Farm Service Agency
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Federal Highway Administration
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.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Final rule.
The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) amended provisions of the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP). This rule implements those changes to ECP and makes additional minor technical amendments to the ECP regulations. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is amending regulations to add wildfires as an eligible natural disaster, expand eligibility requirements, increase the maximum payment amount certain participants may receive, provide cost-share for fence repair and replacement, and provide certain cost-share payments more expeditiously than was previously authorized under ECP. In addition, this rule makes minor changes related to the Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP).
Effective July 10, 2019.
Shanita Landon; telephone: (202) 690-1612; or email:
Through ECP, FSA provides payments to farmers and ranchers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by certain natural disasters and to implement emergency water conservation measures in periods of severe drought. ECP provides cost-share assistance to farmers or ranchers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by wind erosion, floods, hurricanes, or other natural disasters as determined by the Deputy Administrator. Section 2403 of the 2018 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 115-334) made changes to the ECP provisions. For ECP, the 2018 Farm Bill amended the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201), by adding wildfires as an eligible natural disaster for which payments may be provided to eligible producers. The changes to the regulations include:
• Adding an additional category to natural disasters to be consistent with the changes to the ECP provisions;
• Making a portion of the cost-share payments for the repair or replacement of fencing available to eligible producers prior to the producer carrying out the repair or replacement;
• Increasing the maximum payment amount a producer can receive under ECP;
• Establishing a maximum payment percentage that a producer who is a socially disadvantaged or beginning farmer or rancher may receive; and
• Making minor technical changes to the existing ECP and EFRP regulations.
FSA is relocating definitions applicable to EFRP into the general definitions section in § 701.2. The defined terms are “Commercial forest land,” “Nonindustrial private forest land,” and “Owners of nonindustrial private forest land.”
Prior to this rule, a qualified limited resource farmer or rancher that participated in ECP may have received reimbursement of up to 90 percent of the total allowable cost. The 2018 Farm Bill expands this maximum cost-share to include socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers and ranchers, while in all cases limiting total payment for a single event to an amount not to exceed 50 percent of the agricultural value of the land.
This rule continues the maximum cost-share payments that can be made to a farmer or rancher who is not a limited-resource, socially disadvantaged, or beginning farmer or rancher, to no more than 75 percent of the total allowable cost, not to exceed 50 percent of the agricultural value of the land.
Prior to this rule, a person or legal entity was limited to a maximum ECP cost share of $200,000 per person or legal entity, per disaster event. This rule will increase the maximum per person or legal entity payment limitation to $500,000.
The 2018 Farm Bill authorizes a set aside of funds to provide that 25 percent of funding is to be used for the repair or replacement of fencing. The rule also adds § 701.128 for advance payments of up to 25 percent of the cost of repairing or replacement of fencing before the repair or replacement is carried out. In the event this cost share assistance is not spent within 60 calendar days of being issued, the participant will be required to refund the cost-share payment.
The rule revises § 701.226 to clarify that an EFRP participant will not receive more than 75 percent of the total cost of the emergency measures carried out by the participant; and, that the $500,000 maximum applies for a person or legal entity, per natural disaster. In addition, there is no provision for a waiver of the above-described EFRP limits for financial assistance.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. 553) provides that the notice and comment and 30-day delay in the effective date provisions do not apply when the rule involves specified actions, including matters relating to benefits. This rule relates to benefits and thus falls within that exemption.
This rule is not a major rule under Congressional Review Act. Therefore, FSA is not required to delay the effective date for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review.
Therefore, this rule is effective on the date of publication the
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule and an analysis of the costs and benefits is not required under either Executive Orders 12866 or 13563.
Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” requires that in order to manage the private costs required to comply with Federal regulations that for every new significant or economically significant regulation issued, the new costs must be offset by the elimination of at least two prior regulations. As this rule is designated not significant, it is not subject to Executive Order 13771. In a general response to the requirements of Executive Order 13777, USDA created a Regulatory Reform Task Force, and USDA agencies were directed to remove barriers, reduce burdens, and provide better customer service both as part of the regulatory reform of existing regulations and as an ongoing approach. FSA reviewed this regulation and made changes to improve any provision that was determined to be outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory analysis of any rule whenever an agency is required by APA or any other law to publish a proposed rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act since FSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule.
The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and FSA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 799). This rule includes changes mandated by the 2018 Farm Bill and discretionary technical amendments that are administrative in nature. Accordingly, the discretionary provisions of this action are covered by the Categorical Exclusion, found in 7 CFR 799.31(b)(2)(iii) for minor amendments or revisions to previously approved actions and § 799.31(b)(3)(i), for the issuance of minor technical corrections to regulations. No Extraordinary Circumstances (§ 799.33) exist. As such, the implementation of the discretionary technical amendments provided in this rule does not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, individually or cumulatively. Therefore, FSA will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this regulatory action and this rule serves as the environmental screening documentation of the programmatic environmental compliance decision for this federal action.
Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials. The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development. For reasons specified in the final rule related notice regarding 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), the programs and activities in this rule are excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This rule would not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. Before any judicial actions may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 are to be exhausted.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, except as required by law. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
FSA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal implications that requires Tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FSA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by the 2018 Farm Bill.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Agencies generally need to prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost
This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in Title II of UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
The title and number of the Federal Domestic Assistance Program in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, to which this rule applies is 10.054—Emergency Conservation Program.
In the accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), this rule does not change the information collection approved by OMB under OMB control number 0560-0082.
FSA are committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Disaster assistance, Environmental protection, Forests and forest products, Grant programs—agriculture, Grant programs—natural resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas, Soil conservation, Water resources, Wildlife.
For the reasons discussed above, FSA amends 7 CFR part 701 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 2201-2206; Sec. 101, Pub. L. 109-148, 119 Stat. 2747; and Pub. L.111-212, 124 Stat. 2302.
The additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
The revision reads as follows:
The revision reads as follow.
(b) However, notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a producer who is a limited resource, socially disadvantaged, or beginning farmer or rancher that participates in ECP may receive up to 90 percent of the total allowable costs expended to perform the practice as determined under this part.
(a) With respect to a payment to an agricultural producer for the repair or replacement of fencing, the agricultural producer has the option of receiving up to 25 percent of the projected payment, determined based on the applicable percentage of the fair market value of the cost of the repair or replacement, as determined by FSA before the agricultural producer carries out the repair or replacement.
(b) If the funds provided under paragraph (a) of this section are not spent by the agricultural producer within 60 calendar days of the date on which the agricultural producer receives those funds, the funds must be returned to FSA by a date determined by FSA.
(c) Payments made under this section are subject to the availability of funds.
The revision reads as follow.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the “Act”), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a request from the State of California to reclassify the Coachella Valley ozone nonattainment area from “Severe-15” to “Extreme” for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This action does not reclassify any areas of Indian country within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley 1997 ozone nonattainment area.
This rule is effective on July 10, 2019.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0840. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
Tom Kelly, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3856 or by email at
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Effective June 15, 2004, we classified a portion of Riverside County (Coachella Valley) under the CAA as “Serious” for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
We are approving CARB's reclassification request under section 181(b)(3) of the Act, which provides for “voluntary reclassification.”
The EPA revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS with the promulgation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
Within the geographic boundaries of Coachella Valley is Indian country under the jurisdiction of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians. Because the State of California does not have jurisdiction over Indian country located within its borders, CARB's request to reclassify the Coachella Valley does not apply to these areas of Indian country. The EPA implements federal CAA programs, including reclassifications, in Indian country consistent with our discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the CAA. The EPA has not received a reclassification request from any tribe with jurisdiction within the Coachella Valley, and this action does not reclassify any areas of Indian country within the Coachella Valley.
The EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with
The EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this reclassification to become effective on the date of publication. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date of less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. The schedule for required plan submittals for Coachella Valley under the new classification will be proposed in a separate action. For this reason, the EPA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this reclassification to become effective on the date of publication.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this final action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to Executive Order 12866. This action is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because it is not significant under Executive Order 12866. With respect to lands under state jurisdiction, voluntary reclassifications under CAA section 181(b)(3) of the CAA are based solely upon requests by the state, and the EPA is required under the CAA to grant them. These actions do not, in and of themselves, impose any new requirements on any sectors of the economy. In addition, because the statutory requirements are clearly defined with respect to the differently classified areas, and because those requirements are automatically triggered by reclassification, reclassification does not impose a materially adverse impact under Executive Order 12866. For these reasons, this final action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
In addition, I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. This reclassification action relates to ozone, a pollutant that is regional in nature, and is not the type of action that could result in the types of local impacts addressed in Executive Order 12898.
This final action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, nor on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This final action does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation.
Reclassification actions do not involve technical standards and thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 9, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Final supplementary rules.
The California State Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is issuing final supplementary rules related to dog management and other public safety issues on public lands at Fort Ord National Monument (FONM), California.
These rules are effective August 9, 2019.
You may submit inquiries by mail, hand-delivery, or electronic mail. Mail: FONM Manager, BLM, Central Coast Field Office, 940 2nd Avenue, Marina, CA 93933. Electronic mail:
Eric Morgan, FONM Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Central Coast Field Office, 940 2nd Avenue, Marina, CA 93933, at telephone: 831-582-2200, or email:
The former Fort Ord military installation closed in 1994. The Secretary of the Army transferred administration of part of the installation to the Department of the Interior. In 2012, the lands became part of the 14,651 acre FONM pursuant to Presidential Proclamation No. 8803. The Army continues to manage approximately 7,446 acres of the FONM and will transfer those lands to the BLM for administration following a munitions cleanup being performed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
On December 5, 1996, the BLM issued an emergency closure notice (61 FR 64530) that applied to former Fort Ord lands that had been transferred to the Department of the Interior.
On September 7, 2007, the BLM State Director approved a Record of Decision for the Southern Diablo Mountain Range and Central Coast of California Resource Management Plan (RMP). To protect health and public safety from exposure to munitions and to promote coordination with local law enforcement, that RMP directed the BLM's Central Coast Field Office to develop a dog-management plan for the FONM, which was completed in July 2016. As set forth later, these final rules are consistent with both the 2016 dog-management plan and the 2007 RMP.
In addition to dog-management provisions, these final supplementary rules include revised versions of the restrictions in the 1996 emergency closure order. In these final supplementary rules, the BLM is also adopting some Monterey County ordinances, in order to facilitate cooperation between BLM rangers and local law enforcement officials.
The BLM California State Director proposed these supplementary rules in the
These supplementary rules are necessary to support the mission of the BLM to protect the natural resources of the FONM, and to protect the health and safety of those using the public lands.
The supplementary rules (see Section IV) are broken into three categories. Supplementary rules numbered 1 through 9 are new, and implement new direction from the approved dog-management plan. Supplementary rules 10 through 15 are not completely new, since they are revisions of previous restrictions that were established in 1996 (see 61 FR 64530), and are consistent with the national monument proclamation of 2012 (
These final supplementary rules are not a significant regulatory action and are not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. They do not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. The final supplementary rules do not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The final supplementary rules do not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The final supplementary rules do not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients nor do they raise novel legal or policy issues. They merely impose rules of conduct and impose other limitations on certain recreational and commercial activities on certain public lands to protect natural resources and human health and safety.
The BLM prepared an environmental assessment (EA) that analyzed different dog-management alternatives on FONM under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), pursuant to 43 CFR 46.205(b) and 46.210(i). On July 5, 2016, the BLM approved the Final FONM Dog Management Plan and associated EA (DOI-BLM-CA-C090-2016-0021-EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). All of the final supplementary rules were analyzed in the Dog Plan EA and FONSI. The final supplementary rules are also consistent with the Record of Decision for the Southern Diablo Mountain Range and Central Coast of California RMP approved in 2007.
Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. The final supplementary rules merely impose reasonable restrictions on certain recreational activities on public lands in order to protect natural
The final supplementary rules are not a “major rule” as defined under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final supplementary rules merely revise the rules of conduct for public use of limited areas of public lands and do not affect commercial or business activities of any kind.
The final supplementary rules do not impose an unfunded mandate of more than $100 million per year on State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, nor do they have a significant or unique effect on small governments. The final supplementary rules have no effect on governmental or tribal entities and impose no requirements on any of these entities. The final supplementary rules merely revise the rules of conduct for public use of limited areas of public lands and do not affect tribal, commercial, or business activities of any kind. Therefore, the BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act at 2 U.S.C. 1531.
The final supplementary rules do not represent a government action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. Therefore, the BLM has determined that the final supplementary rules do not cause a taking of private property or require further discussion of takings implications under this Executive Order.
The final supplementary rules do 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM has determined that the final supplementary rules do not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Under Executive Order 12988, the BLM has determined that the final supplementary rules do not unduly burden the judicial system, and that they meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM has found that the final supplementary rules do not include policies that have tribal implications. The final supplementary rules merely revise the rules of conduct for public use of limited areas of public lands.
In accordance with Executive Order 13352, the BLM has determined that these final supplementary rules do not impede facilitating cooperation conservation; take appropriate account of and consider the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources. The rules properly accommodate local participation in the Federal decision-making process, and provide that the programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety.
In developing these supplementary rules, the BLM did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554). In accordance with the Information Quality Act, the Department of the Interior (DOI) has issued guidance regarding the quality of information that it relies on for regulatory decisions. This guidance is available on the DOI's website at
Under Executive Order 13211, the BLM has determined that the final supplementary rules do not comprise a significant energy action, and that they do not have an adverse effect on energy supplies, production, or consumption.
The final supplementary rules do not directly provide for any information collection that the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. Moreover, any information collection that may result from Federal criminal investigations or prosecutions conducted under the final supplementary rules are exempt from the provisions of 44 U.S.C. 3518(c)(1).
The principal author of these final supplementary rules is Eric Morgan, Monument Manager, Central Coast Field Office, 940 2nd Avenue, Marina, CA 93933.
For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authorities for final supplementary rules found under 43 CFR 8365.1-6, 43 U.S.C. 1733(a), 16 U.S.C. 670h(c)(5), and 43 U.S.C. 315a, the BLM California State Director issues final supplementary rules for public lands managed by the BLM within the boundaries of the FONM, to read as follows:
Unless otherwise authorized by the BLM, the following supplementary rules apply to all BLM-managed public lands
1. Dogs are not permitted in the Inland Range Planning Unit. Service animals accompanying a disabled person as accommodated by the Americans with Disabilities Act are excluded from this provision.
2. Dogs must be under control and on a leash or cord not to exceed 6 feet in length, at all times while on a road or trail that has not been designated as an “off-leash-opportunity route.”
3. To eliminate exposure to munitions, individuals and/or their dog must not walk or roam off a designated route, including any route designated as an “off-leash-opportunity route.”
4. Dogs must be under control, or kept on a leash or cord not to exceed 6 feet in length, on a designated “off-leash-opportunity route” when within 100 feet of another person and/or dog that is not with your party.
5. Dogs must not roam over 50 feet away from you while on a designated “off-leash-opportunity route.”
6. Dogs must not enter any vernal pool or pond, or roam within 20 feet of any such area, unless you and your dog are on a route designated for public use.
7. A leash for each dog is required to be in your possession.
8. Dogs must not be left unattended, even if on a tether, within a crate, or within an unoccupied motor vehicle.
9. Visitors must yield the path, on both roads and trails, to other visitors in the following manner: Bicycles must yield to pedestrians and equestrians; and pedestrians must yield to equestrians. For bicycles, the passing speed shall be no greater than 10 mph on roads, and 5 mph on single-track trails.
10. Motorized vehicles and other motorized devices, including electronic bicycles, are prohibited on all roads and trails excluding Creekside Terrace Road and Badger Hills Driveway. Motorized vehicle use on these two roadways is restricted to highway licensed street-legal vehicles.
