721210000) Parcel A of Boundary Line Adjustment No. BLA-000846TC, as recorded February 20, 2001 under Auditor's File No. 3336731 and 3336732; EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion conveyed to Thurston County by deed recorded May
(Parcel B 1272120200) Parcel B of Boundary Line Adjustment No. BLA-000846TC, as recorded February 20, 2001 under Auditor's File No. 3336731 and 3336732.
(Parcel C 12716340200) That part of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 16, Township 17 North, Range 2 West, W.M., described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the South line of said Section 16, 1,970.8 feet East of its Southwest corner; running thence East along said South line 328.2 feet; thence North 1,320 feet, more or less, to the North line of said Southeast quarter of Southwest quarter; thence Westerly along said North line 328.5 feet, more or less; thence South 1,320 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning; EXCEPTING THEREFROM the South 30 feet for county road known as Lathrop Road; ALSO EXCEPTING that portion conveyed to Thurston County by deed recorded May 18, 2011 under Auditor's File No. 4211314.
Consisting of 31.35 acres, more or less.
In Thurston County, Washington.
The above-described lands contain a total of 212.15 acres, more or less, which are subject to all valid rights, reservations, rights-of-way, and easements of record.
This proclamation does not affect title to the lands described above, nor does it affect any valid existing easements for public roads, highways, public utilities, railroads, and pipelines, or any other valid easements or rights-of-way or reservations of record.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice informs the public that the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs proclaimed approximately 6.10 acres, more or less, an addition to the reservation of the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, Washington on April 17, 2019.
Ms. Sharlene M. Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1849 C Street NW, MS-4642-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, telephone (505) 563-3132.
This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual.
A proclamation was issued according to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 986; 25 U.S.C. 5110) for the lands described below. These lands were proclaimed to be part of the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, Washington Reservation in Thurston County, Washington.
AND Lot 3 of Short Subdivision No. SS-0446, as recorded March 23, 1977 under Auditor's File No. 992514, TOGETHER WITH that portion of vacated street adjoining pursuant to Resolution No. 13379 recorded July 11, 2005 under Auditor's File No. 3747117.
The above-described lands contain a total of 6.10 acres, more or less, which are subject to all valid rights, reservations, rights-of-way, and easements of record.
This proclamation does not affect title to the lands described above, nor does it affect any valid existing easements for public roads, highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines, or any other valid easements or rights-of-way or reservations of record.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of reservation proclamation.
This notice informs the public that the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs proclaimed approximately 13.71 acres, more or less, an addition to the reservation of the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation on April 17, 2019.
Ms. Sharlene M. Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1849 C Street NW, MS-4642-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, Telephone: (505) 563-3132.
This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual.
A proclamation was issued according to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984; 25 U.S.C. 5110 for the lands described below. The land was proclaimed to be the Muckleshoot Reservation for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, King County and State of Washington.
The above described lands contain a total of 13.71 acres, more or less, which are subject to all valid rights, reservations, rights-of-way, and easements of record.
This proclamation does not affect title to the land described above, nor does it affect any valid existing easements for public roads, highways, public utilities, railroads, and pipelines or any other valid easements or rights-of-way or reservations of record.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of application deadline; correction.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs published a document in the
Completed application packages must be received by the Director, Office of Self-Governance, by April 30, 2019.
Application packages for inclusion in the applicant pool should be sent to Ms. Sharee M. Freeman, Director, Office of Self-Governance, Department of the Interior, Mail Stop 2071-MIB, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.
Dr. Kenneth D. Reinfeld, Office of Self-Governance, Telephone (703) 390-6551.
In the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of proposed official filing.
The plats of survey for the lands described in this notice are scheduled to be officially filed 30 calendar days after the date of this publication in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the Director, Rocky Mountain Region, Billings, Montana, are necessary for the management of these lands.
A person or party who wishes to protest this decision must file a notice of protest in time for it to be received in the BLM Montana State Office no later than 30 days after the date of this publication.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the BLM Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101, upon required payment. The plats may be viewed at this location at no cost.
Josh Alexander, BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Montana; telephone: (406) 896-5123; email:
The lands surveyed are:
A person or party who wishes to protest an official filing of a plat of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Montana at the address listed in the
If a notice of protest of the plat(s) of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing or during the 10 calendar day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a) and the delay in filing is waived, the official filing of the plat(s) of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day after all timely protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved, including appeals.
If a notice of protest is received after the scheduled date of official filing and the 10 calendar day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a), the notice of protest will be untimely, may not be considered, and may be dismissed.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying
43 U.S.C. Chapter 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of proposed official filing.
The plats of survey for the lands described in this notice are scheduled to be officially filed 30 calendar days after the date of this publication in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals, BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, are necessary for the management of these lands.
A person or party who wishes to protest this decision must file a notice of protest in time for it to be received in the BLM Montana State Office no later than 30 days after the date of this publication.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the BLM Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101, upon required payment. The plats may be viewed at this location at no cost.
Josh Alexander, BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Montana; telephone: (406) 896-5123; email:
The lands surveyed are:
A person or party who wishes to protest an official filing of a plat of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Montana at the address listed in the
If a notice of protest of the plat(s) of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing or during the 10 calendar day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a) and the delay in filing is waived, the official filing of the plat(s) of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day after all timely protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved, including appeals.
If a notice of protest is received after the scheduled date of official filing and the 10 calendar day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a), the notice of protest will be untimely, may not be considered, and may be dismissed.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C. Chapter 3.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Fowler Museum at University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Fowler Museum at UCLA. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Fowler Museum at UCLA at the address in this notice by June 6, 2019.
Wendy G. Teeter, Ph.D., Fowler Museum at UCLA, Box 951549, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1549, telephone (310) 825-1864, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Fowler Museum at University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from an unknown site in San Bernardino County, CA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of the Chemehuevi Reservation, California and the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California, hereafter referred to as “The Tribes.”
In 1984, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown site in San Bernardino County, CA. In 1984, the UCLA library received a donation of fragmentary human and animal remains labeled as having been collected from an old Indian burial ground near the Ord Mountains, in the Mojave Desert. The library transferred these remains to the Fowler Museum at UCLA without donor information. No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects are unmodified artiodactyl mandible fragments.
The geographic location provided for this collection lies within the ancestral territory of the Chemehuevi. In addition to the label describing the remains as having been removed from an Indian burial ground near Ord Mountains, representatives of Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of the Chemehuevi Reservation, California and the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California have presented oral traditional information to show that ancestral groups and/or specific clans or lineages from their cultures inhabited the Ord Mountains and Mohave Desert from the very earliest of times.
Officials of the Fowler Museum at University of California Los Angeles have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the two objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and The Tribes.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Wendy G. Teeter, Ph.D., Fowler Museum at UCLA, Box 951549, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1549, telephone (310) 825-1864, email
The Fowler Museum at University of California Los Angeles is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the address in this notice by June 6, 2019.
Anna Pardo, Museum Program Manager/NAGPRA Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada.
In February 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the shoreline of Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains and associated funerary objects were housed at the University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Anthropology until sometime between April and August 1993, when they were moved to the Nevada State Museum in Carson City,
Officials of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on studies conducted by physical anthropologists.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the five objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(15), the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the tribal land of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Anna Pardo, Museum Program Manager/NAGPRA Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for notifying the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona (ASM) in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, have determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the address in this notice by June 6, 2019.
Anna Pardo, NAGPRA Coordinator, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, and in the physical custody of the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Between 1931 and 1944, 133 cultural items were removed from AZ V:4:1(ASM), also known as Kinishba Pueblo, in Gila County, AZ. Legally authorized excavations were conducted by Byron Cummings between 1931 and 1939, under the auspices of ASM and the Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona. Cummings retired in 1937; however, he continued excavating and rebuilding rooms at Kinishba until 1944. After 1937, financial support for the project was provided by the Hohokam Museum Association, BIA, and Depression-era Emergency Conservation Work (EWC). Cummings acquired permits for the excavations from 1931 to 1939, but no records of permits exist for excavations after this date range. The items listed below were found with human remains, but the human remains are not present in ASM collections.
Archeological collections from this site were accessioned by ASM in a number of different phases, having been brought to ASM at the end of each field season (1931 to 1939). On February 23, 2003, additional archeological materials from this site were found in ASM collections, and were assigned accession numbers. On February 5, 1969, a collection of archeological materials from AZ V:4:1(ASM) that had been housed at the Kinishba Museum and the Southwest Archaeological Center in Globe, AZ, was transferred to ASM and assigned an accession number. The 133 unassociated funerary objects are one antler artifact, three bone awls, four bone hairpins, one bone needle, 39 ceramic bowls, 15 ceramic jars, one ceramic miniature vessel, one ceramic pitcher, 35 ceramic sherds, three ceramic vessels, one chipped stone
AZ V:4:1(ASM) is a large, plaza-oriented pueblo containing more than 600 rooms arranged in eight masonry room groups (Groups I-VIII) on both sides of a drainage that bisects the site. The complex is set in a valley that is part of the White River drainage. Groups I and II are the largest rooms blocks, each consisting of rectangular arrangements of approximately 200 ground-story rooms with associated plazas. The plaza in Group I consisted of two sections, with a rectangular masonry kiva in the north section, and a bench along the walls of the southern section. The excavations revealed that Group I was a multiple story pueblo. The other room groups had multiple stories as well. Groups III-VIII are made up of approximately six to sixteen rooms each. The main excavations occurred in Group I, the other room groups are less fully researched. Human remains were uncovered both inside and outside of the excavated roomblocks. The pueblo was occupied between around A.D. 1225 and 1450, based on evidence from tree ring dates, architectural forms, building technology, and ceramic styles. These characteristics, the mortuary patterns, and other items of material culture recovered at this site are consistent with the archeologically described Upland Mogollon or prehistoric Western Pueblo tradition.
A detailed discussion of the basis for cultural affiliation of archeological sites in the region where the above site is located may be found in “Cultural Affiliation Assessment of White Mountain Apache Tribal Lands (Fort Apache Indian Reservation),” by John R. Welch and T.J. Ferguson (2005). To summarize, archeologists have used the terms Upland Mogollon or prehistoric Western Pueblo to define the archeological complex represented by the Kinishba Pueblo. Material culture characteristics of these traditions include a temporal progression from earlier pit houses to later masonry pueblos, villages organized in room blocks of contiguous dwellings and associated with plazas, rectangular kivas, polished and paint-decorated ceramics, unpainted corrugated ceramics, inhumation burials, cradleboard cranial deformation, grooved stone axes, and bone artifacts. The combination of the material culture attributes and a subsistence pattern of hunting and gathering augmented by maize agriculture helps to identify an earlier group. Archeologists have also remarked that there are strong similarities between this earlier group and present-day tribes included in the Western Pueblo ethnographic group, especially the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico. The similarities in ceramic traditions, burial practices, architectural forms, and settlement patterns have led archeologists to believe that the prehistoric inhabitants of the Mogollon Rim region migrated north and west to the Hopi mesas, and north and east to the Zuni River Valley. Certain objects found in Upland Mogollon archeological sites strongly resemble ritual paraphernalia used by the Hopi and Zuni in continuing religious practices. Some petroglyphs on the Fort Apache Reservation have also persuaded archeologists of continuities between the earlier identified group and current-day Western Pueblo people. Biological information from AZ P:14:1(ASM), a site located close to AZ V:4:1(ASM), supports the view that the prehistoric occupants of the Upland Mogollon region had migrated from various locations to the north and west of the region.
Hopi and Zuni oral traditions parallel the archeological evidence for migration. Migration figures prominently in Hopi oral tradition, which refers to the ancient sites, pottery, stone tools, petroglyphs, and other artifacts left behind by the ancestors as “Hopi Footprints.” This migration history is complex and detailed, and includes traditions relating specific clans to the Mogollon region. Hopi cultural advisors have also identified medicinal and culinary plants at archeological sites in the region. Their knowledge about these plants was passed down to them from the ancestors who inhabited these ancient sites. Migration is also an important attribute of Zuni oral tradition, and includes accounts of Zuni ancestors passing through the Upland Mogollon region. The ancient villages mark the routes of these migrations. Zuni cultural advisors remark that the ancient sites were not abandoned. People returned to these places from time to time, either to reoccupy them or for religious pilgrimages—a practice that has continued to the present day. Archeologists have found ceramic evidence at shrines in the Upland Mogollon region that confirms these reports. Zuni cultural advisors have names for plants endemic to the Mogollon region that do not grow on the Zuni Reservation. They also have knowledge about traditional medicinal and ceremonial uses for these resources, which has been passed down to them from their ancestors. Furthermore, Hopi and Zuni cultural advisors have recognized that their ancestors may have been co-resident at some of the sites in this region during their ancestral migrations.
There are differing points of view regarding the possible presence of Apache people in the Upland Mogollon region during the time that AZ V:4:1(ASM) was occupied. Some Apache traditions describe interactions with Ancestral Pueblo people during this time, but according to these stories, Puebloan people and Apache people were regarded as having separate identities. The White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona, does not claim cultural affiliation with the human remains and associated funerary objects from this site. As reported by Welch and Ferguson (2005), consultations between the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; and White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona, have indicated that none of these tribes wish to pursue claims of affiliation with sites on White Mountain Apache Tribal lands. Moreover, the White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona, supports the repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects from this site, and is ready to assist the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, in their reburial.