11. Use and/or occupancy of all lands within the FONM, including leaving personal property unattended, is prohibited between
12. All use (including pet use) is restricted to designated routes and trails. Open routes and trails are indicated on BLM maps and signed with route or trail markers. Any unsigned route which does not appear on the most current BLM map is closed to all uses.
13. Campfires and other open flame fires are prohibited.
14. Possession or discharge of fireworks, including “safe and sane” fireworks, is prohibited.
15. Wood cutting and the collection of downed wood are prohibited.
16. It shall be unlawful for the owner or person having custody of any dog, either willfully or through failure to exercise due care or control, to allow said dog to defecate and to allow the feces thereafter to remain on FONM other than within trash receptacles provided for such purposes. This includes bagged feces—Reference Monterey County ordinance, 8.36.030.
17. All dogs under 4 months of age shall be kept under control by the owner, keeper, or harborer when on FONM—Reference Monterey County ordinance, 8.20.020.
18. Dogs on FONM shall wear a license tag attached at all times to a collar, harness, or other suitable device upon the dog for which the license tag was issued—Reference Monterey County ordinance, 8.08.040.
The following persons are exempt from these final supplementary rules: Any Federal, State, or local officer or employee in the scope of their duties; members of any organized law enforcement, rescue, or fire-fighting force in performance of an official duty; and any person whose activities are authorized in writing by the BLM.
Any person who violates any of these supplementary rules may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571, imprisoned no more than 12 months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360.0-7, or both.
In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-7, State or local officials may also impose penalties for violations of California law.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of availability; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is extending the comment period for the draft guidance for industry entitled “The Use of an Alternate Name for Potassium Chloride in Food Labeling,” which was announced in the
FDA is extending the comment period on the draft guidance published May 20, 2019 (84 FR 22749). Submit either electronic or written comments by September 17, 2019, to ensure that we consider your comment on the draft guidance before we begin work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows.
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Andrea Krause, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2371.
In the
We have received requests for a 60-day extension of the comment period for the draft guidance. The requests conveyed concern that the current 60-day comment period does not allow
We have considered the requests and are extending the comment period for the draft guidance for 60 additional days, until September 17, 2019. We believe that a 60-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary special local regulation for a designated area of the Duluth Harbor entrance to Superior Bay on Lake Superior during the Festival of Sail 2019 event in Duluth, MN. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters around the port of Duluth, MN during a sail festival with tall ships beginning on August 11, 2019 and ending the afternoon of August 13, 2019. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the designated region unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or a designated representative. We invite the public to comment on this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, specifically on the extended time of the special local regulation.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 17, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2019-0300 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Abbie Lyons, Waterways Management, MSU Duluth, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 218-725-3818, email
On December 11, 2018, Draw Events LLC notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a Festival of Sail event in Duluth, MN from August 11 through August 13, 2019. The Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
The legal basis for this proposed rule is the Coast Guard's authority under 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
The COTP is proposing to establish a special local regulation from 7 a.m. on August 11, 2019 to 1 p.m. on August 13, 2019. The special local regulation would cover designated navigable waters in the vicinity of Duluth Harbor.
The duration of the zone is intended to protect the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and immediately after the scheduled Festival of Sail. Only the designated sailing vessels associated with the event are permitted within the zone while it is being enforced. No other vessels or persons will be permitted to enter the zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or by telephone at (218) 428-9357. The regulatory text proposed appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This SNPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the SNPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the availability of the Superior Harbor entrance as an alternate entry into Superior Bay, the short time frame of the special local regulation, and the estimated number of spectator vessels around the Duluth Harbor entrance for the event. We anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine Channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the restricted area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special local regulation lasting 3 days that would prohibit entry within a designated area around the Duluth Harbor entrance. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[61] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(b)
(2) Vessels and persons receiving COTP Duluth or on-scene representative authorization to enter the area of this special local regulation must do so in accordance with the following restrictions:
(i) Vessels and persons must transit at a speed not exceed six (6) knots or at no wake speed, whichever is less. Vessels proceeding under sail will not be allowed in this Area unless also propelled by machinery, due to limited maneuvering ability around numerous other spectator craft viewing the Festival of Sail; and
(ii) Vessels and persons will not be permitted to impede the parade of sail from 7:00 a.m. to 1 p.m. on August 11, 2019 once it has commenced, as the tall ships are extremely limited in their ability to maneuver.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area prior to the event through Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Notice of actual enforcement will be provided by on-scene representatives.
(4) The “on-scene representative” of the COTP Duluth is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer and any Federal, State, or local officer designated by the COTP to act on her behalf.
(5) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the regulated area shall contact the COTP Duluth by telephone at (218) 428-9357, or on-scene representative via VHF radio on Channel 16, to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter, operate, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas must comply with all instructions given by COTP Duluth or on-scene representatives.
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) of the Department of Natural Resources, in a letter dated July 31, 2018. EPA is proposing to approve changes to the Georgia's Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting rule. This action is being proposed pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and its implementing regulations.
Comments must be received on or before August 9, 2019.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. at EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0711 at
Richard Wong, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-8726. Mr. Wong can also be reached via electronic mail at
GA EPD submitted a SIP revision through a letter dated July 31, 2018, to EPA for review and approval into the Georgia SIP that contains changes to a number of Georgia's air quality rules in Rule 391-3-1.
Georgia's submittal makes several administrative and clarifying edits to Rule 391-3-1-.01, “Definitions.” Specifically, the change to Rule 391-3-1-.01(oo), “Manager” removes “office” and replaces with “compliance assistance program.” The change to Rule 391-3-1-.01(kkk), “Small Business Advisory Panel” adds “Compliance” to the title of this rule and the change to Rule 391-3-1-.01(lll), “Small business stationary source or facility” at subparagraph (5) removes the major stationary source description for sources and facilities emitting less than 75 tons of regulated pollutants. Lastly, the revision to Rule 391-3-1-.01(mmm), “Small business stationary source technical and environmental office,” changes the title to “Small business stationary source technical and environmental compliance assistance program,” and removes Air Protection Branch from the definition.
Additionally, Georgia's July 31, 2018, SIP revision makes changes to Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(c), “Incinerators.” The change updates rule titles for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators, Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste, and Sewage Sludge Incinerators in Subparagraphs (6)(iv), (v), (vi), (vii), and (xiii). Lastly, a typographical edit is made to Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)(11), “Peanut/Nut Shelling Operations” at Subparagraph (i)(II). EPA is proposing to approve these changes because they are minor and clarifying changes that do not relax or alter the meaning of the rules.
In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the GA EPD Rule 391-3-1-.01, “Definitions,” Rule 391-3-.02(2)(c), “Incinerators,” and Rule 391-3-1-.03(11) “Permit by Rule,” which clarifies the rule by updating rule titles and making typographical corrections, state effective June 18, 2018. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
EPA is proposing to approve the aforementioned changes to Georgia August 2, 2018, SIP submittal that make changes to Rule 391-3-1-.01, “Definitions,” Rule 391-3-.02(2)(c), “Incinerators,” and Rule 391-3-1-.03(11) “Permit by Rule.” EPA views these changes as being consistent with the CAA.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
On October 24, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule and provided for a thirty-day public comment period. The public comment period closed on November 23, 2018 and EPA received three comments. The purpose of this document is to reopen the comment period for an additional 30 days. This extension of the comment period is provided to allow the public additional time to provide comment on the October 24, 2018 proposed rule. All comments submitted during the original comment period as well those submitted during this extension of the comment period will be accepted and considered.
Comments on this proposed rule must be received by August 9, 2019.
Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Bruce Jones, Office of Regional Counsel (ORC), (214) 665-3184 and Email address
On October 24, 2018 (83 FR 53595), the EPA published a Proposed Rule to approve state-initiated changes and incorporation by reference of the State of Texas hazardous waste program under (RCRA). EPA is reopening the comment period due to a comment noting the public needed additional time to comment and that some items were not in the docket on
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Water pollution control, Water supply.
This document is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Rejection of the petition to ban imports through emergency rulemaking.
NMFS announces the rejection of a petition for emergency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. Sea Shepherd Legal, Sea Shepherd New Zealand Ltd., and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society petitioned the U.S. Department of Commerce and other relevant Departments to initiate emergency rulemaking under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (“MMPA”), to ban importation of commercial fish or products from fish that have been caught with commercial fishing technology that results in incidental mortality or serious injury of Māui dolphin (
The petition for rulemaking was denied on June 18, 2019.
Nina Young, NMFS F/IASI (Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection) at
Section 101(a)(2) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2), states that: “The Secretary of the Treasury shall ban the importation of commercial fish or products from fish which have been caught with commercial fishing technology which results in the incidental kill or incidental serious injury of ocean mammals in excess of United States standards.” In August 2016, NMFS published a final rule (81 FR 54390; August 15, 2016) implementing the fish and fish product import provisions in section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA. This rule established conditions for evaluating a harvesting nation's regulatory programs to address incidental and intentional mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in fisheries operated by nations that export fish and fish products to the United States. In that rule's preamble, NMFS stated that it may consider emergency rulemaking to ban imports of fish and fish products from an export or exempt fishery having or likely to have an immediate and significant adverse impact on a marine mammal stock.
NMFS received a petition on February 6, 2019, from Sea Shepherd Legal, Sea Shepherd New Zealand Ltd., and Sea
As support for the need for this action, the petition cites several reports and studies, which note various estimates of decline. The petitioners assert that for the Māui dolphin, set net and trawl bycatch has driven the species from a population of approximately 2,000 individuals in 1971, to 111 in 2004, to 55 in 2011. Further, the petition notes that in 2018 the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission reported an abundance estimate of 57 individuals, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 44 to 75 individuals, which equates to an average decline of 2 percent every year and a total decline of 59 percent over the 31-year period from 1985 to 2016.
The petitioners maintain that any fishery using set nets, trawls, or gillnets in the Māui dolphin range along the west coast of New Zealand's North Island violates U.S. standards under the MMPA. The petitioners provide a list of 11 fish species harvested within the Māui dolphin range by set nets, trawls, or gillnets that are potentially imported into the U.S. as fish or fish products.
NMFS reviewed the petition, supporting documents, previous risk assessments and threat management plans and New Zealand's 2019 risk assessment and Threat Management Plan (TMP). NMFS is rejecting the petition because the Government of New Zealand is implementing a regulatory program comparable in effectiveness to the United States and for the following reasons:
1. New Zealand has in place an existing regulatory program to reduce Māui dolphin bycatch.
2. Through its 2019 risk assessment, New Zealand evaluated the effectiveness of this regulatory program in meeting bycatch reduction targets defined as the Population Sustainability Threshold (PST).
3. Based on the 2019 assessment, New Zealand is now proposing additional regulatory measures which, when fully implemented, will likely further reduce risk and Māui dolphin bycatch below Potential Biological Removal level (PBR).
Since 2012, the Government of New Zealand has had in place measures restricting set nets and trawls in certain areas of Māui dolphin habitat, and required increased observer coverage and other monitoring mechanisms. From 1995/96 to present, there have been no observed captures of Māui dolphins in set net or trawl fisheries (Roberts et al. 2019).
According to the risk assessment, for Māui dolphins on the West Coast of the North Island (WCNI), the estimated annual deaths from commercial set nets was 0.09 individuals per year, (95 percent CI = 0.0-0.3) and for the inshore trawl fishery was 0.02 individuals per year (95 percent CI = 0.0-0.1). Therefore, estimated bycatch in set and trawl fisheries is approximately equivalent to the PBR level of 0.11 for Māui dolphin, assuming the distribution of Māui dolphins can be accurately approximated by the Hector's dolphin habitat preference model. The estimated bycatch is also less than New Zealand's PST (their PBR equivalent) of 0.28 (
New Zealand's 2019 spatial risk assessment of threats to Māui dolphin informs the revised TMP for this subspecies (Roberts et al. 2019). According to the 2019 assessment, bycatch of Māui dolphins in commercial fishing operations is currently at or below PBR and PST. However, because the population of Māui dolphins is very small, New Zealand is committed to reducing the risk of all human-induced deaths to as close as possible to zero to provide the best chance of preventing further population decline, and allow the population to increase as rapidly as possible. Based on the mortality estimates in the risk assessment, New Zealand is proposing to implement additional mitigation measures with the proposed outcome of reducing the current level of fisheries risk by at least 50 percent. On June 17, 2019, New Zealand published a TMP containing additional options to reduce Māui dolphin bycatch. New Zealand's Hector's and Māui dolphin Threat Management Plan is currently under public review and comment with final regulatory action by the New Zealand's Ministers scheduled for late 2019 (See:
New Zealand's TMP proposes a range of bycatch mitigation measures to complement measures already in place and reduce the residual risk from both set netting and trawling. An additional mitigation measure, in addition to the mitigation options proposed in the 2019 TMP, is the inclusion of a trigger mechanism where set net and trawl fishing would be halted throughout the range of the Māui dolphins if a fisheries capture occurred. The TMP is the functional equivalent to a take reduction plan under the MMPA. The immediate goal of take reduction plans is to reduce, within six months of its implementation, the incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals from commercial fishing to less than the PBR level (16 U.S.C 1387(f)(2)). Most of the options contained in New Zealand's TMP, once implemented, would further reduce the risk of Māui dolphin bycatch. With the exception of the status quo option, all options within the TMP, once implemented, will likely further reduce Māui dolphin bycatch to well below PBR and PST.
Therefore, based on the current regulatory regime and assuming the implementation of additional measures outlined in the TMP, NMFS does not believe that import restrictions under the MMPA Import Provisions are warranted at this time and is rejecting the petition. As part of the MMPA Import Provisions, NMFS will continue to evaluate New Zealand's
NMFS received comments on the notification of the petition from fishing industry groups, environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private citizens, the Marine Mammal Commission, and foreign governments.
NMFS received comment letters and petitions from private citizens primarily through environmental NGOs supporting the petition. Specifically, the majority of commenters expressed their support for the petition and the application of trade restrictions. NMFS received more than 88,678 petitioners on the Care2 comments, most with minimal substantive comment. Forty-three public comments generally supported the petition. In addition, we received substantive comments from the Marine Mammal Commission, industry (2), marine mammal scientists (1) and environmental NGOs (3) for a total of 88,726 comments/petitioners. Comments received are available on the internet at
As noted by the Marine Mammal Commission, the two population estimates produced since the establishment of the prohibition zones, made five years apart, were very similar (Slooten and Dawson 2018), suggesting that protection provided by the current regulatory regime may have slowed or halted the population's decline. This observation is supported by the bycatch estimates in the current risk assessment, which now estimate Māui dolphin bycatch at 0.1 animals annually over the last three years. Additionally, the 2019 TMP contains additional options for bycatch mitigation, which, with the exception of the status quo, extends protection over a larger portion of Māui dolphin habitat. The evidence presented in terms of abundance estimates and risk assessments supports the adequacy of existing protection measures. Therefore, NMFS believes the existing and the proposed regulatory regime is sufficient to maintain Māui dolphin bycatch below PBR.
The Marine Mammal Commission states that “to address the unacceptably
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 the proposed information collection. This is a reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired. The previously approved collection is associated with State agencies notifying FNS of and thereafter reporting on Major Changes in their operation of SNAP. The final rule entitled Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Review of Major Changes in Program Design and Management Evaluation Systems was published on January 19, 2016. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cleared the associated information collection requirements (ICR) on March 10, 2016.
Written comments must be received on or before September 9, 2019.
Comments may be submitted in writing by one of the following methods:
•
•
• All written comments submitted in response to this information collection will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be subject to public disclosure. FNS will make the written comments publicly available on the internet via
Requests for additional information should be directed to Ms. Mary Rose Conroy at (703) 305-2803.
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 used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Regulations at 7 CFR 272.15(a)(3) require States to provide both descriptive and analytic information regarding the major change. We estimate it takes 8 hours to describe the change and 32 hours to complete the required analysis for a total of 40 hours per response. State agencies are required to provide descriptive information regarding the major change together with an analysis of its projected impacts on program operations. The regulations also set out requirements for the State to collect and report additional monthly information collected and gathered at the program/State levels that are submitted on a quarterly basis to FNS. Reporting continues for at least a year after the change is completely implemented. It is not uncommon for a State to pilot a change prior to statewide implementation. FNS can require information from the pilot to be submitted to FNS as well as information regarding the statewide impacts of the change after full implementation.
There are six categories of major changes: (1) Changes to the States automated system, (2) changing the responsibilities of merit system personnel, (3) office closings, (4) reductions in State SNAP merit system personnel, (5) changes that may make it more difficult for households to report and (6) an undefined “other” category.
Once a State has triggered one of the six criteria, the State is required to report the “automatic” information as required in § 272.15(b)(2)-(4) and FNS must determine what, if any, additional data the State will be required to collect and report as provided for in § 272.15(b)(5). FNS has determined the automatic reporting requirements and its ongoing data collection it requires will be sufficient to provide to FNS the needed information on a major change. Additional data will occasionally need to be generated from States' automated
Based upon FNS' experience over the last two years, out of 53 State agencies this data collection impacts, FNS estimates only 10 States to submit major changes annually. The total estimated burden hours associated with the Major Change requirements since the final rule are being revised from 9,663.75 to 2,160. While the number of expected major changes States are expected to report annually is revised from 22.5 to 20, most of the decrease is based due to the initial overestimated need for additional reporting beyond the “automatic” provisions of the rule. The final rule estimated that 6.75 States would be required to gather and report additional data, while to date FNS has not required this of any State so the estimate has been revised to one (1) State annually will gather and report additional data to FNS. This correction accounts for a decrease in hours from 7,377 in the final rule to 896 in this notice.
While FNS' experience has resulted in a change to the number of Major Changes FNS expects States to report annually and the number that will require additional reporting, there is no basis to change original estimates of time/staff needed by States to complete the required notification reports. Thus, with an estimated 10 States reporting one major change per year (based upon the last two years), the initial reporting and analysis aspect of the rulemaking would be 10 annual responses × 40 hours per initial response per State = an estimated 400 burden hours per year.
In terms of State reporting after the initial notification, no additional reporting has been required beyond the automatic reporting requirements. Therefore, FNS is projecting that for nine of the ten major changes expected each year there would be no additional reporting burden beyond the automatic reporting. All 10 of the major changes estimated each year are expected to require some automated system reprogramming to generate the required automatic data reporting. At 48 hours per reprogramming effort, this would be 480 hours per year (10 × 48). Preparing the 40 quarterly reports are estimated to require 12 hours each. The total for the 10 States would be 480 + 480 hours = 960 total hours for reporting (divided by the 10 states = 96 hours per State per year).
For the 1 State projected to require additional data collection, this requirement would be in addition to the 960 hours above. Such data will generally be collected through a sample of case reviews. While the required sample sizes may vary based on the type of major change and the proportion of the State's SNAP caseload it may affect, 200 cases per quarter would likely be an upper limit on what FNS could ask of a State. At an estimated one hour to review and report on a case, this would require 800 hours per year for one State each year. When the 400 hours for notifications and the 960 hours are added for the automatic information, the total for the 10 States is 2,160 (or 216 hours per State per year).
With all 10 States reporting quarterly, there would be 40 responses annually. One of the 40 reports would contain additional information from sample data.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a new generic information collection request,
Comments must be received in writing on or before September 9, 2019 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Send written comments to Kenli Kim, National Program Leader for Social Science Research, Forest Service, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Mailstop 1114, Washington, DC 20250-1114, or by electronic mail to
All timely and properly submitted comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received on this information collection at the USDA Forest Service Headquarters, 201 14th St. SW, Washington, DC 20250 between the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on business days. Those wishing to inspect comments should contact Kenli Kim to facilitate an appointment and entrance to the building.
Kenli Kim, National Program Leader for
The Forest Service has instituted state-of-the art techniques to improve the quality and timeliness of surveys and related data collection and analyses, while simultaneously reducing respondents' workload and burden. The purpose of this generic clearance is to allow the Forest Service to evaluate, adopt, and use these state-of-the-art techniques to improve its current data collections on forest and natural land management. This clearance will also be used to aid in the development of new surveys and data collection methods. Additionally, the Forest Service anticipates the benefit of increased response rates through improved survey design, a goal tied directly to improving response rates and reducing non-response bias.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request for final Office of Management and Budget approval.
Notice; request for comments.
The Department of Commerce is seeking comments from intellectual property rights holders, online third-party marketplaces and other third-party intermediaries, and other private-sector stakeholders on the state of counterfeit and pirated goods trafficking through online third-party marketplaces and recommendations for curbing the trafficking in such counterfeit and pirated goods. All responses to this notice will be shared with interagency teams, and specifically the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for use in preparing a report for the President as directed by the April 3, 2019 Presidential Memorandum on “Combating Trafficking in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods” (Presidential Memorandum).
Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, July 29, 2019.
You may submit comments and responses to the questions below by one of the following methods. All comments must be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(a)
(b)
For questions about this notice, contact Raquel Cohen at the U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Office of Intellectual Property Rights, by email to
Section 2 of the Presidential Memorandum of April 3, 2019, “Combating Trafficking in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods,” directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce and in consultation with other agencies and offices to prepare and submit a report to the President on the “State of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods Trafficking and Recommendations,” with particular emphasis on the role of online third-party marketplaces and other third-party intermediaries, and, consistent with applicable law, to consult with intellectual property rights holders, online third-party marketplaces and other third-party intermediaries, and other private-sector stakeholders in preparing the report. Specifically, the report shall:
(i) Analyze available data and other information to develop a deeper understanding of the extent to which online third-party marketplaces and other third party intermediaries are used to facilitate the importation and sale of counterfeit and pirated goods; identify the factors that contribute to trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods; and describe any market incentives and distortions that may contribute to third-party intermediaries facilitating trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods. This review should include data regarding the origins of counterfeit and pirated goods and the types of counterfeit and pirated goods that are trafficked, along with any other relevant data, and shall provide a foundation for any recommended administrative, regulatory, legislative, or policy changes.
(ii) Evaluate the existing policies and procedures of third-party intermediaries relating to trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods, and identify the practices of those entities that have been most effective in curbing the importation and sale of counterfeit and pirated goods, including those conveyed through online third-party marketplaces. The report should also evaluate the effectiveness of Federal efforts, including the requirement for certain Federal contractors to establish and maintain a system to detect and avoid counterfeit electronic parts under the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.246-7007, as well as steps taken by foreign governments, such as France and Canada, to combat trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods.
(iii) To the extent that certain types of data are not currently available to the Federal Government, or accessible in a readily usable form, recommend changes to the data collection practices of agencies, including specification of categories of data that should be collected and appropriate standardization practices for data.
(iv) Identify appropriate administrative, statutory, regulatory, or other changes, including enhanced enforcement actions, that could substantially reduce trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods or promote more effective law enforcement regarding trafficking in such goods. The report should address the practices of counterfeiters and pirates, including their shipping, fulfillment, and payment logistics, and assess means of mitigating the factors that facilitate trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods.
(v) Identify appropriate guidance that agencies may provide to third-party intermediaries to help them prevent the importation and sale of counterfeit and pirated goods.
(vi) Identify appropriate administrative, regulatory, legislative, or policy changes that would enable agencies, as appropriate, to more effectively share information regarding counterfeit and pirated goods, including suspected counterfeit and pirated goods, with intellectual property rights holders, consumers, and third-party intermediaries.
(vii) Evaluate the current and future resource needs of agencies and make appropriate recommendations for more effective detection, interdiction, investigation, and prosecution regarding trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods, including trafficking through online third-party marketplaces and other third-party intermediaries. These recommendations should include suggestions for increasing the use of effective technologies and expanding collaboration with third party intermediaries, intellectual property rights holders, and other stakeholders.
(viii) Identify areas for collaboration between the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security on efforts to combat trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods.
The Presidential Memorandum defines:
• “Online third-party marketplace” to mean “any web-based platform that includes features primarily designed for arranging the sale, purchase, payment, or shipping of goods, or that enables sellers not directly affiliated with an operator of such platforms to sell physical goods to consumers located in the United States;” and
• “Third-party intermediaries” to mean “online third-party marketplaces, carriers, customs brokers, payment providers, vendors, and other parties involved in international transactions.”
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, and in consultation with relevant agencies (“interagency”), is required to deliver this report to the President by October 30, 2019. A public version of the report will be published in the
In response to this directive, as part of its coordination in preparation of the report, the Department of Commerce is facilitating stakeholder outreach to better understand,
• The extent to which online third-party marketplaces and other third-party intermediaries are used to facilitate importation and sale of counterfeit and pirated goods;
• The existing practices of online third-party marketplaces and/or other third-party intermediaries that are most effective in curbing importation and sale of counterfeit and pirated goods; and
• Recommendations for potential policy, administrative, regulatory, and/or legislative changes by the Federal Government that could be effective in curbing the importation and sale of counterfeit and pirated goods through online third-party marketplaces and/or enabling more effective law enforcement regarding the importation and sale of such goods.
In preparing the report, the interagency already is considering
In addition, the interagency currently is considering potential “best practices” guidance for online third-party marketplaces designed to prevent counterfeit and pirated goods from being offered for sale, such as:
i. Conducting an advance vetting of the potential sellers/vendors, including to ensure that the goods are not being produced by forced labor (19 U.S.C. 1307; 18 U.S.C. 1589);
ii. establishing and enforcing a “prohibited items” list of those goods that may not be sold through the marketplace (due to,
iii. taking down listings for counterfeit and pirated goods;
iv. notifying customers that the marketplace has determined that the customer has, or may have, purchased counterfeit or pirated goods, and providing appropriate remedies to such customers; and
v. notifying other third-party intermediaries, intellectual property rights holders, other stakeholders, and law enforcement that the online third-party marketplace has determined that a particular seller/vendor has been supplying counterfeit or pirated goods.
Given the nature and import of the Presidential Memorandum, the Secretary requests information and recommendations from interested stakeholders, including but not limited to: Intellectual property rights holders affected by the importation and sale of counterfeit and pirated goods through online third-party marketplaces or other third-party intermediaries; online third-party marketplaces and other third-party intermediaries; and other affected persons or entities.
Respondents may address any, all or none of the following questions, and may address additional related topics that have implications for combating the trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods. Please identify, where possible, the questions your comments are intended to address.
Respondents may organize their submissions in any manner, and all responses that comply with the requirements listed in the
While the Department welcomes all input considered relevant to the development of a report on the state of counterfeit and pirated goods trafficking through online third-party marketplaces and recommendations to combat such trafficking, the Department specifically seeks the following types of information and recommendations:
1. How are your interests affected by counterfeit or pirated goods imported through online third-party marketplaces and other third-party intermediaries as those terms are defined in the Presidential Memorandum? (Specific examples and/or data would be helpful, including on the origins of counterfeit and pirated goods and the types of counterfeit and pirated goods that are trafficked. Information that is not publicly available can be submitted as “business confidential” in accordance with the instructions in the
2. What factors contribute to trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods through online third-party marketplaces or other third-party intermediaries, and what market incentives and distortions may contribute to the use of online third-party marketplaces and other third-party intermediaries to traffic in counterfeit and pirated goods?
3. Are there effective technologies, the use of which—by the private sector and/or law enforcement agencies—could substantially reduce the sale and importation of counterfeit and pirated goods through online third-party marketplaces and/or enable more effective law enforcement regarding the trafficking in such goods? Please reference and provide copies of any available studies that demonstrate the efficacy of such technologies, or any available data that may be used to do so.
4. To what degree can expanded collaboration and information sharing among online third-party marketplaces, other third-party intermediaries, intellectual property rights holders, other private-sector stakeholders and/or U.S. law enforcement organizations substantially reduce trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods and/or enable more effective law enforcement regarding the trafficking in such goods?
5. Are there Federal agency data collection or standardization practices, or practices involving provision of data to parties, that could promote more effective detection, interdiction, investigation or prosecution of underlying violations of U.S. customs laws and of intellectual property rights?
6. What existing policies, procedures or best practices of online third-party marketplaces, other third-party intermediaries, intellectual property rights holders, and/or other private-sector stakeholders have been effective in curbing the importation and sale of counterfeit and pirated goods, including those conveyed through online third-party marketplaces?
7. What additional policies, procedures or best practices of online third-party marketplaces, other third-party intermediaries, intellectual property rights holders, and/or other private-sector stakeholders can be effective in curbing the importation and sale of counterfeit and pirated goods, including those conveyed through online third-party marketplaces? What would it cost for industry to adopt such practices?
8. What policy remedies, including administrative, regulatory, or legislative changes by the Federal Government (including enhanced enforcement actions) could substantially reduce the trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods and/or promote more effective law enforcement regarding the trafficking in such goods? Please reference any available analyses that shed light on the efficacy and potential impacts of such proposed remedies.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that imports of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE), produced in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) using hot-rolled steel (HRS) and/or cold-rolled steel (CRS) flat products manufactured in Taiwan, are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) order on CORE from Taiwan.
Applicable July 10, 2019.
Shanah Lee and Peter Zukowski, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6386 and (202) 482-0189, respectively.
Certain domestic interested parties, ArcelorMittal USA LLC, California Steel Industries, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and United States Steel Corporation (collectively, the petitioners) filed an allegation
On August 2, 2018, Commerce published the notice of initiation of anti-circumvention inquiry on imports of CORE from Vietnam.
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the partial federal government closure from December 22, 2018 through the resumption of operations on January 29, 2019.
The products covered by this order are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
This anti-circumvention inquiry covers CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS and/or CRS substrate input manufactured in Taiwan and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States (merchandise under consideration). This preliminary ruling applies to all shipments of merchandise under consideration on or after the date of initiation of this inquiry. Importers and exporters of CORE produced in Vietnam using: (1) HRS manufactured in Vietnam or third countries, (2) CRS manufactured in Vietnam using HRS produced in Vietnam or third countries, or (3) CRS manufactured in third countries, must certify that the HRS and/or CRS processed into CORE in Vietnam did not originate in Taiwan, as provided for in the certifications attached to the
Commerce is conducting this anti-circumvention inquiry in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act. Because Vietnam is a non-market economy country, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act,
As detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we preliminarily determine that CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS and/or CRS sourced from Taiwan is circumventing the
As stated above, Commerce has made a preliminary affirmative finding of circumvention of the
CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS and/or CRS that is not of Taiwanese-origin is not subject to this inquiry. Therefore, cash deposits are not required for such merchandise. However, CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS and/or CRS from China is subject to the AD/CVD orders on CORE from China,
In the situation where no certification is provided for an entry, and AD/CVD orders from three countries (China, Korea, or Taiwan) potentially apply to that entry, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the
As provided in 19 CFR 351.307, Commerce intends to verify information relied upon in making its final determination.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last final verification report is issued in this anti-circumvention inquiry, unless the Secretary alters the time limit. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Commerce, consistent with section 781(e) of the Act, has notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of this preliminary determination to include the merchandise subject to this anti-circumvention inquiry within the
This determination is issued and published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f).
If an importer imports certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and claims that the CORE was not produced from hot-rolled steel and/or cold-rolled steel substrate (substrate) manufactured in Taiwan, the importer is required to complete and maintain the importer certification attached hereto as Appendix III and all supporting documentation. Where the importer uses a broker to facilitate the entry process, it should obtain the entry number from the broker. Agents of the importer, such as brokers, however, are not permitted to make this certification on behalf of the importer.
The exporter is required to complete and maintain the exporter certification, attached as Appendix IV, and is further required to provide the importer a copy of that certification and all supporting documentation.