Officials of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 133 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Anna Pardo, NAGPRA Coordinator, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for notifying the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona (ASM) have completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and have determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the address in this notice by June 6, 2019.
Anna Pardo, NAGPRA Coordinator, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, and in the physical custody of the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from a location within the boundaries of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Gila County, AZ.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by ASM professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Between 1931 and 1944, human remains representing, at minimum, 164 individuals were removed from site AZ V:4:1(ASM), also known as Kinishba Pueblo, in Gila County, AZ. Legally authorized excavations were conducted by Byron Cummings between 1931 and 1939, under the auspices of ASM and the Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona. Cummings retired in 1937; however, he continued excavating and rebuilding rooms at AZ V:4:1(ASM) until 1944. After 1937, financial support for the project was provided by the Hohokam Museum Association, BIA, and Depression-era Emergency Conservation Work (EWC). Cummings acquired permits for the excavations from 1931 to 1939, but no records of permits exist for excavations after these dates.
Archeological collections from this site were accessioned by ASM in a number of different phases, having been brought to ASM at the end of each field season (1931 to 1939). On January 1, 1936, human remains excavated from AZ V:4:1(ASM) prior to this date were assigned an accession number. In 1986, additional human remains were transferred to ASM from the Western Archaeological and Conservation Center and were accessioned. On January 1, 1938; August 10, 1953; and February 23, 2003, additional archeological materials from this site were found in ASM collections, and were assigned accession numbers. On February 5, 1969, a collection of archeological materials from AZ V:4:1(ASM), that had been housed at the Kinishba Museum and the Southwest Archaeological Center (SWAC) in Globe, AZ, was transferred to ASM and assigned an accession number. No known individuals were identified. The 27 associated funerary objects are one bone awl, 16 ceramic bowls, two ceramic jars, two ceramic sherd artifacts, two quartz crystals, and four shell pendants.
AZ V:4:1(ASM) is a large, plaza-oriented pueblo containing more than 600 rooms arranged in eight masonry room groups (Groups I-VIII) on both sides of a drainage that bisects the site. The complex is set in a valley that is part of the White River drainage. Groups I and II are the largest rooms blocks, each consisting of rectangular arrangements of approximately 200 ground-story rooms with associated plazas. The plaza in Group I consisted of two sections, with a rectangular masonry kiva in the north section, and a bench along the walls of the southern section. The excavations revealed that Group I was a multiple story pueblo.
A detailed discussion of the basis for cultural affiliation of archeological sites in the region where the above site is located may be found in “Cultural Affiliation Assessment of White Mountain Apache Tribal Lands (Fort Apache Indian Reservation),” by John R. Welch and T.J. Ferguson (2005). To summarize, archeologists have used the terms Upland Mogollon or prehistoric Western Pueblo to define the archeological complex represented by the Kinishba Pueblo. Material culture characteristics of these traditions include a temporal progression from earlier pit houses to later masonry pueblos, villages organized in room blocks of contiguous dwellings and associated with plazas, rectangular kivas, polished and paint-decorated ceramics, unpainted corrugated ceramics, inhumation burials, cradleboard cranial deformation, grooved stone axes, and bone artifacts. The combination of the material culture attributes and a subsistence pattern of hunting and gathering augmented by maize agriculture helps to identify an earlier group. Archeologists have also remarked that there are strong similarities between this earlier group and present-day tribes included in the Western Pueblo ethnographic group, especially the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico. The similarities in ceramic traditions, burial practices, architectural forms, and settlement patterns have led archeologists to believe that the prehistoric inhabitants of the Mogollon Rim region migrated north and west to the Hopi mesas, and north and east to the Zuni River Valley. Certain objects found in Upland Mogollon archeological sites have been found to strongly resemble ritual paraphernalia used by the Hopi and Zuni in continuing religious practices. Some petroglyphs on the Fort Apache Reservation have also persuaded archeologists of continuities between the earlier identified group and current-day Western Pueblo people. Biological information from AZ P:14:1(ASM), a site located close to AZ V:4:1(ASM), supports the view that the prehistoric occupants of the Upland Mogollon region had migrated from various locations to the north and west of the region.
Hopi and Zuni oral traditions parallel the archeological evidence for migration. Migration figures prominently in Hopi oral tradition, which refers to the ancient sites, pottery, stone tools, petroglyphs, and other artifacts left behind by the ancestors as “Hopi Footprints.” This migration history is complex and detailed, and includes traditions relating specific clans to the Mogollon region. Hopi cultural advisors have also identified medicinal and culinary plants at archeological sites in the region. Their knowledge about these plants was passed down to them from the ancestors who inhabited these ancient sites. Migration is also an important attribute of Zuni oral tradition, and includes accounts of Zuni ancestors passing through the Upland Mogollon region. The ancient villages mark the routes of these migrations. Zuni cultural advisors remark that the ancient sites were not abandoned. People returned to these places from time to time, either to reoccupy them or for religious pilgrimages—a practice that has continued to the present day. Archeologists have found ceramic evidence at shrines in the Upland Mogollon region that confirms these reports. Zuni cultural advisors have names for plants endemic to the Mogollon region that do not grow on the Zuni Reservation. They also have knowledge about traditional medicinal and ceremonial uses for these resources, which has been passed down to them from their ancestors. Furthermore, Hopi and Zuni cultural advisors have recognized that their ancestors may have been co-resident at some of the sites in this region during their ancestral migrations.
There are differing points of view regarding the possible presence of Apache people in the Upland Mogollon region during the time that AZ V:4:1(ASM) was occupied. Some Apache traditions describe interactions with Ancestral Pueblo people during this time, but according to these stories, Puebloan people and Apache people were regarded as having separate identities. The White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona, does not claim cultural affiliation with the human remains and associated funerary objects from this site. As reported by Welch and Ferguson (2005), consultations between the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; and White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona, have indicated that none of these tribes wish to pursue claims of affiliation with sites on White Mountain Apache Tribal lands. Moreover, the White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona, supports the repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects from this site, and is ready to assist the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, in their reburial.
Officials of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 164 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 27 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Anna Pardo, NAGPRA Coordinator, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for notifying the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the address in this notice by June 6, 2019.
Anna Pardo, Museum Program Manager/NAGPRA Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from a site on or near Black Mesa in Navajo County, AZ.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah.
From 1967 to 1983, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) issued Antiquities Act permits authorizing excavations in the Black Mesa region of Arizona for the purpose of mining coal deposits. The Black Mesa Archaeological Project (BMAP), conducted by staff and students from Prescott College and, later, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIU), gathered archeological and anthropological data on Black Mesa. Initially, the collections were housed at Prescott College. In 1974, Prescott College declared bankruptcy and closed. In 1976, after being housed at Fort Lewis College in Durango, CO, for one year, the BMAP collections and records were transferred to SIU. In October 2018, the BMAP cultural items were transferred to the Museum of Northern Arizona in Flagstaff.
In September 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a site on or near Black Mesa in Navajo County, AZ. The individual removed during the excavation, Many Mules, was reburied in a cemetery in Fort Defiance, AZ. In 2018, research on the collection of BMAP cultural items at SIU revealed fragmentary human remains belonging to Many Mules. The 122 associated funerary objects include leather and cloth fragments, beads, pendants, buttons, large mammal bones, and saddle parts.
Documentary evidence shows that all the associated funerary objects were removed from the burial of Many Mules, who was an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah. Consultation with the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah provided further confirmation.
Officials of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 122 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Anna Pardo, Museum Program Manager/NAGPRA Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for notifying the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the address in this notice by June 6, 2019.
Anna Pardo, Museum Program Manager/NAGPRA Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
From 1967 to 1983, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) issued Antiquities Act permits authorizing excavations in the Black Mesa region of Arizona for the purpose of mining coal deposits. The Black Mesa Archaeological Project (BMAP), conducted by staff and students from Prescott College and, later, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIU), gathered archeological and anthropological data on Black Mesa. Initially, the collections were housed at Prescott College. In 1974, Prescott College declared bankruptcy and closed. In 1976, after being housed at Fort Lewis College in Durango, CO, for one year, the BMAP collections and records were transferred to SIU. In October 2018, the BMAP cultural items were transferred to the Museum of Northern Arizona in Flagstaff.
In July 1971, three cultural items were removed from a site on or near Black Mesa in Navajo County, AZ. The individual removed during the excavation, an unnamed infant from the Begay family, was reburied in a cemetery in Fort Defiance, AZ, at the request of his maternal grandmother, Bessie Begay. The three unassociated funerary objects are cloth fragments from burial blankets.
In July 1971, 110 cultural items were removed from a site on or near Black Mesa in Navajo County, AZ. The individual removed during the excavation, Etsitty Begay, was reburied in a cemetery in Fort Defiance, AZ, at the request of his son, Fred Smith. The 110 unassociated funerary objects include saddle parts, sediment, fabric and leather fragments, metal cans and metal fragments, one mano, and glass fragments.
In July 1971, 33 cultural items were removed from a site on or near Black Mesa in Navajo County, AZ. The individual removed during the excavation, Many Mule's Daughter, was reburied in a cemetery in Fort Defiance, AZ, at the request of her daughter, Bessie Begay. The 33 unassociated funerary objects include a wooden brush, two shoes, soil samples, mano fragments, fabric samples, and juniper berries.
Documentary evidence shows that all the unassociated funerary objects were removed from burials of three individuals who were all enrolled members of the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah. Consultation with the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah provided further confirmation.
Officials of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 146 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Anna Pardo, Museum Program Manager/NAGPRA Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for notifying the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Fowler Museum at University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Fowler Museum at UCLA. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Fowler Museum at UCLA at the address in this notice by June 6, 2019.
Wendy G. Teeter, Ph.D., Fowler Museum at UCLA, Box 951549, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1549, telephone (310) 825-1864, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Fowler Museum at University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. The human remains were removed from site CA-INY-3826 in Inyo County, CA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Fowler Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California) and the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe (previously listed as the Death Valley Timbi-sha Shoshone Tribe and the Death Valley Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band of California), hereafter referred to as “The Tribes.”
In May 1991, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from CA-INY-3826 (Pagunda) in Inyo County, CA. This collection was excavated by George Gumerman IV as part of a UCLA Archaeology Survey project. It was taken with him for analysis to Northern Arizona University, where he taught, and was transferred to the Fowler Museum at UCLA in 2017. Radiocarbon dates from the site provide a range from A.D. 1140 to 1370, although the site is recorded in the late 1800s as an occupied village by Shoshone people. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Pagunda is an ethnographically documented village near Little Lake. During 1870, it was occupied primarily by Western Shoshone people (approximately 50-70). Culturally, the archeological materials recovered from the site are consistent for the Owens Valley Western Shoshone people who continue to live in the region. Both the Lone Paiute Shoshone Tribe and the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe of Death Valley include descendants from this village.
Officials of the Fowler Museum at University of California Los Angeles have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and The Tribes.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Wendy G. Teeter, Ph.D., Fowler Museum at UCLA, Box 951549, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1549, telephone (310) 825-1864, email
The Fowler Museum at UCLA is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) is proposing to renew an information collection. ONRR seeks renewed authority to collect information necessary to report the production and royalties on solid minerals and geothermal resources from Federal and Indian lands. In addition to requesting renewed authority for ONRR to collect solid minerals and geothermal information without the use of a form, ONRR seeks renewed authority for four specific ONRR forms. The four forms are the Coal Washing Allowance Report, form ONRR-4292 (ONRR-4292); the Coal Transportation Allowance Report, form ONRR-4293 (ONRR-4293); the Solid Minerals Production and Royalty Report, form ONRR-4430 (ONRR-4430); and the Solid Minerals Sales Summary, form ONRR-4440 (ONRR-4440).
You must submit your written comments on or before July 8, 2019.
You may submit comments on this ICR to ONRR by using one of the following three methods (please reference “ICR 1012-0010” in the subject line of your comments):
1. Electronically go to
2. Mail comments to Mr. Armand Southall, Regulatory Specialist, ONRR, P.O. Box 25165, MS 64400B, Denver, Colorado 80225-0165.
3. Hand-carry or mail comments, using an overnight courier service, to ONRR. Our courier address is Building 85, Entrance N-1, Denver Federal Center, West 6th Ave. and Kipling St., Denver, Colorado 80225.
For questions on technical issues, contact Mr. Michael Anspach, Solid Minerals, ONRR, telephone at (303) 231-3618, or email to
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues mentioned in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1): (1) Is the collection necessary to perform the proper functions of ONRR; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might ONRR enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might ONRR 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. ONRR will post all comments, including names and addresses of respondents at
The Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior is responsible for mineral resource development on Federal and Indian lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Under various laws, the Secretary's responsibility is to (1) manage mineral resources production from Federal and Indian lands and the OCS; (2) collect the royalties and other mineral revenues due; and (3) distribute the funds collected. We have posted those laws pertaining to mineral leases on Federal and Indian lands and the OCS at
The Secretary also has a trust responsibility to manage Indian lands and seek advice and information from Indian beneficiaries. ONRR performs the minerals revenue management functions for the Secretary and assists the Secretary in carrying out the Department's trust responsibility for Indian lands.
When a company or an individual enters into a lease to explore, develop, produce, and sell, or otherwise dispose of, minerals from Federal or Indian lands, that company or individual agrees to pay the lessor a share in a value of production from the leased lands. The lessee or designee must report various kinds of information to the lessor relative to the disposition of the leased minerals. Such information is generally available within the records of the lessee or others involved in developing, transporting, processing, purchasing, or selling such minerals.
Information collections that we cover in this ICR are found at title 30 of the
• 1202, subpart H, which pertains to geothermal resources royalties.
• 1206, subparts F, H and J, which pertain to product valuation of Federal coal, geothermal resources and Indian coal.
• 1210, subparts E and H, which pertain to production and royalty reports on solid minerals and geothermal resources leases.
• 1212, subparts E and H, which pertain to recordkeeping of reports and files for solid minerals and geothermal resources leases.
• 1217, subparts E, F and G, which pertain to audits and inspections of coal, other solid minerals and geothermal resources leases.
• 1218, subparts E and F, which pertain to royalties, rentals, bonuses and other monies payment for solid minerals and geothermal resources.
All data reported is subject to subsequent audit and adjustment.
ONRR, acting for the Secretary, uses the information that we collect to ensure that lessees accurately value and appropriately pay all royalties based on the correct product valuation. ONRR and other Federal government entities, including the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and State and Tribal governmental entities, use the information for audit purposes and for evaluating the reasonableness of product valuation or allowance claims that lessees submit. Please refer to the burden hour chart for all reporting requirements and associated burden hours.
Producers of coal and other solid minerals from any Federal or Indian lease must submit to ONRR monthly form ONRR-4430 reports. In addition, producers must submit sales summaries using form ONRR-4440, which ONRR requires every month Federal or Indian production is sold. ONRR also collects sales contracts, facility data, and other unique solid minerals information that it collects without the use of ONRR forms. These companies also report certain data on form ONRR-2014, but these burdens are covered under another ICR (OMB Control Number 1012-0004). Producers of coal from any Indian lease must also submit forms ONRR-4292 and ONRR-4293, if they wish to claim coal washing and coal transportation allowances on form ONRR-4430. The information that
This ICR also covers some of the information collections for geothermal resources, which ONRR groups by usage (electrical generation, direct use, and byproduct recovery), and by disposition of the resources (arm's-length (unaffiliated) contract sales, non-arm's-length contract sales, and no contract sales) within each use group. ONRR relies primarily on data that payors report on form ONRR-2014 (OMB Control Number 1012-0004) for the majority of our business processes related to geothermal information. However, this ICR includes the information ONRR requires to further its mission with respect to geothermal resources that do not involve an ONRR form. In addition to using the data to account for royalties that payors report, ONRR uses the data for monthly distribution of mineral revenues and for audit and compliance reviews.
We will request OMB approval to continue to collect this information. Not collecting this information would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge fiduciary duties and may also result in the loss of royalty payments. We protect the proprietary information that ONRR receives and do not collect items of a sensitive nature. Reporters must maintain records relating to their solid minerals and geothermal resources and solid minerals producers must also submit forms ONRR-4430 and ONRR-4440. The solid minerals and geothermal resources information ONRR collects without the use of a form are required to obtain a benefit. Also, ONRR requires that reporters submit forms ONRR-4292 and ONRR-4293 to claim allowances on form ONRR-4430.
We have not included in our estimates certain requirements that companies perform in the normal course of business and that ONRR considers usual and customary. We display the estimated annual burden hours by CFR section and paragraph in the following chart.
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.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is publishing this notice to announce that a Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) will take place.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 22, 2019, via WebEx/conference call beginning at 9:00 a.m. (MDT) and concluding four (4) hours later in the respective time zones.
See
Kathleen Callister, Bureau of Reclamation, telephone (801) 524-3781; email at
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552B, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
1. Go to:
2. If requested, enter your name and email address.
3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: AMWG.
4. Click “Join Now”.
• Phone Number: (877) 913-4721.
• Passcode: 3330168.
• Event Number: 823 039 379.
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.
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 Lighting Science Group Corporation; Healthe, Inc., and Global Value Lighting, LLC on April 30, 2019. 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 light-emitting diode products, systems, and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: Nichia Corporation of Japan; Nichia America Corporation of Wixom, MI; Cree, Inc. of Durham, NC; Cree Hong Kong, Limited of Hong Kong; Cree Huizhou Solid State Lighting Co. Ltd. of China; OSRAM GmbH of Germany; OSRAM Licht AG of Germany; OSRAM Opto Semiconductors GmbH of Germany; OSRAM Opto Semiconductors, Inc. of Sunnyvale, CA; Lumileds Holding B.V. of the Netherlands; Lumileds, LLC of San Jose, CA; Signify N.V. (f/k/a Philips Lighting N.V.) of the Netherlands; Signify North America Corporation (f/k/a Philips Lighting North America Corporation) of Somerset, NJ; MLS Co., Ltd. of China; LEDVANCE GmbH of Germany; LEDVANCE LLC of Wilmington, MA; General Electric Company of Boston, MA; Consumer Lighting (U.S.), LLC (d/b/a GE Lighting, LLC) of Cleveland, OH; Acuity Brands, Inc. of Atlanta, GA; Acuity Brands Lighting Inc. of Conyers, GA; Eaton Corporation plc of Ireland; Cooper Lighting, LLC of Peachtree City, GA; Cooper Industries, LLC of Houston, TX; Leedarson Lighting Co., Ltd. of China; and Leedarson America, Inc. of Smyrna, GA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential 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
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 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.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigations Nos. 701-TA-623 and 731-TA-1449 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of vertical metal file cabinets from China, provided for in subheading 9403.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Government of China. Unless the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by June 14, 2019. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by June 21, 2019.
April 30, 2019.
Jessica Oliva (202) 205-3432, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge has issued a final Initial Determination on violation of section 337 and a Recommended Determination on remedy and bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, should the Commission find a section 337 violation. This notice is soliciting public interest comments from the public only. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to Commission rules.
Amanda Pitcher Fisherow, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), provides that if the Commission finds a violation, it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry. 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1). A similar provision applies to cease and desist orders. 19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1).
The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, should the Commission find a violation,
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in this investigation. Accordingly, parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). In addition, members of the public are hereby invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on remedy and bond issued in this investigation on April 26, 2019. Comments should address whether issuance of the LEO and CDO in this investigation, should the Commission find a violation, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainants, their licensees, or third parties make in
(iv) indicate whether complainants, complainants' licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the LEO and CDO would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions from the public must be filed no later than close of business on Monday, June 3, 2019.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1098”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page.
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review, 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 8, 2019.
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 Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director, Office of Policy, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2500, Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone: (703) 305-0289.
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.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Notice of solicitation of comments.
The Office of Management and Budget OMB is seeking comment on the differences among the various consumer price indexes produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), and in particular how those differences might influence the estimation of the Official Poverty Measure (OPM) and other income measures produced by the Census Bureau. Based on the comments received and internal discussions with experts, OMB will consider the need to update the specific inflation measure used to adjust the OPM, as well as the need for guidance to Federal agencies to communicate the strengths, weaknesses, and best practices for selecting and using the different indexes.
Comments must be submitted in writing. To ensure consideration of comments, they must be received no later than 45 days from the publication of this notice. Because of delays in the receipt of regular mail related to security screening, respondents are encouraged to send comments electronically (see
Comments may be addressed to: Nancy Potok, Chief Statistician, Office of Management and Budget, fax number (202) 395-7245. Email comments may be sent to
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public. 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. 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 information about this request for comments, contact Bob Sivinski, Office of Management and Budget, 9257 New Executive Office Building, 725 17th St. NW, Washington, DC 20006, telephone (202) 395-1205, or
Under the
In its role as coordinator of the Federal statistical system under the
Accordingly, OMB is seeking public comment on the strengths, weaknesses, and best practices for the application of the following consumer inflation measures: The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), the Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U), the Consumer Price Index Research Series (CPI-U-RS), and the experimental Consumer Price Index for Urban Elderly Consumers (CPI-E), all produced by BLS, and the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index (PCEPI) produced by BEA.
Inflation is defined as a rise in the general level of prices (and deflation as a decline in the general level of prices). Equivalently, inflation represents a decline in the purchasing power of money. As a general matter, adjusting statistics and other data for inflation better reflects consumers' actual experiences over time. There are many different ways in which actual indexes attempt to capture this change in the level of prices. Specifically, the inflation measures produced by BLS and BEA differ in their scope, weighting, and formulas, consistent with their original purposes. These measures are continually evaluated to ensure they are objective, accurate, relevant, and timely, thereby maintaining the integrity of official government statistics.
Congress sometimes requires agencies to use a specific inflation measure for specific programs. For example, Public Law 115-97 directs the IRS to adjust federal income tax brackets for inflation with the C-CPI-U. In other instances, Congressional guidance may be absent or less specific, and agencies exercise their discretion in choosing an index to calculate inflation-adjusted statistics. In cases where Congress has not required a specific methodology, agencies should use the measure of inflation most appropriate for the purpose of the program.
OMB is seeking comment about how the relative strengths and weakness of the measures might affect the estimation of the OPM and other income measures produced by the Census Bureau. OMB will also consider the need for guidance to Federal agencies on the differences among the indexes.
To produce its inflation measures, BLS tracks the change in price of a collection of consumer goods and services over time. Those items are then weighted using survey data to represent the experience of consumers in their day-to-day living expenses, with each of the CPI measures reflecting different item substitution rates, consumer populations, or other attributes. OMB is
The all urban consumer group is designed to be representative of about 93 percent of the total U.S. population. It is based on the expenditures of almost all residents of metropolitan or micropolitan areas. The population scope includes professionals, the self-employed, the unemployed, retired persons, as well as urban wage earners and clerical workers. Not included in the CPI-U are the spending patterns of people living in rural areas (defined as outside of any metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area), those in farm households, Armed Forces members and their families, and those in institutions such as prisons and mental hospitals.
The CPI-U is used extensively for official purposes such as: To derive the official poverty thresholds, to adjust Treasury inflation-indexed securities, to deflate nominal values in a variety of measures, and until recently, to adjust federal tax brackets.
The CPI-W represents the expenditures of households included in the CPI-U definition that also meet two additional requirements: More than one-half of the household's income must come from clerical or wage occupations, and at least one of the household's earners must have been a full-time worker, that is employed for at least 37 weeks during the previous 12 months. The CPI-W population represents about 29 percent of the total U.S. population and 31 percent of the CPI-U population. The CPI-U and the CPI-W share the same components (item strata) and differ only in population coverage and the weights used to aggregate these components.
The CPI-W is used to adjust Social Security benefits and many other Federal transfer payments. The percentage of the population within the CPI-W definition has declined over time, and the CPI-U, which was first published in 1978, has become more widely used. The CPI-W corresponds closely to the population used in computing the CPI from its inception during the World War I era through 1978.
Both the CPI-U and C-CPI-U are indexes designed to measure price changes faced by urban consumers. The C-CPI-U is distinguished from the CPI-U by the expenditure weights and price index formulas used to produce aggregate measures of price change. The C-CPI-U employs a formula that reflects the effect of substitution that consumers make across component item categories, for example in response to changes in relative prices. The formula used in the CPI-U and CPI-W does not capture consumer spending response to changing relative prices across the component item categories.
The C-CPI-U formula uses expenditure data that is not available until several months after the reference month. Because of this, C-CPI-U estimates produced for the reference month alongside the CPI-U are calculated using estimates of the expenditure data and then revised later when the actual expenditure data are available, usually becoming a final estimate 10 to 12 months after the initial publication. The C-CPI-U was first published in 2002.
The CPI-E uses the same price surveys and formulas as the CPI-U and CPI-W, but uses expenditure weights for households with a reference person or spouse aged 62 years or older. As currently produced, the CPI-E captures the household budgets of the elderly population, which differ from the non-elderly population for notable items such as medical care and shelter. However, the CPI-E does not capture that the elderly population might shop at different places, purchase different specific products and services, or in some cases receive specific price discounts.
The CPI-E is an experimental index and is not currently used for official purposes.
The CPI-U-RS presents an estimate of the CPI-U from 1978 to present that incorporates most of the improvements made over that time span into the entire series. The CPI-U-RS therefore provides an estimate of what the CPI-U would have looked like had current methodology been in place since 1978.
In addition to the BLS CPI measures described above, OMB also seeks comment on the PCEPI chain type price index produced by BEA.
The PCEPI is a measure of the prices that people and nonprofit institutions pay for goods and services. The PCEPI uses mainly CPI series along with some Producer Price Index series, also produced by BLS, as well as price indexes from other Federal agencies. The PCEPI differs from the CPI in weighting, formula, and scope. A summary of these differences can be found at the BEA website:
More information on each of these measures can be found at the BLS website:
OMB's Statistical Policy Directive No. 14 (Directive No.14), issued in May 1978, specifies the use of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in the annual adjustments of poverty thresholds (the OPM) calculated and published by the Census Bureau. Specifically, the directive states:
In practice, the CPI-U has been the index used for the annual adjustments. This policy has not been reevaluated since the introduction of new consumer inflation measures, such as the C-CPI-U. OMB is currently reevaluating the appropriateness of the use of the CPI-U for annual adjustment in the OPM. To assist in this reevaluation, OMB assembled an interagency technical working group to study an array of possible price change measures and to make a recommendation to OMB on potentially revising the current method for adjusting the OPM. The comments received under this Notice will be reviewed and considered by the technical working group in developing their recommendation to OMB.