For shipments and/or entries on or after August 2, 2018 through July 18, 2019 for which certifications are required, importers and exporters should complete the required certification within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
For shipments and/or entries on or after July 19, 2019, for which certifications are required, importers should complete the required certification at or prior to the date of Entry and exporters should complete the required certification and provide it to the importer at or prior to the date of shipment.
The importer and Vietnamese exporter are also required to maintain sufficient documentation supporting their certifications. The importer will not be required to submit the certifications or supporting documentation to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as part of the entry process at this time. However, the importer and the exporter will be required to present the certifications and supporting documentation, to Commerce and/or CBP, as applicable, upon request by the respective agency. Additionally, the claims made in the certifications and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce and/or CBP. The importer and exporter are required to maintain the certifications and supporting documentation for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries.
In the situation where no certification is provided for an entry, and AD/CVD orders from three countries (China, Korea, or Taiwan) potentially apply to that entry, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the
I hereby certify that:
• My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY};
• I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation into the Customs territory of the United States of the corrosion-resistant steel products produced in Vietnam that entered under entry number(s) {INSERT ENTRY NUMBER(S)} and are covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, the importer should have “direct personal knowledge” of the importation of the product (
• I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production of the imported products covered by this certification. “Personal knowledge” includes facts obtained from another party, (
• These corrosion-resistant steel products produced in Vietnam do not contain hot-rolled steel and/or cold-rolled steel substrate produced in Taiwan:
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (Commerce);
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of the exporter's certification for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain and provide a copy of the exporter's certification and supporting records, upon request, to CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:
○ Suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met and
○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping duty (AD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by Commerce;
• I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification;
• This certification was completed at or prior to the time of Entry; and
• I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
I hereby certify that:
• My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY};
• I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production and exportation of the corrosion-resistant steel products that were sold to the United States under invoice number(s) INSERT INVOICE NUMBER(S). “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own books and records. For example, an exporter should have “direct personal knowledge” of the producer's identity and location.
• These corrosion-resistant steel products produced in Vietnam do not contain hot-rolled steel and/or cold-rolled steel substrate produced in Taiwan:
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} must provide this Exporter Certification to the U.S. importer by the time of shipment;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide a copy of this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (Commerce);
• I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:
○ Suspension of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met and
○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping duty (AD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by Commerce;
• This certification was completed at or prior to the time of shipment;
• I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is amending the preliminary determination of the less-than-fair-value investigation of mattresses from the People's Republic of China (China) to correct significant ministerial errors.
Applicable July 10, 2019.
Jonathan Hill, Lilit Astvatsatrian, or Stephen Bailey, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3518, (202) 482-6412, or (202) 482-0193, respectively.
On June 4, 2019, Commerce published its notice of preliminary determination in the antidumping duty investigation of mattresses from China.
The period of investigation is January 1, 2018, through June 30, 2018.
The product covered by this investigation is mattresses from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the Appendix to this notice.
Commerce will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any significant ministerial error by amending the preliminary determination according to 19 CFR 351.224(e). A ministerial error is defined in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as “an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.”
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (g)(1), Commerce is amending the
Additionally, in the
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the following exporter-producer combinations:
The collection of cash deposits and suspension of liquidation will be revised according to the rates calculated in this amended preliminary determination. Because Healthcare's amended rate and the consequent amended separate rate for non-selected companies result in increased cash deposits, these amended rates will be effective on the publication date of this amended preliminary determination. As Commerce preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise from the non-examined respondents that preliminarily received a separate rate, and the China-wide entity,
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the amended preliminary determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission of our amended preliminary determination.
This amended preliminary determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
The scope of this investigation covers all types of youth and adult mattresses. The term “mattress” denotes an assembly of materials that at a minimum includes a “core,” which provides the main support system of the mattress, and may consist of innersprings, foam, other resilient filling, or a combination of these materials. Mattresses may also contain (1) “upholstery,” the material between the core and the top panel of the ticking on a single-sided mattress, or between the core and the top and bottom panel of the ticking on a double-sided mattress; and/or (2) “ticking,” the outermost layer of fabric or other material (
The scope of this investigation is restricted to only “adult mattresses” and “youth mattresses.” “Adult mattresses” have a width exceeding 35 inches, a length exceeding 72 inches, and a depth exceeding 3 inches on a nominal basis. Such mattresses are frequently described as “twin,” “extra-long twin,” “full,” “queen,” “king,” or “California king” mattresses. “Youth mattresses” have a width exceeding 27 inches, a length exceeding 51 inches, and a depth exceeding 1 inch (crib mattresses have a depth of 6 inches or less from edge to edge) on a nominal basis. Such mattresses are typically described as “crib,” “toddler,” or “youth” mattresses. All adult and youth mattresses are included regardless of actual size description.
The scope encompasses all types of “innerspring mattresses,” “non-innerspring mattresses,” and “hybrid mattresses.” “Innerspring mattresses” contain innersprings, a series of metal springs joined together in sizes that correspond to the dimensions of mattresses. Mattresses that contain innersprings are referred to as “innerspring mattresses” or “hybrid mattresses.” “Hybrid mattresses” contain two or more support systems as the core, such as layers of both memory foam and innerspring units.
“Non-innerspring mattresses” are those that do not contain any innerspring units. They are generally produced from foams (
Mattresses covered by the scope of this investigation may be imported independently, as part of furniture or furniture mechanisms (
Excluded from the scope of this investigation are “futon” mattresses. A “futon” is a bi-fold frame made of wood, metal, or plastic material, or any combination thereof, that functions as both seating furniture (such as a couch, love seat, or sofa) and a bed. A “futon mattress” is a tufted mattress, where the top covering is secured to the bottom with thread that goes
Also excluded from the scope are airbeds (including inflatable mattresses) and waterbeds, which consist of air- or liquid-filled bladders as the core or main support system of the mattress.
Further, also excluded from the scope of this investigation are any products covered by the existing antidumping duty order on uncovered innerspring units.
Additionally, also excluded from the scope of this investigation are “mattress toppers.” A “mattress topper” is a removable bedding accessory that supplements a mattress by providing an additional layer that is placed on top of a mattress. Excluded mattress toppers have a height of four inches or less.
The products subject to this investigation are currently properly classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule for the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 9404.21.0010, 9404.21.0013, 9404.29.1005, 9404.29.1013, 9404.29.9085, and 9404.29.9087. Products subject to this investigation may also enter under HTSUS subheadings: 9404.21.0095, 9404.29.1095, 9404.29.9095, 9401.40.0000, and 9401.90.5081. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is amending the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (HWR) from Mexico to correct a ministerial error.
Applicable July 10, 2019.
David Crespo or Jacob Garten, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3693 or (202) 482-3342, respectively.
On May 28, 2019, Commerce issued the final results of the first administrative review of the AD order on HWR from Mexico.
A ministerial error, as defined in section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), includes “errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional
Commerce committed an inadvertent error within the meaning of section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f)
We are assigning the following weighted-average dumping margins to the firms listed below for the period March 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017:
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:
We intend to disclose the calculation performed for these amended final results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the amended final results of this review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where Maquilacero and Prolamsa reported the entered value of their U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific
For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the average
We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 41 days after publication of the final results of this administrative review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective retroactively, as appropriate, for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the May 28, 2019, the date of publication of the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These amended final results and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that imports of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE), produced in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) using hot-rolled steel (HRS) and/or cold-rolled steel (CRS) flat products manufactured in the Republic of Korea (Korea), are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on CORE from Korea.
Applicable July 10, 2019.
Chien-Min Yang, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5484.
Certain domestic interested parties, ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Nucor Corporation, United States Steel Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc. and California Steel Industries (collectively, the petitioners) filed an allegation
On August 2, 2018, Commerce published the notice of initiation of anti-circumvention inquiries on imports of CORE from Vietnam.
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the partial federal government closure from December 22, 2018 through the resumption of operations on January 29, 2019.
The products covered by these orders are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. For a complete description of the scope of the orders,
These anti-circumvention inquiries cover CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS or CRS substrate input manufactured in Korea and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States (merchandise under consideration). This preliminary ruling applies to all shipments of merchandise under consideration on or after the date of initiation of these inquiries. Importers and exporters of CORE produced in Vietnam using (1) HRS manufactured in Vietnam or third countries, (2) CRS manufactured in Vietnam using HRS produced in Vietnam or third countries, or (3) CRS manufactured in third countries, must certify that the HRS or CRS processed into CORE in Vietnam did not originate in Korea, as provided for in the certifications attached to this
Commerce is conducting these anti-circumvention inquiries in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act. Because certain interested parties did not cooperate to the best of their abilities in responding to Commerce's requests for information, we have based parts of our preliminary determination on the facts available, with adverse inferences, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination,
As detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we preliminarily determine that CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS and/or CRS sourced from Korea is circumventing the
As stated above, Commerce has made a preliminary affirmative finding of circumvention of the
CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS and/or CRS that is not of Korean origin is not subject to these inquiries. Therefore, cash deposits pursuant to the
In the situation where no certification is provided for an entry, and AD/CVD orders from three countries (China, Korea, or Taiwan) potentially apply to that entry, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than thirty days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Commerce, consistent with section 781(e) of the Act, has notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of these preliminary determinations to include the merchandise subject to these anticircumvention inquiries within the
This determination is issued and published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f).
If an importer imports certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and claims that the CORE was not produced from hot-rolled steel and/or cold-rolled steel substrate (substrate) manufactured in Korea, the importer is required to complete and maintain the importer certification attached hereto as Appendix III and all supporting documents. Where the importer uses a broker to facilitate the entry process, it should obtain the entry number from the broker. Agents of the importer, such as brokers, however, are not permitted to make this certification on behalf of the importer.
The exporter is also required to complete and maintain the exporter certification attached hereto as Appendix IV, and is further required to provide the importer a copy of that certification and all supporting documentation.
For shipments and/or entries on or after August 2, 2018 through July 18, 2019 for which certifications are required, importers and exporters should complete the required certification within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
For shipments and/or entries on or after July 19, 2019, for which certifications are required, importers should complete the required certification at or prior to the date of Entry and exporters should complete the required certification and provide it to the importer at or prior to the date of shipment.
The importer and Vietnamese exporter are also required to maintain sufficient documentation supporting their certifications. The importer will not be required to submit the certifications or supporting documentation to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as part of the entry process at this time. However, the importer and the exporter will be required to present the certifications and supporting documentation, to Commerce and/or CBP, as applicable, upon request by the respective agency. Additionally, the claims made in the certifications and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce and/or CBP. The importer and exporter are required to maintain the certifications and supporting documentation for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries.
In the situation where no certification is provided for an entry, and AD/CVD orders from three countries (China, Korea, or Taiwan) potentially apply to that entry, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the CORE China Circumvention Final rates (
Importer Certification
I hereby certify that:
• My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY};
• I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation into the Customs territory of the United States of the corrosion-resistant steel products produced in Vietnam that entered under entry number(s) {INSERT ENTRY NUMBER(S)} and are covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, the importer should have “direct personal knowledge” of the importation of the product (
• I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production of the imported products covered by this certification. “Personal knowledge” includes facts obtained from another party, (
• These corrosion-resistant steel products produced in Vietnam do not contain hot-rolled steel and/or cold-rolled steel substrate produced in Taiwan:
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (Commerce);
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of the exporter's certification for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain and provide a copy of the exporter's certification and supporting records, upon request, to CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:
○ Suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met and
○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping duty (AD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by Commerce;
• I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification;
• This certification was completed at or prior to the time of Entry; and
• I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
Exporter Certification
I hereby certify that:
• My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY};
• I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production and exportation of the corrosion-resistant steel products that were sold to the United States under invoice number(s) INSERT INVOICE NUMBER(S). “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own books and records. For example, an exporter should have “direct personal knowledge” of the producer's identity and location.
• These corrosion-resistant steel products produced in Vietnam do not contain hot-rolled steel and/or cold-rolled steel substrate produced in Taiwan:
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} must provide this Exporter Certification to the U.S. importer by the time of shipment;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide a copy of this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (Commerce);
• I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:
o Suspension of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met and
o the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping duty (AD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by Commerce;
• This certification was completed at or prior to the time of shipment;
• I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that imports of certain cold-rolled steel flat products (CRS), produced in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) using hot-rolled steel (HRS) manufactured in the Republic of Korea (Korea), are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on CRS from Korea.
Applicable July 10, 2019.
Tyler Weinhold or Fred Baker, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1121 or (202) 482-2924, respectively.
Certain domestic interested parties, ArcelorMittal USA LLC (AMUSA), California Steel Industries (CSI), Nucor Corporation (Nucor), Steel Dynamics, Inc. (SDI), and United States Steel Corporation (USSC) (collectively, the petitioners) filed an allegation
On August 2, 2018, Commerce published the notice of initiation of anti-circumvention inquiries on imports of CRS from Vietnam.
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the partial federal government closure from December 22, 2018 through the resumption of operations on January 29, 2019.
The products covered by these orders are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances. For a complete description of the scope of the orders,
These anti-circumvention inquiries cover CRS produced in Vietnam from HRS substrate input manufactured in Korea and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States (merchandise under consideration). These preliminary rulings apply to all shipments of the merchandise under consideration on or after the date of the initiation of these inquiries. Importers and exporters of CRS produced in Vietnam using HRS manufactured in Vietnam or third countries must certify that the HRS processed into CRS in Vietnam did not originate in Korea, as provided for in the certifications attached to the
Commerce is conducting these anti-circumvention inquiries in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act. Because Vietnam is a non-market economy country within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act,
As detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we preliminarily determine that CRS produced in Vietnam from HRS sourced from Korea is circumventing the
As stated above, Commerce has made a preliminary affirmative finding of circumvention of the
CRS produced in Vietnam from HRS that is not of Korean origin is not subject to these inquiries. Therefore, cash deposits are not required for such merchandise. However, CRS produced in Vietnam from CRS from China is subject to the AD/CVD orders on CRS from China.
In the situation where no certification is provided for an entry, and AD/CVD orders from two countries (China or Korea) potentially apply to that entry, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the
As provided in 19 CFR 351.307, Commerce intends to verify information relied upon in making its final determination.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last final verification report is issued in these anti-circumvention inquiries, unless the Secretary alters the time limit. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Commerce, consistent with section 781(e) of the Act, has notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of these preliminary determinations to include the merchandise subject to these anti-circumvention inquiries within the
These determinations are issued and published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f).
If an importer imports certain cold-rolled steel flat products (CRS) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and claims that the CRS was not produced from hot-rolled steel substrate (substrate) manufactured in the Republic of Korea (Korea), the importer is required to complete and maintain the importer certification attached hereto as Appendix III and all supporting documentation. Where the importer uses a broker to facilitate the entry process, it should obtain the entry number from the broker. Agents of the importer, such as brokers, however, are not permitted to make this certification on behalf of the importer.
The exporter is required to complete and maintain the exporter certification, attached as Appendix IV, and is further required to provide the importer a copy of that certification and all supporting documentation.
For shipments and/or entries on or after August 2, 2018 through July 18, 2019 for which certifications are required, importers and exporters should complete the required certification within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
For shipments and/or entries on or after July 19, 2019, for which certifications are required, importers should complete the required certification at or prior to the date of Entry and exporters should complete the required certification and provide it to the importer at or prior to the date of shipment.
The importer and Vietnamese exporter are also required to maintain sufficient documentation supporting their certifications. The importer will not be required to submit the certifications or supporting documentation to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as part of the entry process at this time. However, the importer and the exporter will be required to present the certifications and supporting documentation, to Commerce and/or CBP, as applicable, upon request by the respective agency. Additionally, the claims made in the certifications and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce and/or CBP. The importer and exporter are required to maintain the certifications and supporting documentation for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries.