The OPM, also known as the poverty threshold, should not be confused with the poverty guidelines produced annually by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. While the poverty thresholds are used for calculating official poverty population statistics, the poverty guidelines are used for administrative purposes. Most commonly the poverty thresholds are used by a number of federal, state, local, and non-profit programs, such as
OMB is seeking comment from the public on: (1) The strengths and weaknesses of the indexes for different applications or uses; (2) the strengths and weaknesses of the use of the CPI-U to make annual adjustments to the OPM, as established in OMB's Statistical Policy Directive #14, and discussion of potential alternative indexes; (3) the strengths and weaknesses of the different indexes for making annual adjustments to the historical income figures produced by the Census Bureau; (4) the need for and feasibility of guidance from OMB or other Federal source explaining the differences between indexes and best practices for their use; (5) recommendations for the use of the PCEPI and C-CPI-U for the production of official statistics, considering that both measures are revised after initial release.
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice; request for comments.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) will be requesting from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reinstatement, without change, of NEH's Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery. This generic clearance will fast-track the process for NEH to seek feedback from the public, through surveys and similar feedback instruments, regarding NEH services and programs.
Please submit comments by July 8, 2019.
Submit comments to Michael McDonald, General Counsel, National Endowment for the Humanities: 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20506, or
Michael McDonald, General Counsel, National Endowment for the Humanities: 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20506, or
NEH will solicit feedback in areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. NEH will use the responses to plan and inform its efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service and programs offered to the public. If this information is not collected, NEH will not have access to vital feedback from customers and stakeholders about the agency's services and programs.
NEH will only submit an information collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or who may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary, and is not retained;
• Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency (if released, NEH will indicate the qualitative nature of the information);
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information, and the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but will not yield data that can be generalize to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
NEH will make comments submitted in response to this notice, including names and addresses where provided, a matter of public record. NEH will summarize the comments and include them in the request for OMB approval. We are requesting comments on all aspects of this generic clearance request, including: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. The majority of these meetings will take place at NSF, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an individual basis in the
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Attendance information for the meeting will be forthcoming on the website:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from April 9, 2019, to April 22, 2019. The last biweekly notice was published on April 23, 2019.
Comments must be filed by June 6, 2019. A request for a hearing must be filed by July 8, 2019.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0112, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2019-0112, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed activity involves the revision of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) Units 1 and 2 Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.12, Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program, to allow the extension of the Type A integrated leakage rate test (ILRT) containment test interval to 15 years, and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. Per the guidance provided in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 94-01, Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Revision 3-A, the current Type A test interval of 120 months (
The proposed interval extensions do not involve either a physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. As such, the
The change in Type A test frequency to once-per-fifteen-years, measured as an increase to the total integrated plant risk for those accident sequences influenced by Type A testing, based on the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is 4.98E-03 person-rem/year for Unit 1 and 4.67E-03 person-rem/year for Unit 2. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Report No. 1009325, Revision 2-A states that a very small population dose is defined as an increase of less than 1.0 person-rem per year or less than 1 percent of the total population dose, whichever is less restrictive for the risk impact assessment of the extended ILRT intervals. This is consistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Final Safety Evaluation for NEI 94-01 and EPRI Report No. 1009325, Revision 2A. Moreover, the risk impact when compared to other severe accident risks is negligible. Therefore, the proposed extension does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
In addition, as documented in NUREG-1493, “Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program,” dated September 1995, Types B and C tests have identified a very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is very small. The BSEP Unit 1 and Unit 2 Type A test history supports this conclusion.
The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based, and (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative controls such as configuration management and procedural requirements for system restoration ensure that containment integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance activities. The design and construction requirements of the containment combined with the containment inspections performed in accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code, Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Containment Maintenance Rule Inspections, Containment Coatings Program and TS requirements serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by a Type A test (ILRT). Based on the above, the proposed test interval extensions do not significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment also proposes administrative changes to the exceptions in Units 1 and 2 TS 5.5.12.c and f. TS exception 5.5.12.c reference[s] NEI 94-01 Revision 0 and TS exception 5.5.12.f reference[s] ANSI/ANS [American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society] 56.8-1994. This change proposes to update the referenced documents in these two TS exceptions to reflect the adoption of NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A and ANSI/ANS 56.8-2002, accordingly. This administrative change does not impact any accidents previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment to the BSEP Units 1 and 2 TS 5.5.12, “Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” involves the extension of the BSEP, Units 1 and 2 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident.
The proposed change does not involve a physical modification to the plant (
The proposed amendment also proposes administrative changes to the exceptions in Units 1 and 2 TS 5.5.12.c and f. TS exception 5.5.12.c reference[s] NEI 94-01 Revision 0 and TS exception 5.5.12.f reference[s] ANSI/ANS 56.8-1994. This change proposes to update the referenced documents in these two TS exceptions to reflect the adoption of NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A and ANSI/ANS 56.8-2002, accordingly. This administrative change to the references listed in TS 5.5.12.c and f, does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed amendment to Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS 5.5.12 involves the extension of the BSEP Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C to 75 months. This amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained.
The proposed change involves the extension of the interval between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for BSEP, Units 1 and 2. The proposed surveillance interval extension is bounded by the 15-year ILRT interval and the 75-month Type C test interval currently authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. Industry experience supports the conclusion that Type B and C testing detects a large percentage of containment leakage paths and that the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is small. The containment inspections performed in accordance with Option B to 10 CFR 50, Appendix J and the overlapping inspection activities performed as part of ASME Section Xl, and the TS serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of these factors ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance criteria for Types A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the acceptance of this proposed change, since these are not affected by changes to the Type A and Type C test intervals.
The proposed amendment also proposes administrative changes to the exceptions in Units 1 and 2 TS 5.5.12. Two exceptions listed in the Units 1 and 2 TS 5.5.12 contain references to revisions and years of the ANSI/ANS 56.8 and NEI 94-01. Units 1 and 2 TS 5.5.12 exception c references NEI 94-01, Revision 0 and Units 1 and 2 TS 5.5.12 exception f references ANSI/ANS 56.8-1994. This change proposes to update the referenced documents in these two TS exceptions to reflect the adoption of NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A and ANSI/ANS 56.8-2002, accordingly. This administrative change does not change how the unit is operated or maintained, thus there is no reduction in any margins of safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change revises SR 3.4.3.2 and SR 3.5.1.11 by replacing the current requirement to verify the SRVs open when manually actuated with an alternate requirement that verifies the SRVs are capable of being opened through a series of overlapping tests and updating the frequency to be in accordance with the IST Program. It does not require any modification to the plant and it does not alter the design configuration, or method of operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional capabilities. The proposed change will not introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change revises SR 3.4.3.2 and SR 3.5.1.11 by replacing the current requirement to verify the SRVs open when manually actuated with an alternate requirement that verifies the SRVs are capable of being opened through a series of overlapping tests and updating the frequency to be in accordance with the IST Program. The proposed SR testing will continue to demonstrate proper SRV operation without the need for in-situ testing with reactor steam. It does not alter or exceed a design basis or safety limit. There is no change being made to safety analysis assumptions or the safety limits that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed change and the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(3) will continue to be met.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change to the PNP [renewed facility operating license] RFOL to change the full compliance date for the fire protection program transition license condition to allow additional time for the implementation of the remaining modifications necessary to achieve full compliance with 10 CFR 50.48(c) is administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents, and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change to the PNP RFOL [Renewed Facility Operating License] to change the full compliance date for the fire protection program transition license condition to allow additional time for the implementation of the remaining modifications necessary to achieve full compliance with 10 CFR 50.48(c) is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change to the PNP RFOL to change the full compliance implementation date for the fire protection program transition license condition to allow additional time for implementation of the remaining modifications necessary to achieve full compliance with 10 CFR 50.48(c) is administrative in nature. Plant safety margins
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes permit the extension of Completion Times provided the associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated because the changes involve no change to the plant or its modes of operation. The proposed changes do not increase the consequences of an accident because the design-basis mitigation function of the affected systems is not changed and the consequences of an accident during the extended Completion Time are no different from those during the existing Completion Time.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not change the design, configuration, or method of operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different kind of equipment will be installed).
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes permit the extension of Completion Times provided that risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The proposed changes implement a risk-informed configuration management program to assure that adequate margins of safety are maintained. Application of these new specifications and the configuration management program considers cumulative effects of multiple systems or components being out of service and does so more effectively than the current TS.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring supported Technical Specifications (TS) systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform its required safety function. Entrance into Actions or delaying entrance into Actions is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of an accident while relying on the delay time allowed before declaring a TS supported system inoperable and taking its Conditions and Required Actions are no different than the consequences of an accident under the same plant conditions while relying on the existing TS supported system Conditions and Required Actions. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased by this change.
Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change restores an allowance in the pre-Improved Standard Technical Specifications (ISTS) conversion TS that was unintentionally eliminated by the conversion. The pre-ISTS TS were considered to provide an adequate margin of safety for plant operation, as does the post-ISTS conversion TS.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The technical specification requirements associated with the proposed change to the TS are not initiators of any accidents previously evaluated, so the probability of accidents previously evaluated is unaffected by the proposed change. The proposed change does not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant structure, system, or component (SSC). The capability of any operable TS-required SSC to perform its specified safety function is not impacted by the proposed change. As a result, the outcomes of accidents previously evaluated are unaffected. Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not challenge the integrity or performance of any safety-related systems. No plant equipment is installed or removed, and the change does not alter the design, physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC. No physical changes are made to the plant, so no new causal mechanisms are introduced. Therefore, the proposed change to the TS does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The ability of any operable SSC to perform its designated safety function is unaffected by the proposed change. The proposed change does not alter any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or method of operating the plant. The change does not adversely affect plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment would modify the FCS facility operating license by revising the emergency plan and EAL scheme. FCS has permanently ceased power operations and is permanently defueled. The proposed amendment is conditioned on all spent nuclear fuel being removed from wet storage in the SFP and placed in dry storage within the ISFSI. Occurrence of postulated accidents associated with spent fuel stored in a SFP is no longer credible in a SFP devoid of such fuel. The proposed amendment has no effect on plant systems, structures, or components (SSC) and no effect on the capability of any plant SSC to perform its design function. The proposed amendment would not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant SSC. The proposed amendment would have no effect on any of the previously evaluated accidents in the FCS [Defueled Safety Analysis Report] DSAR.
Because FCS has permanently ceased power operations, the generation of fission products has ceased and the remaining source term continues to decay. This continues to significantly reduce the consequences of previously evaluated postulated accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment constitutes a revision of the emergency planning function commensurate with the ongoing and anticipated reduction in radiological source term at FCS.
The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of the plant. No new or different types of equipment will be installed and there are no physical modifications to existing equipment as a result of the
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Because the 10 CFR part 50 license for FCS no longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible. With all spent nuclear fuel transferred out of wet storage from the SFP and placed in dry storage within the ISFSI, a fuel handling accident is no longer credible. There are no credible events that would result in radiological releases beyond the site boundary exceeding the EPA PAG exposure levels, as detailed in the EPA's PAG Manual “Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents” dated January 2017 (EPA PAG Manual).
The proposed amendment does not involve a change in the plant's design, configuration, or operation. The proposed amendment does not affect either the way in which the plant SSCs perform their safety function or their design margins. Because there is no change to the physical design of the plant, there is no change to these margins.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to the Diablo Canyon Power [Nuclear] Plant (DCPP) emergency action levels (EALs) do not physically impact the plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed changes neither adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of SSCs to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within assumed acceptance limits. No operating procedures or administrative controls that function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected by the proposed changes. A concurrent accident with a hostile action is not assumed to occur.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Margin of safety is associated with the ability of the fission product barriers (
The proposed changes do not impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The proposed changes do not affect the Technical Specifications or the Operating Licenses. The proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits and will not relax any safety system settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. The Emergency Plan will continue to activate an emergency response commensurate with the extent of degradation of plant safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the safety limits as described in the plant-specific TS. In addition, the limiting safety system settings and limiting control settings continue to be met with the proposed changes to the plant-specific TS SRs. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events.
The proposed changes do not result in any increase in probability of an analyzed accident occurring and maintain the initial conditions and operating limits required by the accident analysis, and the analyses of normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences, so that the consequences of postulated accidents are not changed.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the safety limits as described in the plant- specific TS. In addition, the limiting safety system settings and limiting control settings continue to be met with the proposed changes to the plant-specific TS limiting conditions for operation, applicability, actions, and SRs. The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created.
These proposed changes do not adversely affect any other SSC design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, this activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that results in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes do not affect the safety limits as described in the plant- specific TS. In addition, the limiting safety system settings and limiting control settings continue to be met with the proposed changes to the plant-specific TS limiting conditions for operation, applicability, actions, and SRs. The proposed changes do not affect the initial conditions and operating limits required by the accident analysis, and the analyses of normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences, so that the acceptance limits specified in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) are not exceeded. The proposed changes satisfy the same safety functions in accordance with the same requirements as stated in the UFSAR. These changes do not adversely affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change eliminates second Completion Times from the TS. Completion Times are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences of an accident during the revised Completion Time are no different than the consequences of the same accident during the existing Completion Times. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, or components from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite nor significant increase [in] individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change to delete the second Completion Times does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or LCOs are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside of the design basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water inventory in Mode 4 (
The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of configurations with unacceptably short drain times.
These requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event. The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event.
The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be Operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining event because the proposed Required Actions ensure equipment is available within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of water injection and additional confirmations that containment and/or filtration would be available if needed.
The proposed change reduces or eliminates some requirements that were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect the consequences of any accident previously evaluated because a draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond to a draining event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change will not alter the design function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some systems that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no different than if those systems were unable to perform their function under the current TS requirements.
The event of concern under the current requirements and the proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design and licensing bases.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. New requirements are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water inventory could drain to the top of the fuel in the reactor vessel should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth to ensure that the Safety Limit is protected and to protect the public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety and to add safety margin.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to TS LCO 3.6.3 and SR 3.6.3.1 have no effect on the requirement for systems to be OPERABLE and have no effect on the application of TS actions. Since the proposed change does not significantly
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change to update the TS does not affect the design or function of any plant systems. The proposed change does not change the Operability requirements for plant systems or the actions taken when plant systems are not OPERABLE.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change updates TS LCO 3.6.3, Required Action D.1 to remove use of a blind flange. It does not result in changes in plant operation. The proposed change to SR 3.6.3.1 removes the use of a blind flange. As a result, plant safety is either improved or unaffected.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 18, 2019.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 19, 2019.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 18, 2019.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 10, 2019.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 22, 2019.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 16, 2019.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 11, 2019.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 10, 2019.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 18, 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation E (17 CFR 230.601 to 230.610a) exempts from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
Respondents to this collection of information include SBICs and BDCs making an offering of securities pursuant to Regulation E. Two filings were submitted to the Commission under rule 607 in 2016, 2017, and 2018. Accordingly, we estimate one annual response. Each respondent's reporting burden under rule 607 relates to the burden associated with filing its sales material electronically, which is negligible. For administrative purposes, we estimate an annual burden of one hour. The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and is not derived from a quantitative, comprehensive, or even representative survey or study of the burdens associated with Commission rules and forms.
The requirements of this collection of information are mandatory. Responses will not be kept confidential. 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 control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Charles Riddle, Acting Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
On March 1, 2019, NYSE Arca, Inc (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending this 45-day time period. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposal so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act provides that broker-dealers registered with the Commission must make and keep records, furnish copies of the records, and make and disseminate
The Commission estimates that there are approximately 3,747 broker-dealers registered with the Commission. As noted above, all broker-dealers registered with the Commission are required to file Form Custody with their DEA once each calendar quarter. Based on staff experience, the Commission estimates that, on average, it would take a broker-dealer approximately 12 hours to complete and file Form Custody, for an annual industry-wide reporting burden of approximately 179,856 hours.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Charles Riddle, Acting Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.
The meeting will be held in Auditorium LL-002 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at
The subject matters of the Open Meeting will be the Commission's consideration of:
1. Whether to propose certain rule amendments and interpretive guidance regarding the cross-border application of certain security-based swap requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that were added by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
2. Whether to propose amendments to the accelerated filer and large accelerated filer definitions to promote capital formation for smaller reporting issuers by more appropriately tailoring the types of issuers that are included in the categories of accelerated and large accelerated filers and revising the transition thresholds for these filers.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17Ad-17 requires certain transfer agents and broker-dealers to make two searches for the correct address of lost securityholders using an information database without charge to the lost securityholders. In addition, paying agents are required to attempt to notify lost payees at least once. In addition, the entities also are required to maintain records relating to the searches and notifications. The Commission staff estimates that the rule applies to approximately 507 broker dealers and transfer agents, and 2,705 paying agent entities, including carrying firms, transfer agents, indenture trustees, custodians, and approximately 10% of issuers. The Commission staff estimates that the total annual burden for searches is approximately 183,813 hours and the total annual burden for paying agent notifications is approximately 33,850 hours. In addition, approximately 5,765 burden hours are associated with recordkeeping, representing an annual burden of 4,411 hours for the broker-dealers and transfer agents, and 1,354 for paying agents. The Commission staff estimates that the aggregate annual burden is therefore approximately
In addition, the Commission staff estimates that covered entities will incur costs of approximately $6,617,298 annually, primarily as payment to third party data base providers that will search for the missing securityholders.
The retention period for the recordkeeping requirement under Rule 17Ad-17 is not less than three years. The recordkeeping requirement under this rule is mandatory to assist the Commission in monitoring compliance with the rule. This rule does not involve the collection of confidential information.
Written comments are invited on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Charles Riddle, Acting Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.
Rule 17a-8 (17 CFR 270.17a-8) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The average annual burden of meeting the requirements of rule 17a-8 is estimated to be 7 hours for each fund. The Commission staff estimates that each year approximately 468 funds rely on the rule. The estimated total average annual burden for all respondents therefore is 3,276 hours.
The average cost burden of preparing a report by an independent evaluator in a merger with an unregistered entity is estimated to be $15,000. The average net cost burden of obtaining approval of a merger transaction by a majority of a fund's outstanding voting securities is estimated to be $100,000. The Commission staff estimates that each year approximately 0 mergers with unregistered entities occur and approximately 137 funds hold shareholder votes that would not otherwise have held a shareholder vote. The total annual cost burden of meeting these requirements is estimated to be $13,700,000.
The estimates of average burden hours and average cost burdens are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study. 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.
Written comments are requested on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Charles Riddle, Acting Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act, as well as from certain disclosure requirements in rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Susan L. Walzer, Carillon Tower Advisers, Inc., 880 Carillon Parkway, St. Petersburg, FL 33716 and Kathy Kresch Ingber, K&L Gates LLP, 1601 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.
Jessica Shin, Attorney-Adviser, at (202) 551-3685, or Kaitlin C. Bottock, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number or an Applicant using the “Company” name box, at
1. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser,
2. Applicants also request an order exempting the Subadvised Funds (as defined below) from the Disclosure Requirements, which require each Fund to disclose fees paid to a Subadviser. Applicants seek relief to permit each Subadvised Fund to disclose (as a dollar amount and a percentage of the Fund's net assets): (i) The aggregate fees paid to the Adviser and any Wholly-Owned Subadvisers; and (ii) The aggregate fees paid to Affiliated and Non-Affiliated Subadvisers (“Aggregate Fee Disclosure”).
3. Applicants request that the relief apply to Applicants, as well as to any future Fund and any other existing or future registered open-end management investment company or series thereof that intends to rely on the requested order in the future and that: (i) Is advised by the Adviser; (ii) uses the multi-manager structure described in the application; and (iii) complies with the terms and conditions of the application (each, a “Subadvised Fund”).
4. The Adviser serves or will serve as the investment adviser to each Subadvised Fund pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the Fund (each an “Investment Advisory Agreement”). Each Investment Advisory Agreement has been or will be approved by the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, and by the shareholders of the relevant Subadvised Fund in the manner required by sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act. The terms of these Investment Advisory Agreements comply or will comply with section 15(a) of the Act. Applicants are not seeking an exemption from the Act with respect to the Investment Advisory Agreements. Pursuant to the terms of each Investment Advisory Agreement, the Adviser, subject to the oversight of the Board, will provide continuous investment management for each Subadvised Fund. For its services to each Subadvised Fund, the Adviser receives or will receive an investment advisory fee from that Fund as specified
5. Consistent with the terms of each Investment Advisory Agreement, the Adviser may, subject to the approval of the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, and the shareholders of the applicable Subadvised Fund (if required by applicable law), delegate portfolio management responsibilities of all or a portion of the assets of a Subadvised Fund to a Subadviser. The Adviser will retain overall responsibility for the management and investment of the assets of each Subadvised Fund. This responsibility includes recommending the removal or replacement of Subadvisers, allocating the portion of that Subadvised Fund's assets to any given Subadviser and reallocating those assets as necessary from time to time.
6. The Subadvisory Agreements will be approved by the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, in accordance with sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act. In addition, the terms of each Subadvisory Agreement will comply fully with the requirements of section 15(a) of the Act. The Adviser may compensate the Subadvisers or the Subadvised Funds may compensate the Subadvisers directly.
7. Subadvised Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new Subadviser pursuant to the following procedures (“Modified Notice and Access Procedures”): (a) Within 90 days after a new Subadviser is hired for any Subadvised Fund, that Fund will send its shareholders either a Multi-manager Notice or a Multi-manager Notice and Multi-manager Information Statement;
8. Section 15(a) of the Act states, in part, that it is unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered investment company “except pursuant to a written contract, which contract, whether with such registered company or with an investment adviser of such registered company, has been approved by the vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of such registered company.”
9. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end investment companies. Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires a registered investment company to disclose in its statement of additional information the method of computing the “advisory fee payable” by the investment company with respect to each investment adviser, including the total dollar amounts that the investment company “paid to the adviser (aggregated with amounts paid to affiliated advisers, if any), and any advisers who are not affiliated persons of the adviser, under the investment advisory contract for the last three fiscal years.”
10. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect to a registered investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the 1934 Act. Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together, require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the advisory contract will be voted upon to include the “rate of compensation of the investment adviser,” the “aggregate amount of the investment adviser's fee,” a description of the “terms of the contract to be acted upon,” and, if a change in the advisory fee is proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the difference between the two fees.
11. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial statements required to be included as part of a registered investment company's registration statement and shareholder reports filed with the Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X require a registered investment company to include in its financial statements information about investment advisory fees.
12. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that the requested relief meets this standard for the reasons discussed below.
13. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of the shareholder, the role of the Subadvisers is substantially equivalent to the limited role of the individual portfolio managers employed by an investment adviser to a traditional investment company. Applicants also assert that the shareholders expect the Adviser, subject to review and approval of the Board, to select a Subadviser who is in the best position to achieve the Subadvised Fund's investment objective. Applicants believe that permitting the Adviser to perform the duties for which the shareholders of the Subadvised Fund are paying the Adviser—the selection, oversight and evaluation of the Subadviser—without incurring unnecessary delays or
14. Applicants submit that the requested relief meets the standards for relief under section 6(c) of the Act. Applicants state that the operation of the Subadvised Fund in the manner described in the Application must be approved by shareholders of that Fund before it may rely on the requested relief. Applicants also state that the proposed conditions to the requested relief are designed to address any potential conflicts of interest or economic incentives, and provide that shareholders are informed when new Subadvisers are hired.
15. Applicants contend that, in the circumstances described in the application, a proxy solicitation to approve the appointment of new Subadvisers provides no more meaningful information to shareholders than the proposed Multi-manager Information Statement. Applicants state that, accordingly, they believe the requested relief is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
16. With respect to the relief permitting Aggregate Fee Disclosure, Applicants assert that disclosure of the individual fees paid to the Subadvisers does not serve any meaningful purpose. Applicants contend that the primary reasons for requiring disclosure of individual fees paid to Subadvisers are to inform shareholders of expenses to be charged by a particular Subadvised Fund and to enable shareholders to compare the fees to those of other comparable investment companies. Applicants believe that the requested relief satisfies these objectives because the Subadvised Fund's overall advisory fee will be fully disclosed and, therefore, shareholders will know what the Subadvised Fund's fees and expenses are and will be able to compare the advisory fees a Subadvised Fund is charged to those of other investment companies. In addition, Applicants assert that the requested relief would benefit shareholders of the Subadvised Fund because it would improve the Adviser's ability to negotiate the fees paid to Subadvisers. In particular, Applicants state that if the Adviser is not required to disclose the Subadvisers' fees to the public, the Adviser may be able to negotiate rates that are below a Subadviser's “posted” amounts. Applicants assert that the relief will also encourage Subadvisers to negotiate lower subadvisory fees with the Adviser if the lower fees are not required to be made public.
17. To date, the Commission has granted the requested relief with respect to certain Wholly-Owned and Non-Affiliated Subadvisers through numerous exemptive orders. Applicants believe the rationale articulated above supports extending the requested relief to Affiliated Subadvisers. Applicants state that although the Adviser's judgment in recommending a Subadviser can be affected by certain conflicts, they do not warrant denying the extension of the requested relief to Affiliated Subadvisers. Specifically, the Adviser faces those conflicts in allocating fund assets between itself and a Subadviser, and across Subadvisers, as it has an interest in considering the benefit it will receive, directly or indirectly, from the fee the Subadvised Fund pays for the management of those assets. Applicants also state that to the extent the Adviser has a conflict of interest with respect to the selection of an Affiliated Subadviser, the proposed conditions are protective of shareholder interests by ensuring the Board's independence and providing the Board with the appropriate resources and information to monitor and address conflicts. Moreover, Applicants note treating all Subadvisers equally under the requested relief might help avoid the selection of Subadvisers potentially being influenced by considerations regarding the applicable regulatory requirements (
18. With respect to the relief permitting Aggregate Fee Disclosure, Applicants assert that it is appropriate to disclose only aggregate fees paid to Affiliated Subadvisers for the same reasons that similar relief has been granted previously with respect to Wholly-Owned and Non-Affiliated Subadvisers.