In the situation where no certification is provided for an entry, and AD/CVD orders from two countries (China or Korea) potentially apply to that entry, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the
I hereby certify that:
• My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY};
• I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation into the Customs territory of the United States of the cold-rolled steel flat products produced in Vietnam that entered under entry number(s) {INSERT ENTRY NUMBER(S)} and are covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, the importer should have “direct personal knowledge” of the importation of the product (
• I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production of the imported products covered by this certification. “Personal knowledge” includes facts obtained from another party, (
• These cold-rolled steel flat products produced in Vietnam do not contain hot-rolled steel substrate produced in Korea:
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (Commerce);
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of the exporter's certification for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain and provide a copy of the exporter's certification and supporting records, upon request, to CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:
○ Suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met and
○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping duty (AD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by Commerce;
• I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification;
• This certification was completed at or prior to the time of Entry; and
• I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
I hereby certify that:
• My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY};
• I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production and exportation of the cold-rolled steel flat products that were sold to the United States under invoice number(s) INSERT INVOICE NUMBER(S). “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own books and records. For example, an exporter should have “direct personal knowledge” of the producer's identity and location.
• These cold-rolled steel flat products produced in Vietnam do not contain hot-rolled steel substrate produced in Korea:
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} must provide this Exporter Certification to the U.S. importer by the time of shipment;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide a copy of this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (Commerce);
• I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:
○ Suspension of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met and
○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping duty (AD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by Commerce;
• This certification was completed at or prior to the time of shipment;
• I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on uncovered innerspring units from the People's Republic of China (China), South Africa, and Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping as indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Reviews” section of this notice.
Applicable July 10, 2019.
Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2243.
On March 1, 2019, Commerce published the initiation of the second five-year (sunset) reviews of the antidumping duty orders on uncovered innerspring units from China, South Africa, and Vietnam, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), as amended.
Commerce received adequate substantive responses to the
The products subject to these orders are uncovered innerspring units composed of a series of individual metal springs joined together in sizes corresponding to the sizes of adult mattresses (
The products subject to the orders are currently classifiable under subheading 9404.29.9010 and have also been classified under subheadings 9404.10.0000, 7326.20.0070, 7320.20.5010, or 7320.90.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). On January 11, 2011, Commerce included the 9404.29.9005 and 9404.29.9011 HTSUS classification number to the customs case reference file, pursuant to a request by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). On January 7, 2013, Commerce included the 7326.20.0071 HTSUS classification number to the customs case reference file, pursuant to a request by CBP. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.
All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation and the magnitude of dumping margins likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Commerce determines that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on uncovered innerspring units from China, South Africa, and Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins: China, up to 234.51 percent; South Africa, up to 121.39 percent; and Vietnam, up to 116.31 percent.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
Commerce is issuing and publishing the final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Joint VMS/Enforcement Committee and Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott, 1000 Market Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801; telephone: (603) 436-2121.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee and Advisory Panel will give an update on the Compliance Assistance Program (CAP) boardings since the last enforcement committee meeting. They will also discuss Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Catch Share (Sector) Review as well as capture enforcement challenges under current regulations for inclusion in the Catch Share Review. The committee and advisory will also discuss compliance improvement recommendation—Groundfish Sector Management and review alternatives under consideration in Amendment 23 and provide recommendations regarding their enforceability in particular (a) Dockside Monitoring Program in terms of inspection of fish holds; (b) Exemptions for vessels fishing exclusively west of 72 degrees 30 minutes west longitude or 71 degrees 30 minutes west longitude in regards to increased VMS polling and transit rules; (c) At-sea monitoring (human observers and electronic monitoring; (d) Audit model electronic monitoring option and (e) Maximized retention option. Other business may be discussed as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office for Coastal Management (OCM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meeting.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management will hold a public meeting to solicit comments on the performance evaluation of the Georgia Coastal Management Program.
For specific dates, times, and locations of the public meetings, see
You may submit comments on the coastal program NOAA intends
Ralph Cantral, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, SC 29405, by phone at (843) 740-1143 or email comments
Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved state and territorial coastal programs. The process includes one or more public meetings, consideration of written public comments, and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state has met the national objectives, adhered to the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the
You may participate or submit oral comments at the public meeting scheduled as follows:
Written public comments must be received on or before September 6, 2019.
Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.419, Coastal Zone Management Program Administration.
Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of availability of a draft environmental assessment; request for comments.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is soliciting comments from the public on a draft environmental assessment for a proposed boundary expansion of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas (GTM) National Estuarine Research Reserve.
Comments must be received no later than 30 days after publication of this notice.
The draft environmental assessment can be downloaded or viewed at
Stephanie Robinson at (843) 740-1174 and
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, as lead agency for managing the GTM Reserve, has requested to modify the approved management boundary of the Reserve by adding three new parcels. Pursuant to 15 CFR 921.33(a), NOAA may require public notice, including notice in the
NOAA is releasing a draft EA prepared in accordance with section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c), and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508). NOAA's proposed action would be to approve a change in the management boundary of the GTM Reserve to add three parcels to the approved boundary.
The draft EA identifies and assesses potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, and identifies a preferred alternative and a no action alternative. The preferred alternative would add three parcels to the Reserve's boundary. Although the preferred alternative would add three parcels outside the boundary originally designated for the Reserve, the addition of these three parcels would allow and enhance the Reserve's ability to: (1) Educate the community; (2) protect and manage the estuaries and their watersheds; (3)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; incidental harassment authorization; request for comments on proposed renewal.
NMFS received a request from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for the Renewal of their currently active incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals incidental to the dolphin (a man-made structure that protects other structures from being struck by boats) relocation project at the Bremerton Ferry Terminal in Washington State. These activities consist of activities that are covered by the current authorization but will not be completed prior to its expiration. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), prior to issuing the currently active IHA, NMFS requested comments on both the proposed IHA and the potential for renewing the initial authorization if certain requirements were satisfied. The Renewal requirements have been satisfied, and NMFS is now providing an additional 15-day comment period to allow for any additional comments on the requested Renewal not previously provided during the initial 30-day comment period.
Comments and information must be received no later than July 25, 2019.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Amy Fowler, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the original application, Renewal request, and supporting documents (including NMFS
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation measures”). Monitoring and reporting of such takings are also required. The meaning of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and the agency's regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.
NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed one year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial authorization, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a Renewal for this activity, and requested public comment on a potential Renewal under those circumstances. Specifically, on a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-year IHA Renewal when (1) another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section is planned or (2) the activities would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section of the initial IHA. All of the following conditions must be met in order to issue a Renewal:
• A request for Renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to expiration of the current IHA;
• The request for Renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed activities or include changes so minor (
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
• Upon review of the request for Renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS
An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed Renewal. A description of the Renewal process may be found on our website at:
Issuance of an MMPA 101(a)(5)(D) authorization requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
NMFS preliminary determined the issuance of the proposed Renewal is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 (issuance of incidental harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for which no serious injury or mortality is anticipated) of NOAA's Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, and we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances listed in Chapter 4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A that would preclude this categorical exclusion under NEPA.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to making a final decision as to whether application of this CE is appropriate in this circumstance.
On August 24, 2018, NMFS issued an IHA to WSDOT to take marine mammals incidental to Bremerton and Edmonds Ferry Terminal Dolphin Relocation Project in Washington State (83 FR 45897; September 11, 2018), effective from October 1, 2018 through September 31, 2019. On May 8, 2019, NMFS received a request for the Renewal of that initial IHA. As described in the request for Renewal, the activities for which incidental take is requested consist of activities that are covered by the initial authorization but will not be completed prior to its expiration. As required, the applicant also provided a preliminary monitoring report (available at
WSDOT proposes to relocate one dolphin to improve safety at the Bremerton Ferry Terminal. The Olympic Class ferries have an atypical shape, which at some terminals causes the vessels to make contact with the inner dolphin prior to the stern of the vessel reaching the intermediate or outer dolphin. This tends to cause rotation of the vessel away from the wingwalls, which presents a safety issue. Relocating the dolphin will reduce the risk of landing issues for Olympic Class ferries at the Bremerton ferry terminal. Due to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in-water work timing restrictions to protect ESA-listed salmonids, planned WSDOT in-water construction at the Bremerton ferry terminal is limited to August 1, 2019 through February 15, 2020. All work proposed by WSDOT would be conducted within this window.
The specified activities described for this Renewal are an identical subset of the activities covered by the initial IHA. NMFS previously published notices of proposed IHA (83 FR 16330; April 16, 2018) and issued IHA (83 FR 45897; September 11, 2018). These documents, as well as WSDOT's initial IHA application and the preliminary monitoring report for the previously issued IHA, are available at:
Similarly, the anticipated impacts are identical to those described in the initial IHA. Specifically, we anticipate the take of individuals of eleven marine mammal stocks (including four pinniped and seven cetacean stocks), by Level B harassment only, incidental to noise resulting from pile driving associated with the proposed activities. WSDOT was not able to complete the pile driving activities analyzed in the initial IHA by the date that IHA is set to expire and anticipates the need for additional pile driving to complete the project.
The following documents are referenced in this notice and include important supporting information, and may be found at the indicated location:
• Initial Proposed IHA: Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Bremerton and Edmonds Ferry Terminals Dolphin Relocation Project in Washington State (83 FR 16330; April 16, 2018). Available at:
• Initial Final IHA: Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Bremerton and Edmonds Ferry Terminals Dolphin Relocation Project in Washington State (83 FR 45897; September 11, 2018). Available at:
• Preliminary Monitoring Report from Initial IHA. Available at:
As described above, WSDOT was not able to complete the activities analyzed in the initial IHA by the date that IHA is set to expire (September 30, 2019). As such, the activities WSDOT proposes to conduct between August 1, 2019 and February 15, 2020 would be a continuation of the activities as described in the initial 2018 IHA and would be identical to the activities analyzed in the initial IHA (
WSDOT completed all planned activities at the Edmonds ferry terminal in the 2018-2019 in-water work period but no work was conducted at the Bremerton ferry terminal. The numbers of each pile size that were planned to be driven during the 2018-2019 work window is shown in Table 1 of the initial proposed IHA (83 FR 16330; April 16, 2018). WETA planned to install and remove a total of 30 piles in the 2018-2019 work window (11 at the Edmonds ferry terminal and 19 at the Bremerton ferry terminal). However, as described above, WSDOT was only able
The proposed activities at the Bremerton ferry terminal include vibratory installation and removal of steel pipe piles. A total of 19 steel pipe piles will be installed and removed at the Bremerton ferry terminal. One temporary 36-inch indicator pile will be installed with a vibratory hammer. The temporary indicator pile will be used as a visual landing aid for vessel captains during construction. Once the indicator pile is in place, the 6 36-inch piles that comprise the left outer dolphin will be removed with a vibratory hammer and/or by direct pull and clamshell removal. Using a vibratory hammer, three 30-inch reaction piles will be installed as a back group of piles to provide stability to the dolphin. A concrete diaphragm atop the back piles will be installed, followed by four additional 30-inch reaction piles installed with a vibratory hammer. Three 36-inch steel pipe fender piles will be installed with a vibratory hammer. Fenders and rub panels will be installed to absorb energy from the vessel as it makes contact with the dolphin. Finally, using a vibratory hammer, the 36-inch temporary indicator pile will be removed and reinstalled as the last fender pile. Vibratory removal of both 30- and 36-inch piles is expected to take up to 15 minutes per pile. Vibratory installation of 30- and 36-inch piles is expected to take up to 20 minutes per pile. Underwater sound resulting from pile driving could result in the harassment of marine mammals. The proposed Renewal would be effective from August 1, 2019 through July 31, 2020.
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which authorization of take is proposed here, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the Notices of the proposed IHA for the initial authorization (83 FR 16330; April 16, 2018). The marine mammal species for which take was authorized in the initial IHA, and for which take is proposed in this requested Renewal are: Pacific harbor seal (
NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature. The 2018 Stock Assessment Report notes that the estimated abundance of California sea lions has decreased slightly and the estimated abundances of Eastern North Pacific gray whales and California/Oregon/Washington humpback whales increased slightly. Additionally, since January 1, 2019, elevated gray whale strandings have occurred along the west coast of North America from Mexico through Alaska. NMFS declared an Unusual Mortality Event on May 31, 2019. As of June 27, 2019, a total of 85 gray whales have stranded along the U.S. coast, with a combined additional 86 whales stranded in Mexico and Canada. Full or partial necropsy examinations have been conducted on a subset of the stranded gray whales. Preliminary findings in several of the whales have shown evidence of emaciation. However, neither this nor any other new information affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the
A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which take is proposed here may be found in the Notices of the proposed IHA for the initial authorization (83 FR 16330; April 16, 2018). NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined that neither this nor any other new information affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.
A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the Notice of proposed IHA (83 FR 16330; April 16, 2018) and issued IHA (83 FR 45897; September 11, 2018) for the initial authorization. The pile driving equipment that may result in take, as well as the source levels, marine mammal stocks taken, and the methods of take estimation remain unchanged from the previously issued IHA. Changes in the density of seven stocks are indicated below, though they result in only minor changes in the take estimates that do not affect our findings, as described.
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to acoustic sources (
As described above, WSDOT completed all pile driving activities at the Edmonds ferry terminal in the 2018-2019 in-water work period and proposes to install and remove a total of 19 piles at the Bremerton ferry terminal in the 2019-2020 work period to complete the project. All piles to be installed and removed at the Bremerton ferry terminal would be 30- and 36-inch steel pipe piles. The number of piles for each respective size and element are shown in Table 1.
Distances to the isopleths corresponding to the Level B harassment threshold for each pile size are shown in Table 2. Distances to the isopleths corresponding to the Level A harassment thresholds for the various marine mammal functional hearing groups, by pile size and duration of pile driving, are shown in Table 3. Descriptions of the modeling methods used to determine the distances shown in Tables 2 and 3 are described in detail in the Notice of proposed IHA (83 FR 16330; April 16, 2018) for the initial IHA. These methods have not changed from the initial IHA, and all values shown in Tables 2 and 3 have not changed from the initial IHA.
As the number of pile driving days that would occur in this year of activity is less than the number of pile driving days analyzed in the initial IHA, the number of takes estimated to occur in the 2019-2020 work season, and requested for this Renewal, has changed from the number of takes authorized in the initial IHA. Take numbers authorized in the initial IHA are shown in Table 7 in the Notice of issued IHA (83 FR 45897; September 11, 2018), available at:
The number of takes requested for this Renewal, for each marine mammal stock, are shown in Table 4. Auditory injury (
To inform take estimates in the initial IHA, marine mammal densities were taken from the U.S. Navy's Marine Species Density Database (MSDD; U.S. Navy 2015). Since then, the Navy has published an updated MSDD for the Phase III Northwest Training and Testing Study Area with updated densities for marine mammal species in the inland waters of Puget Sound (U.S. Navy 2019). In the 2019 MSDD, densities of harbor seals, northern elephant seals, gray whales, and humpback whales increased from those presented in the 2015 MSDD, while densities of harbor porpoises, Dall's porpoises, and transient killer whales decreased. The densities of Steller sea lion and minke whale remained the same in both iterations of the MSDD. While updated densities for marine mammals were used here, the method of calculating estimated takes remains identical to that used in the initial IHA. For all marine mammals except California sea lions, takes were calculated by multiplying the ensonified area by the average animal density in the area (U.S. Navy 2019) and the number of days of pile driving (9 days), rounded up to the nearest integer. Take of California sea lions was calculated by multiplying the average number of California sea lions sighted in daily monitoring at the U.S. Navy's Bremerton Shipyard (69 animals) by the number of days of pile driving (9 days).
Using the take calculation method described above (area x density x days) resulted in estimated zero takes of some species, despite possible presence in the project area. In these cases, take was estimated by incorporating typical group size and/or potential for occurrence during the project work period. Specifically, take of northern elephant seals was calculated by assuming one seal may be present each day for a total of nine takes by Level B
Here, we describe in summary how the changes in density estimates affect the take estimates in this requested Renewal in relation to the take estimates in the initial IHA. For some species, the updated density estimates had no effect on estimated take. Even with increased densities, calculated takes of northern elephant seals, Southern Resident killer whales, transient killer whales, gray whales, humpback whales, minke whales, and common dolphins were zero animals taken. For these species, the proposed take was estimated as described above, and the updated densities had no effect on the number of takes. The estimated takes of two species were affected by the changes in density estimates, harbor seals and harbor porpoises.