19. As Applicants note, the Commission has not previously issued the requested relief with respect to Affiliated Subadvisers because of concerns relating to conflicts of interest that the Adviser might face with respect to the hiring or termination of an Affiliated Subadviser.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Before a Subadvised Fund may rely on the order requested in the Application, the operation of the Subadvised Fund in the manner described in the Application will be, or has been, approved by a majority of the Subadvised Fund's outstanding voting securities as defined in the Act, or, in the case of a Subadvised Fund whose public shareholders purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the initial shareholder before such Subadvised Fund's shares are offered to the public.
2. The prospectus for each Subadvised Fund will disclose the existence, substance and effect of any order granted pursuant to the Application. In addition, each Subadvised Fund will hold itself out to the public as employing the multi-manager structure described in the Application. The prospectus will prominently disclose that the Adviser has the ultimate responsibility, subject to oversight by the Board, to oversee the Subadvisers and recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement.
3. The Adviser will provide general management services to each Subadvised Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of the Subadvised Fund's assets, and subject to review and oversight of the
4. Subadvised Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new Subadviser within 90 days after the hiring of the new Subadviser pursuant to the Modified Notice and Access Procedures.
5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be Independent Trustees, and the selection and nomination of new or additional Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of the then-existing Independent Trustees.
6. Independent Legal Counsel, as defined in Rule 0-1(a)(6) under the Act, will be engaged to represent the Independent Trustees. The selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the then-existing Independent Trustees.
7. Whenever a Subadviser is hired or terminated, the Adviser will provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the profitability of the Adviser.
8. The Board must evaluate any material conflicts that may be present in a subadvisory arrangement. Specifically, whenever a subadviser change is proposed for a Subadvised Fund (“Subadviser Change”) or the Board considers an existing Subadvisory Agreement as part of its annual review process (“Subadviser Review”):
(a) The Adviser will provide the Board, to the extent not already being provided pursuant to section 15(c) of the Act, with all relevant information concerning:
(i) Any material interest in the proposed new Subadviser, in the case of a Subadviser Change, or the Subadviser in the case of a Subadviser Review, held directly or indirectly by the Adviser or a parent or sister company of the Adviser, and any material impact the proposed Subadvisory Agreement may have on that interest;
(ii) Any arrangement or understanding in which the Adviser or any parent or sister company of the Adviser is a participant that (A) may have had a material effect on the proposed Subadviser Change or Subadviser Review, or (B) may be materially affected by the proposed Subadviser Change or Subadviser Review;
(iii) Any material interest in a Subadviser held directly or indirectly by an officer or Trustee of the Subadvised Fund, or an officer or board member of the Adviser (other than through a pooled investment vehicle not controlled by such person); and
(iv) Any other information that may be relevant to the Board in evaluating any potential material conflicts of interest in the proposed Subadviser Change or Subadviser Review.
(b) The Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the Board minutes, that the Subadviser Change or continuation after Subadviser Review is in the best interests of the Subadvised Fund and its shareholders and, based on the information provided to the Board, does not involve a conflict of interest from which the Adviser, a Subadviser, any officer or Trustee of the Subadvised Fund, or any officer or board member of the Adviser derives an inappropriate advantage.
9. Each Subadvised Fund will disclose in its registration statement the Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
10. In the event that the Commission adopts a rule under the Act providing substantially similar relief to that in the order requested in the Application, the requested order will expire on the effective date of that rule.
11. Any new Subadvisory Agreement or any amendment to an existing Investment Advisory Agreement or Subadvisory Agreement that directly or indirectly results in an increase in the aggregate advisory fee rate payable by the Subadvised Fund will be submitted to the Subadvised Fund's shareholders for approval.
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form C (17 CFR 239.900) is used by issuers offering securities in reliance on the crowdfunding exemption in Section 4(a)(6) (15 U.S.C. 77d(a)(6)) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) (15 U.S.C. 77a
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 control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17Ad-16 requires a registered transfer agent to provide written notice to the appropriate qualified registered securities depository when assuming or terminating transfer agent services on behalf of an issuer or when changing its name or address. In addition, transfer agents that provide such notice shall maintain such notice for a period of at least two years in an easily accessible place. This rule addresses the problem of certificate transfer delays caused by transfer requests that are directed to the wrong transfer agent or the wrong address.
We estimate that the transfer agent industry submits approximately 11,006 Rule 17Ad-16 notices per year to appropriate qualified registered securities depositories. The staff estimates that the average amount of time necessary to create and submit each notice is approximately 15 minutes per notice. Accordingly, the estimated total industry burden is 2,752 hours per year (15 minutes multiplied by 11,006 filed annually rounded up from 2,751.5 to 2,752).
Because the information needed by transfer agents to properly notify the appropriate registered securities depository is readily available to them and the report is simple and straightforward, the cost is relatively minimal. The average internal compliance cost to prepare and send a notice is approximately $70.75 (15 minutes at $283 per hour).
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:
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Under appendix F, a class of broker-dealers known as over-the counter (“OTC”) derivatives dealers may apply to the Commission for authorization to compute net capital charges for market and credit risk in accordance with appendix F in lieu of computing securities haircuts under paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1.
At present, three OTC derivatives dealers have been approved to use appendix F. Two OTC derivatives dealers have applied to use appendix F, and the staff expects that one additional OTC derivatives dealer will apply to use appendix F during the next three years. The Commission estimates that the three approved OTC derivatives dealers and two OTC derivatives dealers with pending applications (if approved) will spend an average of approximately 1,000 hours each per year reporting information concerning their VAR models and internal risk management systems, for an annual burden of 5,000 hours. The Commission estimates that, on average, a firm initially will take approximately 1,000 hours to prepare an application to use appendix F. For the one firm expected to apply, this would result in an annual burden of 333 hours per year amortized over three years. For the two years after it registers, the new registrant would spend an average of approximately 1,000 hours each year reporting information concerning its VAR model and internal risk management system, for an annual burden of 667 hours per year amortized over 3 years.
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:
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 9, 2019.
The meeting will be held at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Roisman, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to July 8, 2019.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice to: Andrea Battista—PM/DDTC, SA-1, 12th Floor, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, 20522-0112, who may be reached via email at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The export, temporary import, and brokering of defense articles, defense services, and related technical data are licensed by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) in accordance with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR,” 22 CFR parts 120-130) and Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act.
ITAR § 126.18 eliminates, subject to certain conditions, the requirement for an approval by DDTC of the transfer of unclassified defense articles, which includes technical data, to or within a foreign business entity, foreign governmental entity, or international organization that is an authorized end-user or consignee (including transfers to approved sub-licensees) for defense articles, including the transfer to dual nationals or third-country nationals who are bona fide regular employees directly employed by the foreign consignee or end-user.
To use ITAR § 126.18, effective procedures must be in place to prevent
When information kept on file pursuant to this recordkeeping requirement is required to be sent to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, it may be sent electronically or by mail according to guidance given by DDTC.
The Department of State will conduct an open meeting at 9:00 a.m. on May 29, 2019, in the CDR Raymond J. Evans Conference Center, Room 6i10-01-a, of the Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters Building at St. Elizabeth's, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the one-hundredth session of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee to be held at the IMO Headquarters, United Kingdom, June 5-14, 2019.
The agenda items to be considered include:
Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Upon request to the meeting coordinator, members of the public may also participate via teleconference, up to the capacity of the teleconference phone line. To access the teleconference line, participants should call (202) 475-4000 and use Participant Code: 796 771 84. To facilitate the building security process, and to request reasonable accommodation, those who plan to attend should contact the meeting coordinator, LCDR Staci Weist, by email at
Additional information regarding this and other public meetings may be found at
Meeting No. 19-02
The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on May 9, 2019, at The WareHouse, 1810 Columbia Avenue, Suite 100, Franklin, Tennessee. The meeting will be called to order at 10 a.m. CT to consider the agenda items listed below. TVA will answer questions from the news media following the Board meeting.
On May 8, the public may comment on any agenda item or subject at a board-hosted
Open
Chair's Welcome.
Approval of minutes of the February 14, 2019, Board Meeting.
Please call TVA Media Relations at (865) 632-6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. People who plan to attend the meeting and have special needs should call (865) 632-6000.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on request to release airport property at the St. Louis Lambert International Airport (STL), St. Louis, MO.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the release of land at the St. Louis Lambert International Airport (STL), St. Louis, Missouri.
Comments must be received on or before June 6, 2019.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to: Dana Ryan, Planning Manager, St. Louis Lambert International Airport; P.O. Box 10212/10701 Lambert International Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63145-0212, (314) 551-5027.
Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106, (816) 329-2644,
The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in person at this same location.
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release approximately 2.766± acres of airport property at the St. Louis Lambert International Airport (STL) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). On April 9, 2019, the Director of the St. Louis Lambert International Airport requested from the FAA that approximately 2.766± acres of property be released for sale to St. Louis County for the purpose of road widening and utilities. On April 30, 2019, the FAA determined that the request to release property at St. Louis Lambert International Airport (STL) submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration and the release of the property does not and will not impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of this Notice.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
St. Louis Lambert International Airport (STL) is proposing the release of a parcel, totaling 2.766± acres. The release of land is necessary to comply with Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurances that do not allow federally acquired airport property to be used for non-aviation purposes. The sale of the subject property will result in the land at the St. Louis Lambert International Airport (STL) being changed from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use and release the surface lands from the conditions of the AIP Grant Agreement Grant Assurances. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport will receive fair market value for the property.
Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before May 28, 2019.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0104 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jake Troutman, (202) 683-7788, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Bell intends to operate the APT70 UAS in Class G airspace. The intended area of flight operations is in north-central Texas. In Palo Pinto County, ground-based VOs will be used and the UAV will be operated with an altitude envelope of no greater than 400 ft. above ground level (AGL). Flight testing will be extended to Choctaw Nation where VO(s) will be aboard a chase aircraft and the UAV will be operated with a maximum altitude of 1,200 ft AGL. All proposed operations will occur within visual line of site of the pilot or visual observer.
This petition is similar to, and extends from, Exemption No. 17783 (Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2017-0604) granted to Bell on March 29, 2018.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of a new information collection. The collection involves manufacturers of small unmanned aircraft providing a safety statement to owners of the UAS they produce. This is a statutory requirement. To minimize the burden on small businesses, the FAA has developed an example safety statement that can be used to satisfy the requirement. This FRN corrects the previously submitted 60-Day FRN to include updated contact information and docket number.
Written comments should be submitted by July 8, 2019.
Please send written comments:
By
By
By
Jessica Orquina by email at:
Background: Section 2203 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-90) requires manufacturers of small unmanned aircraft to make available to the owner a safety statement that satisfies requirements detailed in that section. The requirements include:
1. Information about, and sources of, laws and regulations applicable to small unmanned aircraft;
2. Recommendations for using small unmanned aircraft in a manner that promotes the safety of person and property;
3. The date that the safety statement was created or last modified; and
4. Language approved by the Administrator regarding the following:
a. A person may operate the small unmanned aircraft as a model aircraft (as defined in section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note)) or otherwise in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration authorization or regulation, including requirements for the completion of any applicable airman test.
b. The definition of a model aircraft under section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note).
c. The requirements regarding the operation of a model aircraft under section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note).
d. The Administrator may pursue enforcement action against a person operating model aircraft who endangers the safety of the national airspace system.
By statute, manufacturers will be required to make a safety statement available to small UAS owners. This manufacturer insert serves as an example safety statement that UAS manufacturers may use. The FAA provides an example safety statement and guidance to assist manufacturers to comply with this requirement.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT
Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land; John Glenn Columbus International Airport; Columbus, Ohio.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a proposal to change 8.313 acres of airport
The subject property is located along the northern property boundary of the airport; north of Bridgeway Avenue. The parcel is currently vacant. The parcel presently serves the primary purpose of compatible land use. The parcel will continue to serve in this same capacity with a proposed change to nonaeronautical, revenue-producing use from its present aeronautical use designation. The parcel will be used for construction of a 2-story office building, approximately 19,600 square feet, connected to a 80,100 square foot building, and the potential to add a 30,000 square foot building. The proposed development also includes approximately 289 parking spaces with the flexibility to add 14 spaces for future expansion.
Comments must be received on or before June 6, 2019.
Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA Detroit Airports District Office, 11677 South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, Michigan 48174 or the Columbus Regional Airport Authority, Planning and Engineering, John Glenn Columbus International Airport, 4600 International Gateway, Columbus, Ohio 43219. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Ms. Katherine Delaney, Community Planner, Detroit Airports District Office, Federal Aviation Administration, 11677 South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, Michigan 48174. Telephone Number (734) 229-2900; FAX Number (734) 229-2950.
Ms. Katherine Delaney, Community Planner, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports District Office, 11677 South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, Michigan 48174. Telephone Number (734) 229-2900; FAX Number (734) 229-2950.
In accordance with section 47107(h) of title 49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
The parcel is depicted on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) dated November 17, 2011, and the Exhibit “A” property map. The parcel was acquired with Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grants: 3-39-0025-01, 3-39-0024-02, and 06-39-0025-04.
No airport landside or airside facilities are presently located on this parcel nor is airport development contemplated in the future. Development of the parcel for airside or landside operations is not practical due to Bridgeway Avenue's location which precludes aeronautical development from being contiguous to the airfield. Relocating the road is cost prohibitive. There are no impacts to the airport by allowing it to waive the requirement to maintain the parcel for aeronautical use.