The estimated density of harbor porpoises decreased from the 2015 MSDD (used to calculate takes in the initial IHA) to the 2019 MSDD. As a result, the calculated take estimate decreased, from 69 takes by Level B harassment at the Bremerton ferry terminal in the initial IHA to 64 takes by Level B harassment proposed for take by Level B harassment here. This represents a seven percent decrease. Since the number of harbor porpoises estimated to be taken by Level B harassment here are fewer than that authorized in the initial IHA, this change has no effect on our findings.
The initial IHA authorized a total of 2,286 Level B takes of harbor seals, with an estimated 145 harbor seals taken at the Bremerton ferry terminal and 2,141 harbor seals taken at the Edmonds ferry terminal. Using the updated 2019 MSDD, the calculated takes of harbor seals at the Bremerton terminal increased to 465. While this increase is notable, the total estimated take is well below that authorized for both the Bremerton and Edmonds ferry terminals in the initial IHA. Additionally, the monitoring report from pile driving completed at the Edmonds terminal reports only 37 harbor seals taken by Level B harassment, indicating that the actual number of animals that occur are far below the number of takes authorized.
The proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are identical to those included in the Notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHA (83 FR 45897; September 11, 2018), and the discussion of the least practicable adverse impact included in that document remains accurate. The following measures are proposed for this renewal:
Pre-activity monitoring will take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving activity and post-activity monitoring will continue through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving activity. Pile driving may commence at the end of the 30-minute pre-activity monitoring period, provided observers have determined that the shutdown zone (described below) is clear of marine mammals, which includes delaying start of pile driving activities if a marine mammal is sighted in the zone, as described below. A determination that the shutdown zone is clear must be made during a period of good visibility (
If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during activities or pre-activity monitoring, all pile driving activities at that location shall be halted or delayed, respectively. If pile driving is halted or delayed due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not resume or commence until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone and 15 or 30 minutes (for pinnipeds/small cetaceans or large cetaceans, respectively) have passed without re-detection of the animal. Pile driving activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty minutes.
To prevent Level A harassment of marine mammals, WSDOT must establish shutdown zones equivalent to the Level A harassment zones. If the Level A harassment zone is less than 10 m, a minimum 10 m shutdown zone must be enforced. The required
In addition to the Level A shutdown measures described above, WSDOT must implement shutdown measures if Southern Resident killer whales are sighted within the vicinity of the project and are approaching the Level B harassment zone during pile driving activities. If a killer whale approaches the Level B harassment zone and it is unknown if the animal is a Southern Resident or a transient killer whale, it must be assumed to be a Southern Resident killer whale and WSDOT must implement the shutdown measures described above. If a Southern Resident killer whale enters the Level B harassment zone undetected, pile driving must cease upon observation of the animal and must be suspended until the animal exits the Level B harassment zone.
If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized takes are met, is observed approaching or within the Level B harassment zones, pile driving and removal activities must cease immediately using delay and shutdown procedures. Similarly, if an animal is observed approaching or within the Level A harassment zones, pile driving and removal activities must cease immediately. Activities must not resume until the animal has been confirmed to have left the area or 15 or 30 minutes (pinniped/small cetacean or large cetacean, respectively) has elapsed.
For all pile driving activities, a minimum of three Protected Species Observers (PSOs) will be required, two land-based and one vessel-based. One PSO must be stationed at the active pile driving rig or at the best vantage point practicable to monitor the shutdown zones for marine mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures when applicable through communication with the equipment operator.
Monitoring of pile driving must be conducted by qualified PSOs (see below) who have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods. WSDOT will adhere to the following conditions when selecting observers:
• Independent PSOs must be used (
• A lead observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead observer must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer during construction;
• Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience; and
• WSDOT must submit PSO CVs for approval by NMFS.
WSDOT must ensure that observers have the following additional qualifications:
• Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior; and
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
PSOs must collect the following information during marine mammal monitoring:
• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;
• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including how many and what type of piles were driven or removed;
• Weather parameters and water conditions during each monitoring period (
• The number of marine mammals observed, by species, relative to the pile location and if pile driving or removal was occurring at time of sighting;
• Age and sex class, if possible, of all marine mammals observed;
• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;
• Distances and bearings of each marine mammal observed to the pile being driven or removed for each sighting (if pile driving or removal was occurring at time of sighting);
• Description of any marine mammal behavior patterns during observation, including direction of travel;
• Number of individuals of each species (differentiated by month as appropriate) detected within the monitoring zone, and estimates of number of marine mammals taken, by species (a correction factor may be applied to total take numbers, as appropriate);
• Detailed information about any implementation of any mitigation triggered (
• Description of attempts to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take, such as ability to track groups or individuals.
WSDOT must submit a draft monitoring report within 90 days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of the IHA, whichever comes earlier. This report must include the information described above. A final report must be prepared and submitted to NMFS within 30 days following resolution of comments from NMFS on the draft report. If NMFS has no comments on the draft report, the draft will be considered the final report.
In addition, NMFS would require WSDOT to notify NMFS' Office of Protected Resources and NMFS' West
As noted previously, NMFS published a notice of a proposed IHA (83 FR 16330; April 16, 2018) and solicited public comments on both our proposal to issue the initial IHA for pile driving at the Bremerton and Edmonds ferry terminals and on the potential for a Renewal, should certain requirements be met. All public comments were addressed in the notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHA (83 FR 45897; September 11, 2018). Below, we describe how we have addressed, with updated information where appropriate, any comments received that specifically pertain to the Renewal of the 2018 IHA.
We appreciate the Commission's suggestion that NMFS discuss the potential for IHA Renewals through a more general route, such as a rulemaking. However, utilizing the public comment process associated with IHAs is more efficient for the agency, while still providing for appropriate public input into NMFS' decision-making. Further, NMFS' recent modification to the Renewal process (
For more information, NMFS has published a description of the Renewal process on our website (available at
WSDOT's proposed activity is identical to the activity analyzed in our previously issued Notices of proposed IHA and issued IHA (with the exception of the number of piles proposed for installation and removal, which is less than the number analyzed in those documents). We concluded that the initial IHA would have a negligible impact on all marine mammal stocks and species and that the taking would be small relative to population sizes. The marine mammal information, potential effects, and the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same as those analyzed in the previously issued Notices of proposed IHA and issued IHA, therefore the extensive analysis, as well as the associated findings, included in the prior documents remain applicable.
The only differences between the initial IHA and this requested Renewal is that the number of piles proposed for installation and removal, and the numbers of marine mammal takes expected to occur incidental to the proposed activities (including consideration of changes in marine mammal density for several stocks), are lower than the numbers analyzed and authorized in the previously issued IHA. As both the number of piles and the number of takes expected to occur, and requested, for this Renewal, are lower than in the initial IHA, we have concluded that the effects of the requested Renewal would be the same or less than those that were analyzed in the Notices of the initial proposed IHA and issued IHA.
NMFS has preliminarily concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. This includes consideration of the estimated abundance of California sea lions decreasing and the estimated abundances of gray whales and humpback whales increasing, as well as the ongoing gray whale Unusual Mortality Event, none of which are expected to change our assessment of the effects of the takes from this activity. Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) The required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) WSDOT activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action, and; (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA Renewal to WSDOT for conducting pile driving at the Bremerton ferry terminal during the August 1, 2019 through February 15, 2020 in-water work window, provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of a draft environmental assessment; request for comments.
NMFS announces the availability of a draft environmental assessment (EA) of the potential effects of two construction projects. The EA would support the release by NMFS of Congressionally-appropriated funds for disaster relief in the American Samoa (AS) bottomfish fishery. The AS Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR) would use the funds to construct a boat ramp and ice house in Pago Pago Harbor.
NMFS must receive comments by July 25, 2019.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0075, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Phyllis Ha, Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS PIR, tel 808-725-5000.
On September 29, 2009, a submarine earthquake in the Pacific generated a tsunami that caused widespread damage, loss of life, and injuries in AS and elsewhere. The waves damaged coastal areas of Tutuila and the other AS islands. After President Obama declared a major disaster in the Territory of American Samoa (
Damage assessment reports prepared by the DMWR, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and NMFS documented extensive damage to the harbor and floating docks in Pago Pago, damaged and destroyed alia (small fishing vessels), fishing gear, infrastructure, as well as lost fishing opportunities resulting in reduced food supply and income from the bottomfish fishery. The formerly productive and profitable bottomfish fishery was estimated to have lost 80% of its revenue after the tsunami. The Council reported that 17 vessels (50 percent of the fleet) were damaged or destroyed and lost income was estimated to be around $200,000. The AS government estimated the value of the fishery failure to be approximately $5 million.
After considering results of damage assessment reports, the Secretary of Commerce determined that a commercial fishery failure occurred for the bottomfish fishery in AS due to a fisheries resource disaster. The Secretary noted that the tsunami caused significant loss of access to the fishery resource and revenues declines and the effects met with criteria in Magnuson-Stevens Act section 312(a) and IFA section 308(b).
In 2014, Congress appropriated disaster relief funding for NMFS to provide assistance to AS. DMWR proposes to use these funds to build a small community boat ramp at the southwestern-most terminus of Pago Pago Harbor, and a small ice house at the DMWR administrative work station in Fagatogo (at Pago Pago Harbor). The boat ramp would relieve boat traffic congestion in the area and result in improved launching and return of fishing vessels. The ice house would house and protect ice machines that produce ice used by bottomfish fishermen to maintain the quality of the fish they harvest.
NMFS has produced a draft EA to evaluate the environmental effects of building the boat ramp and ice house. The draft EA shows that the construction includes several provisions intended to protect water quality in the harbor and prevent large adverse effects on wildlife. NMFS is seeking public comments on the draft EA.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) is requesting nominations for membership on the Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee (Subcommittee) under the Market Risk Advisory Committee (MRAC). The MRAC is a discretionary advisory committee established by the
The deadline for the submission of nominations is September 9, 2019.
Nominations should be emailed to
Alicia L. Lewis, MRAC Designated Federal Officer and Special Counsel to Commissioner Rostin Behnam at (202) 418-5862 or email:
The Subcommittee was established to provide a report to the MRAC that will identify and examine climate change-related financial and market risks, including for derivatives markets. Within this charge, the Subcommittee may consider, but is not limited to, the following issues and topics:
• Identifying challenges or impediments to evaluating and managing climate-related financial and market risks;
• Identifying how market participants can improve integration of climate-related scenario analysis, stress testing, governance initiatives, and disclosures into financial and market risk assessments and reporting;
• Identifying policy initiatives and best practices for risk management and disclosure of financial and market risks related to climate change that support financial stability; and
• Identifying appropriate methods by which market participants' data and analyses can enhance and contribute to the assessment of climate-related financial and market risks and their potential impacts on agricultural production, energy, food, insurance, real estate, and other financial stability indicators.
The Subcommittee will provide its report directly to the MRAC and will not provide reports and/or recommendations directly to the Commission. The Subcommittee has no authority to make decisions on behalf of the MRAC, and no determination of fact or policy will be made by the Subcommittee on behalf of the Commission.
Subcommittee members will generally serve as representatives and provide advice reflecting the views of stakeholder organizations and entities throughout the derivatives and financial markets. The Subcommittee may also include regular government employees when doing so furthers its purpose. It is anticipated that the Subcommittee will hold at least three in-person or telephonic meetings per year. Subcommittee members serve at the pleasure of the Commission. Subcommittee members do not receive compensation or honoraria for their services, and they are not reimbursed for travel and per diem expenses.
The Subcommittee members will include individuals who are members of the MRAC and/or other individuals. For these other individuals who are not serving on the MRAC currently, the Commission seeks nominations of individuals from a wide range of perspectives, including from industry, academia, the government, and public interest. To advise the MRAC effectively, Subcommittee members must have a high-level of expertise and experience with: Financial and market risks from climate change, including efforts to assess, manage and mitigate such risks through risk management, governance, stress testing, disclosure, scenario analysis; evaluating the potential impact of such risks on the derivatives and financial markets, as well as on the economy and financial stability generally; and the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission regulations thereunder. To the extent practicable, the Commission will strive to select members reflecting wide ethnic, racial, gender, and age representation.
The Commission invites the submission of nominations for Subcommittee membership. Each nomination submission should include the proposed member's name, title, organization affiliation and address, email address and telephone number, as well as information that supports the individual's qualifications to serve on the Subcommittee. The submission should also include the name, email address and telephone number of the person nominating the proposed Subcommittee member. Self-nominations are acceptable.
Submission of a nomination is not a guarantee of selection as a member of the Subcommittee. As noted in the MRAC's Membership Balance Plan, the Commission seeks to ensure that the membership of a subcommittee is balanced relative to the particular issues addressed by the subcommittee in question. The Commission will identify members for the Subcommittee based on Commissioners' and Commission staff professional knowledge of ongoing efforts to identify, manage and mitigate climate-related financial and market risks, consultation with knowledgeable persons outside the CFTC, and requests to be represented received from organizations. The office of the Commissioner primarily responsible for the MRAC and the Subcommittee plays a primary, but not exclusive, role in this process and makes recommendations regarding membership to the Commission. The Commission, by vote, authorizes members to serve on MRAC subcommittees.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of a modified system of records; and, rescindment of a system of records notice.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the Department of Education (Department) publishes this notice of a modified system of records entitled the “Personnel Development Program Data Collection System (PDPDCS)” (18-16-04), formerly named the “Special Education—Individual Reporting on Regulatory Compliance Related to the Personnel Development Program's Service Obligation and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA),” and this rescindment of a system of records notice entitled “Indian Education—Individual Reporting on Regulatory Compliance Related to the Indian Education Professional Development program's Service Obligation and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)” (18-14-05).
Submit your comments on this notice of a modified system of records and this rescindment of a system of records notice on or before August 9, 2019.
This modified system of records and rescinded system of records will become applicable upon publication in the
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
Personnel Development Program Data Collection System Manager, Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20202-2600. Telephone: (202) 245-7395.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.
The PDPDCS contains records on individuals who are recipients of funding (scholars
The PDPDCS allows the Department to fulfill its responsibility for ensuring grantee and scholar compliance with program requirements. The system also affords registered Department officials read-only access to scholar records to monitor compliance and respond to inquiries.
Through the affected programs, IHEs and other eligible entities provide Department funds to individuals who agree to perform a service obligation. Scholars who do not satisfy their service obligation or other applicable program requirements must repay all or a part of the funding received in accordance with program regulations. The modified system of records announced in this notice is required to track scholars' enrollment, employment, and fulfillment of the terms of their service obligations.
The PDPDCS system of records is being modified to include records on scholars from grants awarded to IHEs and other eligible entities by OESE, OIE's Professional Development, and OSERS, RSA's RLTT discretionary grant programs. As described below, RSA will adopt the PDPDCS to collect data on its training programs. There is no existing system of records for the RSA to track the progress toward completion of a scholar's service obligation.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER” from “Special Education—Individual Reporting on Regulatory Compliance Related to the Personnel Development Program's Service Obligation and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)” (18-16-04) to “Personnel Development Program Data Collection System (PDPDCS)” (18-16-04).
The Department is modifying the section entitled “SECURITY CLASSIFICATION” to indicate that the system is unclassified.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “SYSTEM LOCATION(S)” to reflect the current names and addresses of the contractor and subcontractor who maintain the records in the system.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “SYSTEM MANAGER(S)” to update the title, business address, and contact information of the Department official in Research to Practice Division, OSEP, OSERS, who will serve as the system manager.
The Department is modifying the sections entitled “AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM,” “PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM,” “CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM,” “CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM,” “RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES,” and “POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS” to account for the OIE and RSA records being integrated into the PDPDCS system, in addition to the previously maintained OSEP records.
The section entitled “PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM” is further being updated to broaden the purposes to include additional purposes of serving as a resource for program improvement and grant monitoring and, informing program and budgetary planning.
Additionally, the Department is modifying the section entitled “CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM” to specify that the record on the number of years a scholar needs to work to satisfy the service obligation must be “in eligible employment;” the Department may ask questions to IHEs, as well as scholars, about topics related
The Department is also modifying the section entitled “RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES” to update the references to the contractor and subcontractor who implement the web-based data collection system and to clarify that record source categories also may include persons or entities who provide data to the Department under the routine uses set forth in the notice. Additionally, the Department is modifying this section to remove language requiring IHEs and other eligible entities to provide information on scholars who they determine will not fulfill their service obligations because it is the Department's ultimate responsibility to make this determination and this system of records will generate sufficient information for the Department to do so. Finally, the Department is modifying this section to update the name and location of the Department's accounts receivable group to “Accounts Receivables and Bank Management Group” and the “Office of Finance and Operations,” respectively.
The Department is also modifying the section entitled “POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS” to update references to the Department's contractor and subcontractor; to indicate that a campus and building security system protects hard copy records; and, to explain that the Department's subcontractor maintains the electronic records on its secure server.
The Department is modifying routine use (1) entitled “Program Purposes” to account for the OIE and RSA records being integrated into the PDPDCS system; and, to expand routine use (1)(b) to allow for disclosures to grantees for monitoring, enforcement, or technical assistance related to scholar employment.
The Department is modifying routine use (2) entitled “Disclosure in the Course of Responding to Breach of Data” to permit the Department to disclose records from this system of records in response to a suspected or confirmed breach of the system of records; and, to explain that such disclosures are limited to circumstances where the Department determines that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach, there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Department (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security.
The Department is modifying routine use (3) entitled “Contract Disclosure” to remove language that referenced imposing safeguard requirements on the contractor “before entering into” the contract and that were required under subsection (m) of the Privacy Act. The modified language clarifies that the Department will require, as part of applicable Department contracts, contractors to whom disclosures are made under this routine use to agree to establish and maintain safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of the disclosed records.
The Department is removing routine use (4) entitled “Disclosure for Use by Other Law Enforcement Agencies” because the system of records is not used in a law enforcement capacity.
The Department is modifying newly renumbered routine use (5) entitled “Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Disclosure” to insert the word “person” in place of the word “individual,” to avoid any public confusion that may have been caused by the Department's prior use of the word “individual” given that this term is defined in the Privacy Act and to clarify that references to “litigation” cover both judicial or administrative litigation.
The Department modified newly renumbered routine use (9) entitled “Research Disclosure” to remove language that referenced Privacy Act safeguards and to clarify that researchers to whom disclosures are made will be required to agree to establish and maintain safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of the disclosed records.
Pursuant to the requirements in Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-17-12 entitled “Preparing for and Responding to a Breach of Personally Identifiable Information,” the Department added routine use (10) entitled “Disclosure in Assisting Another Agency in Responding to a Breach of Data” in order to permit the Department to disclose records from this system of records in the course of assisting another Federal agency or entity in responding to a breach of data.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS” to specify which Department personnel have access to the system to monitor system improvements and upgrades; to specify a limited number of contractor and subcontractor personnel who have administrative rights, including read and write access, to the system; and, to explain that the system is maintained in accordance with applicable National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards.
The Department is modifying the sections entitled “RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES,” “CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES,” and “NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES” to define and discuss the “necessary particulars” needed to access, contest, or be notified of a record.
Finally, the Department is adding a section entitled “HISTORY” to comply with the requirements in Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-108.
In addition, the “Indian Education—Individual Reporting on Regulatory Compliance Related to the Indian Education Professional Development program's Service Obligation and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)” (18-14-05) system of records was first published in the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education (Department), publishes a notice of a modified and rescinded system of records to read as follows:
Indian Education—Individual Reporting on Regulatory Compliance Related to the Indian Education Professional Development program's Service Obligation and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) (18-14-05).
The Indian Education—Individual Reporting on Regulatory Compliance Related to the Indian Education Professional Development program's Service Obligation and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) system of records notice was published in the
Personnel Development Program Data Collection System (PDPDCS) (18-16-04).
Unclassified.
(1) Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20202-2600
(2) The Department's contractor, AnLar, maintains records at Westat Inc., 1600 Research Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20850. The contractor also maintains a back-up on a failover server at a redundant data center site in an adjacent location at 1600 Research Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20850.
(3) Computer Security International, 299 Herndon Parkway, VA 20170 is the location of Westat's subcontractor, where nightly back-ups of the server data are stored.
System Manager, Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20202-2600.
This system of records is authorized for each program office by the following legal authorities:
For the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), this system of records is authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400
(a) For funding distributed from grants made in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 and after, 34 CFR 304.23 through 304.30, which implement section 662(h) of IDEA for those fiscal years;
(b) For funding distributed from FY 2005 grants, the notice published in the
(c) For funding distributed from grants made for FY 2004 and earlier, 34 CFR 304.23 through 304.30 as those regulations existed at that time, which implemented section 673(h) of the version of IDEA that was in effect prior to December 3, 2004.
This system of records is also authorized by section 4 of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), Public Law 103-62.
For the Office of Indian Education (OIE), this system of records is authorized by section 6122 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) and the related regulations in 34 CFR part 263, subpart A.
For the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), this system of records is authorized by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by title IV of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), which requires program performance measurement and authorizes service obligation, as well as related regulations in 34 CFR parts 385 and 386,
The information in this system is used for the following purposes: Managing all aspects of the Federal service obligation requirements for those scholars who receive Federal funds through respective OSEP, RSA, and OIE grant programs including debt referrals to the Department's Accounts Receivable and Bank Management Group (ARBMG); providing accountability for resources expended under the OSEP, OIE, and RSA training and personnel development programs in response to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA); serving as a resource for program improvement and grant monitoring; and informing program and budgetary planning.
This system contains records on individuals who are recipients of Department funds from grants awarded to institutions of higher education (IHEs) and other eligible entities by OSEP's Personnel Development Program, OIE's Professional Development discretionary grant program, and RSA's Rehabilitation Long-Term Training (RLTT) discretionary grant program.
This system consists of records about scholars who receive funding from OSEP, OIE, and RSA training grants. Information in this system includes contact information for the grantee; the grant identification number; each scholar's name, Social Security number (SSN), address, telephone number, email address, and alternate contact information; name and contact information of a person through whom the scholar can be contacted; the number of years the scholar needs to work in eligible employment to satisfy the service obligation; the total amount of funding received; the time period during which the scholar must satisfy the service obligation; eligible employment to fulfill the service obligation; contact information for employers; and, as applicable, all other obligations of the scholar under the regulations. Employers will be asked to verify the employment information provided by the scholar. In addition, IHEs and scholars may be asked questions about topics related to program performance measures (
This system of records does not cover records maintained in the Department's system of records notice entitled “Education's Central Automated Processing System (EDCAPS)” (18-04-04) as part of the Department's receivables management function.
For OSEP grants awarded prior to FY 2005 and OIE grants awarded prior to FY 2009, collection of information from IHEs and other eligible entities is limited to identifying information about
The information for OSEP grants awarded for FY 2005 and after, OIE grants awarded for FY 2009 and after, and RSA grants will be collected from grantees, scholars, and scholars' employers primarily through a web-based data collection system implemented by AnLar, a contractor of the Department, and Westat, a subcontractor of the Department.
Through this system, information related to tracking scholars' enrollment, employment, and fulfillment of the terms of the service obligation and to evaluating progress on the performance measures for the Personnel Development Program will be collected from grantees, scholars, and the scholars' employers. When OSEP, OIE, or RSA determines that a scholar will not fulfill the service obligation and must instead repay some or all of the scholarship funds disbursed to the scholar, OSEP, OIE, or RSA, respectively, will forward applicable information to the Department's Accounts Receivables and Bank Management Group in the Office of Finance and Operations.
Additionally, the Department may collect records from other persons or entities from which data is obtained under the routine uses set forth below.
The Department may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records under the routine uses listed in this system of records without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purposes for which the record was collected. The Department may make these disclosures on a case-by-case basis, or, if the Department has complied with the computer matching requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, under a computer matching agreement.
(1)
(a) To the scholars' employers to verify the eligible employment of scholars who were supported by grant funding and who are fulfilling their service obligations.
(b) To the grantees for monitoring, enforcement, or technical assistance related to the scholars' employment.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(a) Introduction. In the event that one of the parties listed in sub-paragraphs (i) through (v) is involved in judicial or administrative litigation or ADR, or has an interest in litigation or ADR, the Department may disclose certain records to the parties described in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this routine use under the conditions specified in those paragraphs:
(i) The Department or any of its components;
(ii) Any Department employee in his or her official capacity;
(iii) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity if the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has been requested to or has agreed to provide or arrange for representation for the employee;
(iv) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department has agreed to represent the employee; or
(v) The United States where the Department determines that the litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components.
(b) Disclosure to DOJ. If the Department determines that disclosure of certain records to DOJ is relevant and necessary to the judicial or administrative litigation or ADR, the Department may disclose those records as a routine use to DOJ.
(c) Adjudicative Disclosure. If the Department determines that it is relevant and necessary to the judicial or administrative litigation or ADR to disclose certain records to an adjudicative body before which the Department is authorized to appear or to a person or entity designated by the Department or otherwise empowered to resolve or mediate disputes, the Department may disclose those records as a routine use to the adjudicative body, person, or entity.
(d) Disclosure to Parties, Counsel, Representatives, or Witnesses. If the Department determines that disclosure of certain records to a party, counsel, representative, or witness is relevant and necessary to the judicial or administrative litigation or ADR, the Department may disclose those records as a routine use to the party, counsel, representative, or witness.
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
The Department may disclose to a consumer reporting agency information regarding a claim by the Department that the head of the Department has determined to be valid and overdue. Such information is limited to—(1) the name, address, taxpayer identification number, and other information necessary to establish the identity of the individual responsible for the claim; (2) the amount, status, and history of the claim; and (3) the program under which the claim arose. The Department may disclose the information specified in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) and the procedures contained in 31 U.S.C. 3711(e). A consumer reporting agency to which these disclosures may be made is defined in 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3).
Westat, the Department's subcontractor through the AnLar contract, maintains hard copy records of information about OSEP, OIE and RSA scholars in locked file cabinets that are located within locked offices protected by a campus and building security system; and, maintains electronic records with information about OSEP, OIE, and RSA scholars on its secure server.
Records in this system are indexed by a unique number assigned by the PDPDCS to each individual.
These records will be maintained and disposed of in accordance with the records retention and disposition authority approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Until NARA approves a retention and disposition schedule for these records, the Department will not destroy or delete any records.
Access to the records is limited to authorized personnel only. All physical access to the Department's site, and to the sites of the Department's contractor and subcontractor, where this system of records is maintained, is controlled and monitored by security personnel.
The computer system employed by the Department offers a high degree of resistance to tampering and circumvention. This security system limits data access to Department and contract staff on a “need to know” basis, and controls individual users' ability to access and alter records within the system. Only Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) assigned to the PDPDCS contract by the Department have “read only” access to the PDPDCS to monitor the improvements and upgrades to the system. A limited number of contractor and subcontractor personnel have administrative rights, including read and write access, to the system.
The contractor and subcontractor established secure procedures at their sites to ensure confidentiality of data. Their systems are required to ensure that information identifying individuals is in files physically separated from other research data. The contractor and subcontractor will maintain security of the complete set of all master data files and documentation. Access to individually identifying data is strictly controlled. At each site all hard copy data is kept in locked file cabinets during nonworking hours, and work on hard copy data will take place in a single room, except for data entry. Physical security of electronic data is also maintained. Security features that protect electronic project data include: Password-protected accounts that authorize users to access only specific network directories and network software on the contractor's and subcontractor's systems; and user rights and directory and file attributes that limit those who can access particular directories and files and determine how they can edit them.
All security for the system is maintained in accordance with Moderate data sensitivity controls as defined in National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4, “Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations.”
If you wish to gain access to your record in the system of records, contact the system manager at the address listed above. Requests should contain necessary particulars, such as your full name, address, telephone number, and any other identifying information requested by the Department while processing the request, to distinguish between individuals with the same name. Your request must meet the requirements of regulations in 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity.
If you wish to contest the content of a record regarding you in the system of records, contact the system manager at the address listed above. Requests should contain necessary particulars, such as your full name, address, telephone number, and any other identifying information requested by the Department while processing the request, to distinguish between individuals with the same name. Your request must meet the requirements of the regulations in 34 CFR 5b.7.
If you wish to determine whether a record regarding you exists in the system of records, contact the system manager at the address listed above. Requests should contain necessary particulars, such as your full name, address, telephone number, and any other identifying information requested by the Department while processing the request, to distinguish between individuals with the same name. Your request must meet the requirements of regulations in 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity.
None.
The System of Records entitled “The Special Education—Individual Reporting on Regulatory Compliance Related to the Personnel Development Program's Service Obligation and the Government Performance and Results
Federal Student Aid (FSA), 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 September 9, 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 Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
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 Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the Department of Education (Department) publishes this notice of a modified system of records entitled “Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX)” (18-14-04) to modify this system of records notice, which was last published in the
Submit your comments on this modified system of records notice on or before August 9, 2019.
This modified system of records notice will become applicable upon publication in the
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
Lisa C. Gillette, Director, Office of Migrant Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 3E317, Washington, DC 20202-6135. Telephone: (202) 260-1164.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
The MSIX system of records helps meet the needs of migratory children by improving the timeliness of the availability of current educational and health information on migratory children to school and program staff where migratory children enroll after moving. MSIX uses the Minimum Data Elements (MDEs) to provide a standard format for information that States must collect and maintain. MSIX allows State educational agencies (SEAs) to upload the required MDEs from their own existing State student record systems into a single national data repository where information on each migratory child is maintained, organized, and compiled. As a web-based platform, MSIX allows authorized users to access a migratory child's MSIX record via a web browser. Section 1308(b)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 6398(b)(2)) requires the Secretary of Education to ensure the linkage of migratory student record systems for the purpose of electronically exchanging, among the States, health and educational information regarding all migratory students.
As described more fully below, this notice will update the following sections: Security Classification; System Location; Authority for Maintenance of the System; Purpose(s) of the System; Categories of Records in the System; Record Source Categories; Policies and Practices for Storage of Records; Policies and Practices for Retrieval of Records; Policies and Practices for Retention and Disposal of Records; Administrative, Technical, and Physical Safeguards; Record Access Procedures; and Notification Procedures. This modified system of records notice will update routine uses (1), (2), (3), and (6), and, pursuant to the requirements in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum 17-12, it will also update routine use (5) and add new routine use (8). Pursuant to the requirements of OMB Circular No. A-108, a new section entitled “History” also has been added to the notice.
Pursuant to OMB Circular No. A-108, the section entitled “SECURITY CLASSIFICATION” is updated from “none” to “unclassified.”
The Department is updating the section entitled “SYSTEM LOCATION” to list the names and addresses of the current Department contractor and subcontractor that maintain MSIX records.
The Department is updating the section entitled “AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM” to update the reference to the current legal authority.
The Department is updating the section entitled “PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM” to reflect the current, rather than anticipated, use and benefits of the system. While the purpose of reducing unnecessary immunizations is still a goal of the Migrant Education Program (MEP), MSIX does not track or record incidences of unnecessary immunizations.