The sponsor will control use of the parcel through the terms and conditions of the ground lease. The lease will be subordinate to the sponsor's existing grant assurances. This will ensure that all activities contemplated on the parcel will be compatible with FAA requirements and airport operations.
The disposition of proceeds from the lease of airport property will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in the
This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of the subject airport property at the John Glenn Columbus International Airport, Columbus, Ohio from its obligations to be maintained for aeronautical purposes. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the change in use of the subject airport property nor a determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.
A Categorical Exclusion addressing the proposed development of the parcel was prepared. The Categorical Exclusion was executed by the FAA on June 14, 2018.
Following is a legal description of the subject airport property at the John Glenn Columbus International Airport in Columbus, Ohio:
Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Columbus, lying in Quarter Township 4, Township 1, Range 17, United States Military Lands, being a part of those tracts conveyed to Columbus Regional Airport Authority by deed of record in Instrument Number 200712310221206, all of that 0.409 acre tract conveyed to Columbus Municipal Airport Authority by deed of record in Original Record 201103F05, and part of that 7.957 acre tract conveyed to Columbus Regional Airport Authority by deed of record in Instrument Number 200812110178154, (all references to the records of the Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio) and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING, at the intersection of the westerly right-of-way line of James Road (33′) and northerly right-of-way line of Bridgeway Avenue; Thence North 04°08′55″ East, with the westerly right-of-way line of said James Road (33′), a distance of 453.72 feet to a point in the southerly limited access right of way of Interstate 270; Thence South 85°39′35″ East, across the right-of-way of said James Road (33′), with the southerly limited access right-of-way line of said Interstate 270, with northerly line of said 0.409 acre tract, a distance of 736.99 feet to a point in the northerly line of said Columbus Regional Airport Authority tract, a southeasterly corner of said 0.409 acre tract; Thence 86°16′15″ East, with the southerly limited access right-of-way line of Interstate 270, with the northerly line of said Columbus Regional Airport Authority tract, a distance of 45.76 feet to a point; Thence across said Columbus Regional Airport Authority tract, the following courses and distances: South 03°43′45″ West, a distance of 49.59 feet to a point on a curve; With the arc of the curve to the left, having a central angle of 20°05′15″, a radius of 295.00 feet, an arc length of 103.43 feet, a chord bearing of South 26°47′52″ East and chord distance of 102.90 feet to a point; and South 04°23′39″ West, a distance of 276.72 feet to a point; Thence North 85°36′21″ West, across said Columbus Regional Airport Authority tract, across the right-of-way of said James Road (33′), a distance of 849.90 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 8.313 acres, more or less.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that FRA is forwarding the Information Collection Request (ICR)
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 6, 2019.
Submit written comments on the ICR to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent via email to OMB at the following address:
Ms. Rachel Grice, Engineering Psychologist, Office of Railroad Policy & Development, Human Factors Division, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-8005); or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Administration, Office of Information Technology, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6132).
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages.
Before OMB decides whether to approve this proposed collection of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.10(b);
The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on January 31, 2019, the Knoxville & Holston River Railroad (KXHR) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 215 and 224. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2019-0008.
Specifically, KXHR requests relief from 49 CFR 215.303,
KXHR states it has kept the cars for educational purposes and the occasional antique freight train for photographers to preserve a small portion of railroad history. KXHR wishes to preserve period-correct stenciling for aesthetics reasons. All cars will be empty. The maximum speed of these cars is 10 miles per hour. KXHR explains the cars have been inspected and found to be safe and suitable for service to operate under the conditions set forth in the petition. The territorial limits of the operation are within KXHR's trackage and only KXHR will operate these cars.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by June 21, 2019 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comment.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
This document describes an Information Collection Request (ICR) for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.
Send comments on or before July 5, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by [Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0027] by any of the following methods:
Alexander Ansley, Program Support Division, Office of Defect Investigation (NEF-110), (202) 493-0481, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W48-336, Washington, DC 20590.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collection of information:
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101,
In order to identify owners of vehicles subject to a safety-related recall and provide notification to them, a motor vehicle manufacturer typically contracts with a third party that obtains vehicle registration data for the affected vehicles from State motor vehicle administrations. The motor vehicle manufacturer then notifies owners and purchasers by U.S. Mail about the safety recall and, among other things, about how to obtain a remedy to fix the defect or noncompliance.
Recall completion rates can and do vary widely depending on a variety of factors such as the age and type of vehicle, as well as owners' perception of relative risk.
In 2016, in accordance with Section 24105 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, Pub. L. 114-94, NHTSA announced a pilot program to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a State process to inform consumers of open motor vehicle recalls at the time of motor vehicle registration. The grant was conditioned upon a State having the capability to use a vehicle identification number (VIN) to identify whether the specific vehicle was subject to an open safety recall. In 2017, NHTSA awarded the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration a grant to provide vehicle owners and lessees notice of open safety related recalls on their vehicles. Maryland began notifying vehicle owners and lessees in the Spring of 2018.
Since the start of the Maryland notification program, several States have expressed an interest in partnering with NHTSA to provide similar recall notification to consumers in their states. While the Maryland Pilot Program offers a promising effort to increase consumer awareness to repair open safety recalls (and an opportunity to measure the effectiveness of such notification), additional notification by State DMVs would increase consumer awareness of open safety recalls and increase the repair rate of recalled vehicles. NHTSA believes such efforts will ultimately reduce the risk of a crash or injury due to a safety defect. Under its existing authority provided in the Safety Act, NHTSA is offering this opportunity to further develop this State to consumer notification to increase awareness of open recalls.
NHTSA encourages applicants to be creative and innovative when developing a proposal (application) for this grant. NHTSA is interested in proposals that provide vehicle owners and lessees with frequent notifications at touchpoints between the State and the vehicle. For example, NHTSA is interested in proposals that may offer options at the time of vehicle registration and other unique notification methods (or even follow-up notification). One potential option is to have notification at the time of registration and at motor vehicle emissions and/or safety inspection stations. A State is free to propose a process to make use of the functionality that may exist through its inspection stations or other intersection between the State and the consumer's vehicle. NHTSA does not want to discourage innovative approaches, provided they satisfy the program requirements of notification at the intersection of a vehicle owner or lessee and the State.
NHTSA is also interested in proposals that provide an analysis of recall completion data on an ongoing basis to assist in program evaluation, or assessment of owners' attitudes toward a particular recall notification protocol. In particular, NHTSA is interested in ways for a State to identify the motor vehicles that were remedied following notification of an open recall by the State. NHTSA looks forward to reviewing resourceful approaches that will motivate owners to remedy open recalls.
While this funding opportunity will be made available to all states, NHTSA anticipates an estimated twenty (20) state applications. NHTSA will require these applications not exceed 25 pages (not including resumes or appendices). NHTSA will also require OMB Standard Form (SF) 424 (including 424 “Application for Federal Assistance,” 424A “Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs,” and 424B “Assurances for Non-Construction Programs”), with the required information filled in and certified assurances signed. NHTSA estimates the burden for completing these applications at 3,200 hours total (160 hours × 20 state applicants = 3,200 hours) to allow each applicant thirty (30) days to conduct the necessary research, design their program, and complete the application package.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Decisions of petitions.
Petitioners BMW of North America, LLC and Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, have each determined that certain seat belt assemblies equipped in certain 2016-2017 model year vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208,
You may contact either Mr. Daniel Koblenz, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone: 202-366-2992, Facsimile: 202-366-3820, or Mr. Jack Chern, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Telephone: 202-366-0661, Facsimile: 202-366-3081. The mailing address for these officials is: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
BMW of North America, LLC (BMW) has determined that certain model year (MY) 2016-2017 BMW, Mini, and Rolls-Royce vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph 4.3(j)(2)(ii) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209,
Petitioner Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Jaguar) has determined that certain MY 2016-2017 Land Rover Range Rover and Land Rover Range Rover Sport vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph 4.3(j)(2)(ii) of FMVSS No. 209 and paragraphs 4.2.6 and 7.1.1.3 of FMVSS No. 208,
Petitioner Autoliv, Inc. (Autoliv) has determined that certain replacement seat belt assemblies sold to BMW and Jaguar for installation in their vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph 4.3(j)(2)(ii) of FMVSS No. 209. Autoliv filed a report dated December 1, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
To view these petitions and all supporting documents, you may log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at:
Approximately 15,630 of the following MY 2016-2017 BMW, Mini, and Rolls-Royce vehicles manufactured between June 29, 2016 and October 10, 2016, are potentially affected:
Approximately 16,502 of the following MY 2016-2017 Land Rover vehicles manufactured between May 3, 2016 and October 14, 2016, are potentially affected:
Approximately 31,682 Autoliv R230.2 and R200.2 front seat LH10º seat belt
Paragraph S4.1.5.1(a)(3) of FMVSS No. 208 includes the requirements relevant to this petition:
• At each front designated seating position that is an “outboard designated seating position,” as that term is defined at 49 CFR 571.3, and at each forward-facing rear designated seating position that is a “rear outboard designated seating position,” as that term is defined at paragraph S4.1.4.2(c) of FMVSS No. 208, have a Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209 and paragraphs S7.1 through S7.3 of FMVSS No. 208, and, in the case of the Type 2 seat belt assemblies installed at the front outboard designated seating positions, meet the frontal crash protection requirements with the appropriate anthropomorphic test dummy restrained by the Type 2 seat belt assembly in addition to the means that requires no action by the vehicle occupant.
Paragraph S4.2.6 of FMVSS No. 208 includes the requirements relevant to this petition:
• Trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and a unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1997, shall comply with the requirements of paragraph S4.1.5.1 of this standard (as specified for passenger cars), except that walk-in van-type trucks and vehicles designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service may meet the requirements of paragraphs S4.2.1.1 and S4.2.1.2 of FMVSS No. 208 instead of the requirements of paragraph S4.1.5.1.
Paragraph S7.1.1.3 of FMVSS No. 208 includes the requirements relevant to this petition:
• A Type 1 lap belt or the lap belt portion of any Type 2 seat belt assembly installed at any forward-facing outboard designated seating position of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, to comply with a requirement of this standard, shall meet the requirements of S7.1 by means of an emergency locking retractor that conforms to Standard No. 209.
Paragraph S4.3(j)(2)(ii) of FMVSS No. 209 includes the requirements relevant to this petition:
•
The petitioners
This noncompliance with the ELR locking requirements of FMVSS No. 209 is also a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 208 because S7.1.1.3 of FMVSS No. 208 requires that all forward-facing outboard designated seating positions be equipped with an FMVSS No. 209-compliant seat belt assembly.
An ELR is a component of a seat belt assembly that is intended to protect vehicle occupants against injury or death by limiting how much webbing the assembly's retractor pays out when a belted occupant is subjected to rapid deceleration, as would happen during panic braking or a crash. ELRs do this by locking the webbing spool and restraining an occupant's travel distance before the occupant strikes the vehicle's interior structure.
There are two basic types of ELR: Vehicle-sensitive and webbing-sensitive. In a vehicle-sensitive ELR, the locking mechanism activates when it senses rapid deceleration of the vehicle itself. In a webbing-sensitive ELR, the locking mechanism activates when the webbing payout rate from the retractor exceeds a predetermined threshold. In many cases, vehicle manufacturers voluntarily equip their vehicles with both vehicle-sensitive and webbing-sensitive ELRs, as the two types of locking mechanisms behave differently and have their own advantages and disadvantages.
ELRs on new vehicles are primarily regulated by FMVSS Nos. 208 and 209. These two standards measure ELR performance in different ways. FMVSS No. 208 is a vehicle-level standard that establishes requirements for how the entire vehicle (including ELRs) must perform in a set number of dynamic frontal crash test scenarios. FMVSS No. 208 requires that the forces and accelerations that an anthropomorphic test device experiences during these dynamic crash tests (collectively “injury assessment reference values” or “IARVs”) do not exceed a specified value. FMVSS No. 208 also requires that vehicles be equipped with certain active and passive restraint systems, including the requirement that all forward-facing outboard designated seating positions in vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less be equipped with ELRs meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 209.
Unlike FMVSS No. 208, FMVSS No. 209 is an equipment-level standard which sets out minimum performance requirements for seat belt assemblies and their individual components. These include static testing requirements like a requirement that components of the seat belt assembly can withstand certain loads and that its components do not degrade when exposed to different types of wear.
According to the petitioners, the affected vehicles and equipment do not comply with paragraph S4.3(j)(2)(ii) of FMVSS No. 209. By extension, the affected vehicles also do not comply with aspects of FMVSS No. 208 that require seat belt assemblies conforming to FMVSS No. 209 be installed in vehicles.
The petitioners stated their belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. In support, the petitioners submitted the following arguments:
(a) The vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism functions, but the noncompliance involves what the petitioners assert is a “slight” exceedance of the FMVSS No. 209 Section S4.3(j)(2)(ii) requirement.
(b) The affected vehicles' seat belt assemblies also contain a voluntary webbing-sensitive locking mechanism which provides crash and rollover restraint performance comparable to the performance provided by an FMVSS No. 209 compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism.
(c) Crash test results comparing FMVSS No. 209 S4.3(j)(2)(ii) compliant ELRs and ELRs in which the vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism has been disabled (to demonstrate a “worst-case scenario”, even though in affected vehicles the vehicle-sensitive mechanism remains functional) demonstrate comparable results according to dynamic test assessments. According to the petitioners, the test results indicate that any performance differences between a compliant and noncompliant vehicle-sensitive ELR are within normal “data scatter” and can be attributed to test tolerances.
(d) Affected seat belt assemblies comply with all other applicable provisions of FMVSS No. 209. (BMW specifically points out that the tilt-lock function of the ELRs on its vehicles are compliant with FMVSS No. 209, since it locks at angles greater than 15-deg up to 41-deg when subjected to the FMVSS No. 209 Section S4.3(j)(2) rollover requirements.)
(e) NHTSA previously granted a petition from General Motors in which the ELR's vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism was completely non-functional,
(f) The petitioners have not received any customer complaints related to this issue.
(g) The petitioners are not aware of any accidents or injuries related to this issue.
(h) Both BMW and Jaguar have corrected vehicle production and Autoliv has corrected production of the seat belt assemblies.
On these bases, the petitioners stated their belief that the subject noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety, and that their petitions to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliances, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
To view the petitions and accompanying test data and analyses, you can visit
NHTSA received one comment concerning BMW's petition, from Mr. Brian Birchler. Mr. Birchler was of the opinion that NHTSA should grant BMW's request on the basis that a prior petition, similar in nature, was partially granted. NHTSA appreciates Mr. Birchler's input, however, for the reasons described below, NHTSA disagrees with his recommendation.
NHTSA did not receive any comments on either Jaguar's or Autoliv's petitions.
Congress passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the “Safety Act”) with the express purpose of reducing motor vehicle accidents, deaths, injuries, and property damage. 49 U.S.C. 30101. To this end, the Safety Act empowers the Secretary of Transportation to establish and enforce mandatory Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). 49 U.S.C. 30111. The Secretary has delegated this authority to NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.95.
NHTSA adopts an FMVSS only after the agency has determined that the performance requirements are objective and practicable and meet the need for motor vehicle safety.
Under the Safety Act and Part 556, inconsequentiality exemptions may be granted only in response to a petition from a manufacturer, and then only after notice in the
Neither the Safety Act nor Part 556 define the term “inconsequential.”
Where the subject noncompliance involves a failure to comply with a performance requirement or standard, petitioners have a greater burden to show that the noncompliance is inconsequential due to the direct effects of such a noncompliance on vehicle safety. Accordingly, the agency has found few such noncompliances to be inconsequential. One area in which the agency has granted such petitions has been where the noncompliance is expected to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or approaching drivers. For example, in one case, NHTSA determined that the use of an improper upper beam filament that results in a luminous flux 4% below the lower limit, but which still passes photometry requirements, was an inconsequential noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108,
Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment are affected by a noncompliance will not justify granting an inconsequentiality petition. Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions based on the assertion that only a small percentage of the vehicles or items of equipment covered by a noncompliance determination are likely to actually exhibit the noncompliance. In many such cases, it may not be readily apparent which vehicles or items of equipment are actually noncompliant. More importantly, however, the key issue in determining inconsequentiality is not the aggregate safety consequences of the noncompliance as a percentage of all drivers, but instead, whether the noncompliance in question is likely to increase the safety risk to individual occupants.
NHTSA has considered the petitioners' arguments and determined that the subject noncompliance is not inconsequential. NHTSA therefore denies the petitioners' request for an inconsequentiality determination. We respond to the petitioners' arguments below.
The petitioners first argue that the vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism is functional, and that the magnitude of the affected vehicles' noncompliance with S4.3(j)(2)(ii) is minor and therefore inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA rejects both the suggestion that the subject noncompliance is small, and that it is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
As previously noted, S4.3(j)(2)(ii) of FMVSS No. 209 requires that ELRs lock within 25 mm of webbing payout when tested at an acceleration of 0.7 g. The petitioners state that the noncompliant ELRs on affected vehicles lock within 90 mm when tested at the required 0.7 g. Put another way, the webbing payout of the affected noncompliant ELRs exceeds the 25 mm locking requirement by approximately 3.6 times. This noncompliance is hardly “slight,” and in fact, was detectable through routine braking tests. Performance failures of safety-critical equipment, like seat belts, should rarely, if ever, be granted as inconsequential, and it seems clear that the subject noncompliance falls well outside of the bounds of inconsequentiality.
The petitioners' assertion that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential because the retractor performs as required when tested at 1.0 g does not assuage our concerns regarding the magnitude of the noncompliance. According to the petitioners, the noncompliant retractors lock at the required distance of 25 mm when experiencing a 1.0 g acceleration—the approximate minimum level of acceleration that an occupant would experience in a frontal crash. This argument ignores the fact that retractors are intended to protect occupants not just in a crash setting, but also during pre-crash (panic) braking.
Our concern with pre-crash panic braking is reflected in the regulatory history of FMVSS No. 209. In the NPRM that preceded NHTSA's adoption of a 0.7 g locking threshold, NHTSA had originally proposed a locking threshold of 2.0 g.
NHTSA restated its concern with pre-crash braking in an August 22, 2005 Final Rule addressing a petition submitted by the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC) in which the agency proposed a new acceleration corridor with an increased maximum onset rate.
The petitioners next argue that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential because an occupant of a representative vehicle equipped with a disabled vehicle-sensitive ELR experiences comparable occupant displacement and IARVs as an occupant of the same vehicle equipped with compliant vehicle-sensitive ELR when involved in a crash.
We disagree with the petitioners' assessment because it ignores the crucial role that the static testing requirements of FMVSS No. 209 play as a safety backstop for crash scenarios that are not accounted for in dynamic tests such as those performed by the petitioners. Dynamic tests are meant to assess whether a vehicle's occupant protection systems work cohesively in certain representative crashes. However, there are countless crash and pre-crash scenarios that these sorts of tests do not cover, which is why static requirements of FMVSS No. 209 are intended to “fill in the gaps” to ensure that the vehicle's seat belt equipment maintains a minimum level of performance in untested scenarios.
For example, dynamic tests do not account for the fact that a seat belt assembly is intended to protect occupants even when they are out of position. This issue was highlighted by one anomalous result of one of BMW's sled tests, in which the results showed an elevated IARV metric for the left femur of a dummy in a seat with a disabled vehicle-sensitive ELR. BMW explains that this result could be attributed to a “non-optimum positioning of the test dummy's knee relative to the knee air bag.” While we take no view as to whether this elevated injury metric was due to “non-optimum positioning” of the dummy, the fact that non-optimum positioning can occur—even in a controlled testing environment—underscores the need to protect occupants to the greatest extent possible in all positions, including those not typically dynamically tested.
FMVSS No. 209's role as a safety backstop that complements (rather than substitutes for) dynamic testing requirements is also apparent from NHTSA's hesitance to create exemptions from static requirements of FMVSS No. 209 that are based on a vehicle's compliance with other dynamic testing requirements.
NHTSA established S4.5 only after it determined through extensive research that this change would have a net benefit on vehicle safety. Prior to adopting this change, the agency found that both static and dynamic testing requirements were needed to ensure occupant safety because the safety contribution of seat belts assemblies and individual components in a crash can be affected by the presence of other occupant protection equipment, and that the level of occupant protection that the seat belt assembly afforded depended on the performance of the safety belts themselves and the structural characteristics and interior design of the vehicle.
The petitioners also raise four additional points in support of their petitions: (1) That the affected safety belt assemblies comply with all other applicable provisions of FMVSS No. 209; (2) that they have not received any customer complaints related to the subject noncompliance; (3) that they are not aware of any accidents or injuries related to the subject noncompliance; and (4) that they have corrected the issue in new vehicle production. NHTSA has considered these arguments and determined that they should not factor into our inconsequentiality analysis.
First, the fact that the seat belt assemblies comply with all other requirements of FMVSS No. 209 does not affect whether the subject noncompliance was inconsequential. All vehicles are required to comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect at the time of manufacture, which means that a vehicle's compliance with some requirements cannot offset a vehicle's noncompliance with other requirements.
Second, the fact that the petitioners have stated that they received no complaints or do not know of injuries related to the noncompliance does not inform the agency's analysis. Even a consequential noncompliance may result in very few complaints and/or injury reports because drivers may not realize that the noncompliance exists. For example, in this case, it is unlikely that customers would run their own tests to measure ELR performance, and it is unlikely that they would notice the retractor's failure to lock after paying out 25 mm of webbing at an acceleration of 0.7 g unless they already knew about the noncompliance. Moreover, in the event of a crash, it would be very difficult for investigators to link crash-related injury specifically to the subject noncompliance, especially if the noncompliance only played an indirect role in causing the injury (such as by failing to restrain a driver in pre-crash braking, causing the driver to lose control of the vehicle). Lastly, given the size and age of the affected vehicle population, it is possible the noncompliance simply has not yet led to complaints or injuries, even if it is likely to in the future.
Finally, the fact that new vehicle production has been corrected does not factor into our analysis of whether the noncompliance is inconsequential. The manufacturers were legally obligated to correct new vehicle production.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that BMW and Jaguar have not met their burden of persuading the agency that the subject noncompliances with FMVSS Nos. 208 and 209 are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, NHTSA hereby denies the petitions submitted by BMW and Jaguar. BMW and Jaguar are therefore obligated to provide notification of, and a free remedy for, that noncompliance in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30118 through 30120.
NHTSA has reviewed Autoliv's petition and based on an email dated February 28, 2017, Autoliv states that while they do sell a relatively small quantity of replacement parts to Autoliv operations in Europe, they do not sell directly to dealerships or the aftermarket. Autoliv says that all of their sales are direct to the OEM's who in turn, manage the distribution of those parts to their dealer networks. Thus, Autoliv has no standing to file for an exemption in accordance with 49 CFR 556, in this case, and therefore, Autoliv's petition is hereby moot.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
PHMSA's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS) will hold a public meeting to solicit input on the development of the 2020 edition of the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG2020). The meeting will take place on June 17, 2019, in Washington, DC.
PHMSA developed the United States version of the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) for use by emergency services personnel to provide guidance for initial response to hazardous materials transportation incidents. Since 1980, it has been PHMSA's goal that all public emergency response personnel (
During the meeting, PHMSA will respond to stakeholder requests for a public discussion of the methodology used to determine the appropriate response protective distances for poisonous vapors resulting from spills involving dangerous goods considered toxic by inhalation in the ERG2016 “Green Pages.” To pursue our objective of continually improving the ERG, PHMSA will solicit comments related to new methodologies and considerations for future editions of the ERG. Additionally, the meeting will include discussions on the outcomes of field experiments, ongoing research efforts to better understand environmental effects on airborne toxic gas concentrations, and updates to be published in the ERG2020.
Conference call-in and “live meeting” capability will be provided. Specific information about conference call-in and live meeting access will be posted, when available, at:
DOT is committed to providing equal access for all Americans and ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided or alternative accommodations, please contact
Ryan Vierling or Shante Goodall, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Telephone: (202) 366-4620 and (202) 366-4545. Email:
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
FinCEN invites comment on the renewal without change of an information collection requirement concerning the “Information Sharing Between Government Agencies And Financial Institutions,” generally referred to as the 314(a) Program. This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995.
Written comments are welcome and must be received on or before July 8, 2019.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
Please submit comments by one method only. Comments will also be incorporated into FinCEN's retrospective regulatory review process, as mandated by E.O. 12866 and 13563. All comments submitted in response to this notice will become a matter of public record. Therefore, you should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available.
The FinCEN Resource Center at 800-767-2825 or electronically at
On October 26, 2001, the President signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (“USA PATRIOT Act” or “Act”), Public Law 107-56. Title III of the Act amends the anti-money laundering provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959 and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314 and 5316-5332, to promote the prevention, detection, and prosecution of international money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Regulations implementing the BSA appear at 31 CFR Chapter X. The authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to administer the BSA has been delegated to the Director of FinCEN.
Of the Act's many goals, the facilitation of information sharing among governmental entities and financial institutions for the purpose of combating terrorism and money laundering is of paramount importance. As with many other provisions of the Act, Congress charged the U.S. Department of the Treasury with developing regulations to implement these information-sharing provisions.
On September 26, 2002, FinCEN published a final rule implementing the authority contained in section 314(a) of the Act.
Since its inception, the 314(a) Program has yielded significant investigative benefits for law enforcement users in terrorist financing and/or significant money laundering cases. Feedback from the requesters and illustrations from sample case studies consistently demonstrate how useful the program is in enhancing the scope and expanding the universe of investigations. In view of the proven success of the 314(a) Program, FinCEN seeks to renew without change the 314(a) Program.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Dated: April 25, 2019.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the electronic process for selling/issuing, servicing, and making payments on or redeeming U.S. Treasury securities.
Written comments should be received on or before July 5, 2019 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for additional information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, Room #4006-A, P.O. Box 1328, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8554, Application for Renewal of Enrollment to Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service and Form 8554-EP, Application for Renewal of Enrollment to Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service as an Enrolled Retirement Plan Agent (ERPA).
Written comments should be received on or before July 8, 2019 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to Sara Covington, (202)317-6038, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning tax return preparer compliant and tax return preparer fraud or misconduct affidavit.
Written comments should be received on or before July 8, 2019 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at (202) 317-5751 or Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before July 8, 2019.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Danny S. Green at (202) 421-1354.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.