The Department is updating the section entitled “CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM” to update the reference to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) clearance request in the
The Department is updating the section entitled “RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES” to add Migrant Education Program (MEP) local operating agencies (LOAs), in addition to local educational agencies (LEAs). LOAs were added to the record source categories to be inclusive of service delivery organizations that are operating in the MEP participating States. SEAs submit data to MSIX using data sourced from LEAs and/or LOAs, depending on the service delivery model used by the SEA. The Department also is adding parents, guardians, and migratory children to the section of the notice on record source categories to more closely adhere to OMB guidance on the Privacy Act and to reflect that LEAs, LOAs, and SEAs obtain some records directly from parents and migratory children.
This modified system of records notice will also update routine uses (1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) and add new routine use (8).
The Department is modifying routine use (1), which was formerly entitled “MEP Services, School Enrollment, Grade or Course Placement, Accrual of High School Credits, Student Record Match Resolution,” to include “data correction by parents, guardians, and migratory children” as a reason for disclosure to authorized representatives of SEAs, LEAs, or other MEP LOAs.
The Department is modifying routine use (2) entitled “Contract Disclosure” and routine use (3) entitled “Research Disclosure” to remove language that respectively referenced safeguard requirements under subsection (m) of the Privacy Act and Privacy Act safeguards. The Department revised the language in routine use (2) to permit the Department to disclose records from this system of records to employees of Department contractors, whether or not the contractors are covered by subsection (m) of the Privacy Act, so long as the contractors are performing a Departmental function that requires disclosing records to them and they agree to establish and maintain safeguards that will protect the security and confidentiality of the disclosed records. The Department also revised the language in routine uses (2) and (3) because the prior language referring to required safeguards under the Privacy Act and Privacy Act safeguards was unclear about what safeguards were
Pursuant to the requirements in OMB M-17-12, the Department is modifying routine use (5) entitled “Disclosure in the Course of Responding to a Breach of Data” and adding routine use (8) entitled “Disclosure in Assisting another Agency in Responding to a Breach of Data” in order to comply with the requirements in OMB M-17-12. Pursuant to this new routine use, the Department may disclose records from this system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (a) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
The Department is modifying routine use (6) entitled “Litigation or Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Disclosure” to replace the word “individual,” which is a defined word under the Privacy Act, with the word “person” to avoid public confusion.
The Department is updating the section entitled “POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS” to remove references to hardware stored in locked file cabinets and describe electronic records storage.
The Department is also updating the section entitled “POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS” to explain that MSIX users retrieve records by an individual's name, in addition to the unique identifier assigned to each individual.
The Department is updating the section entitled “POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS” to reflect the most recent Department records schedule, and applicable disposition instruction, which governed the retention and disposition of the records; and, to explain that said records schedule disposition instruction is being superseded, pending approval by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), by a new records schedule submitted by the Department to NARA.
The Department is updating the section entitled “ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS” to reflect changes in technical and physical safeguards offered by the cloud service provider.
The Department is also updating the sections entitled “RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES” and “NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES” to specify the necessary particulars that the system manager must be provided in connection with a records access or notification request in order to distinguish between the records of individuals with the same names.
Pursuant to the requirements of OMB Circular No. A-108, the Department is also adding a new section to the notice that is entitled “HISTORY.”
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education of the U.S. Department of Education (Department) publishes a notice of a modified system of records to read as follows:
Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) (18-14-04).
Unclassified.
(1) U.S. Department of Education, Office of Migrant Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202-6135.
(2a) Deloitte Consulting LLC, 1919 North Lynn Street, Arlington, VA 22209-1743 (contractor) (Software development/programming and operations/maintenance).
(2b) Amazon Web Services (AWS) US-EAST/US-WEST 12900 Worldgate Drive, Herndon, VA 20170-6039 (subcontractor).
Director, Office of Migrant Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E317, Washington, DC 20202-0001.
MSIX is authorized under section 1308(b)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), 20 U.S.C. 6398(b)(2).
The purpose of MSIX is to enhance the continuity of educational and health services for migratory children by providing a mechanism for all States to exchange educational and health-related information on migratory children who move from State to State due to their migratory lifestyle. MSIX helps to improve the timeliness of school enrollments, the appropriateness of grade and course placements, and participation in the Migrant Education Program (MEP) for migratory children. Further, MSIX facilitates the accrual of course credits for migratory children in secondary school by providing accurate academic information on the students' course history and academic progress.
This system contains records on all children whom States have determined to be eligible to participate in the MEP, authorized in Title I, Part C of the ESEA.
The categories of records in the system include the migratory child's: Name, date of birth, personal identification numbers assigned by the States and the Department, parent's or parents' name or names, school enrollment data, school contact data, assessment data, and other educational and health data necessary for accurate
The system contains records that are obtained from parents, guardians, migratory children, State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and local operating agencies (LOAs).
The Department may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records, under the routine uses listed in this system of records, without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purposes for which the record was collected. The Department may make these disclosures on a case-by-case basis or, if the Department has complied with the computer matching requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), under a computer matching agreement.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(a)
(i) The Department or any of its components.
(ii) Any Department employee in his or her official capacity.
(iii) Any employee of the Department in his or her individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to or has been requested to provide or arrange for representation of the employee.
(iv) Any employee of the Department in his or her individual capacity where the Department has agreed to represent the employee.
(v) The United States where the Department determines that the litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(7)
(8)
The cloud service provider, Amazon Web Services (AWS), through a subcontract with the Department, stores computerized student records, including backups, on virtual servers. Physical security of electronic data is maintained in compliance with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards.
Records in this system are retrieved by name and by the unique identifier assigned to each individual.
All records were previously retained and disposed of in accordance with Department Records Schedule 066: Program Management Files (N1-441-10-1) (ED 066), Item (a)(3). ED 066, Item (a)(3), is being superseded, pending approval by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), by a new records schedule submitted by the Department to NARA entitled, “Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) Electronic Information System Records.” The Department will not destroy the aforementioned records until such time as said new, NARA-approved schedule is in effect, as applicable.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
If you wish to gain access to your record in the system of records, you must contact the system manager at the address listed under SYSTEM MANAGER(S). You must provide necessary particulars such as your name, date of birth, and any other identifying information requested by the Department while processing the request to distinguish between individuals with the same name. Your request must meet the requirements of regulations in 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity.
If you wish to contest or change the content of a record regarding you in the system of records, contact the system manager at the address listed under SYSTEM MANAGER(S). Your request must meet the requirements of regulations in 34 CFR 5b.7.
If you wish to determine whether a record exists regarding you in the system of records, you must contact the system manager at the address listed under SYSTEM MANAGER(S). You must provide necessary particulars such as your name, date of birth, and any other identifying information requested by the Department while processing the request to distinguish between individuals with the same name. Your request must meet the requirements of regulations in 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity.
None.
The system of records was originally published in the
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced Renewable Energy Asset Management Group, 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 July 22, 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 the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric 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:
Take notice that on July 2, 2019, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, and Rules 206 and 212, of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and 385.212, City of Lubbock (Complainant), acting by and through its municipally owned electric utility, Lubbock Power & Light (LP&L), filed a formal complaint against Public Service Company of Colorado and Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS) (collectively Respondents) alleging that SPS's Wholesale Distribution Service rate as applied to LP&L is unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory, all as more fully explained in the Complaint.
LP&L certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for Public Service Company of Colorado and SPS as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
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
Take notice that on June 27, 2019, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2018), SFPP, LP filed a petition for Declaratory Order seeking approval of the overall tariff rate structure, as well as terms of service including prorationing, and open season procedures, for a proposed expansion service on SFPP's East line, in order to serve the Mexican market with Mexican grade gasoline and diesel,
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
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
For the Franklin Falls Development: Mr. Thomas Uncher, Erie Boulevard Hydropower L.P., Vice President of Operations, Brookfield Renewable, 399 Big Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804, (518) 743-2018.
For the Union Falls Development: Mr. Lewis Loon, Union Falls Hydropower L.P., General Manager, Operations and Maintenance-USA/QC 423 Brunswick Avenue, Gardner, ME 04345, (207) 203-3027.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
Register online at
m.
n.
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:
As announced in the Notice of Staff-Led Public Meeting issued on May 21, 2019, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff will convene a staff-led public meeting on Monday, July 15, 2019, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (ET). The public meeting will be held in the Commission Meeting Room at Commission headquarters, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Commissioners may attend and participate.
On April 22, 2019, ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE), New England States Committee on Electricity (NESCOE), and New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Participants Committee jointly requested a public meeting to share with Commission staff, without violating the Commission's regulations prohibiting
This staff-led public meeting will consist of three presentations by representatives from ISO-NE, NEPOOL, and NESCOE with time for questions and answers at the end of each presentation. Questions will be permitted from only Commission staff and Commissioners. The Commission will not solicit post-meeting comments. Parties who wish to comment on ISO-NE's proposal may do so when ISO-NE files its proposal.
Attached to this supplemental notice is an agenda for this public meeting,
All interested persons may attend the public meeting. Registration is not required. However, in-person attendees are encouraged to pre-register on-line at:
The public meeting will be webcast. A link to the webcast of this event will be available in the Commission Calendar of Events at
The public meeting will not be transcribed. PowerPoint slides or printed documents used in the public meeting will be entered into the record in Docket No. EL18-182-000.
Commission public meetings are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about this public meeting, please contact Frank Swigonski by phone at (202) 502-8089 or by email at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
l.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at
m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
n. The existing Camp Far West Transmission Line Project (P-10821) is a transmission line-only project and does not generate power. The project serves as the primary transmission line for South Sutter Water District's Camp Far West Hydroelectric Project No. 2997. The currently licensed project includes a 1.9-mile-long, three-phase, 60-kilovolt (kV) transmission line extending from the powerhouse of the Camp Far West Hydroelectric Project (P-2997) in Placer County to an interconnection with PG&E's Smartville-Lincoln (formerly Smartville-Pleasant Grove) 60-kV transmission line. PG&E now proposes to connect the project's 1.9-mile-long transmission line to an existing 9-mile-long, northbound segment of the Smartville-Lincoln transmission line that connects to the Smartville-Nicholas No. 1 transmission line at Beale Air Force Base. Because the 9-mile-long northbound segment of the Smartville-Lincoln transmission line would only carrying electrons transmitted by the project, PG&E proposes to incorporate the 9-mile-segment into any subsequent license issued for the project.
o. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
q.
Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
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:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
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) staff is soliciting public comment on the reinstatement and revision of the FERC-922, Performance Metrics for ISOs, RTOs, and Regions Outside ISOs and RTOs.
Comments on the collection of information are due September 9, 2019.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. AD19-16-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Darren Sheets may be reached at
In December 2017, the GAO issued a report on the RTOs/ISOs with centralized capacity markets.
In response to the 2017 GAO Report, Commission staff has proposed changes to the Common Metrics information collection. First, Commission staff proposes to improve the data collection process by creating a standardized information collection Input Spreadsheet and an updated, more detailed User Guide, which will provide guidance on completing the information collection, including information about who should respond, the timeline for responses, the metrics being collected, including important definitions and a description of the types of metrics and their structure in the information collection, and how to properly use the reporting form. Also, Commission staff proposes to update the list of Common Metrics to focus on centrally-organized energy markets and capacity markets, which involves adding capacity market metrics. The update also involves the elimination of previously collected metrics on reliability, RTO/ISO billing controls and customer satisfaction, interconnection and transmission processes, and system lambda. Commission staff proposes eliminating these metrics because they provide limited information, are reported publicly elsewhere, or do not significantly help Commission staff or the public draw any conclusions regarding the benefits of an RTO/ISO. The revised data collection, after additions and deletions, consists of 29 Common Metrics.
In addition to eliminating certain metrics and adding new ones, the Common Metrics are now organized into three groups: Group 1 metrics are designed to be collected from all respondents (
Commission staff has had informal contact with stakeholders about the proposed revisions to the set of Common Metrics, including the proposed revisions to improve the quality of data collected and to enhance the Common Metrics Report with capacity market metrics. Specifically, Commission staff has contacted representatives of the ISO/RTO Council, the Edison Electric Institute, American Wind Energy Association, American Public Power Association, and the Energy Information Administration.
Commission staff has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information collection requirements.
The following table sets forth the estimated annual burden and cost
The second column, Number of Responses in Years 1 & 3 (2) is characterized by the number of Balancing Authority Areas (BAAs) each respondent would be reporting on, as the respondent would provide a response to each metric for each of its BAAs. Each RTO/ISO is a single BAA and therefore will only provide responses to each metric for one BAA, but utilities in the non-RTO/ISO regions that previously responded have reported metrics for more than one BAA (for instance, Duke Energy has multiple BAAs outside of RTOs/ISOs and filed metrics for each BAA in the previous information collection). Therefore, the estimated number of responses for Group 1 (all RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO utilities) is the number of BAAs in the RTOs/ISOs,
The Annual Frequency of Filings (3) is 0.67 for all groups. This fraction reflects that there will be two information collections or one each during Years 1 and 3 of the three-year OMB authorization period, so
The Total Number of Annual Responses (4) is the product of the second column, Number of Responses in Years 1 and 3 (2), multiplied by the third, the Annual Frequency of Filings (3). Thus for the first group, this value is 16 × 0.67 or 10.72.
The Estimated Burden Hours per Response (5) reflects the total number of estimated burden hours, separated into the three reporting categories (collect, write, review) for all four groups of respondents. The total estimated burden hours for the first three groups of respondents are the same as the previous FERC-922 information collection burden estimates, 401 hours. An increased estimate of the burden hours, 427 hours, is for Potential New Respondents, in recognition of the fact that the burden on a new respondent is likely higher. The number of hours in
The Estimated Cost per Response (6) is the product of the three variables: The Estimated Burden Hours per Response (5) for a category, multiplied by the labor rate (for wages plus benefits) for each category (which is not shown in the table), multiplied by the proportion of total hours attributable to this Group, to report on a category,
The Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours (7) is the product of the Total Number of Annual Responses (4) times the Estimated Burden Hours per Response (5). For the first row of the first group this value is 2,905 hours = 10.72 × 271 hours.
Finally, the Estimated Total Annual Cost (8) reflects the total burden to the industry and is calculated by multiplying the Total Number of Annual Responses (4) times the Estimated Cost per Response (6) for each category for all groups and produces an estimated total cost in the last row of the table. The wage rates utilized in this burden estimate have been updated to recent Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates for the same categories as used in the prior burden estimates for the FERC-922 information collection (
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
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. 6 (Annual Report of Oil Pipeline Companies) and 6-Q (Quarterly Report of Oil Pipeline Companies) and submitting the information collections 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 April 15, 2019, the Commission published a Notice in the
Comments on the collections of information are due August 9, 2019.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0022 (FERC Form No. 6) and 1902-0206 (FERC Form No. 6-Q), 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. IC19-20-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown by email at
In 1977, the Department of Energy Organization Act transferred to the Commission from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) the responsibility to regulate oil pipeline companies. In accordance with the transfer of authority, the Commission was delegated the responsibility to require oil pipelines to file annual reports of information necessary for the Commission to exercise its statutory responsibilities.
To reduce burden on industry, FERC Form No. 6 has three tiers of reporting requirements:
1. Each oil pipeline carrier whose annual jurisdictional operating revenues has been $500,000 or more for each of the three previous calendar years must file FERC Form No. 6 (18 CFR 357.2 (a)). Oil pipeline companies subject to the provisions of section 20 of the ICA must submit FERC Form No. 6-Q. 18 CFR 357.4(b)). Newly established entities must use projected data to determine whether FERC Form No. 6 must be filed.
2. Oil pipeline carriers exempt from filing FERC Form No. 6 whose annual
3. Oil pipeline carriers exempt from filing FERC Form No. 6 and pages 301 and whose annual jurisdictional operating revenues were $350,000 or less for each of the three previous calendar years must prepare and file page 700, “Annual Cost of Service Based Analysis Schedule,” of FERC Form No. 6. When submitting page 700, each exempt oil pipeline carrier must include page 1 of FERC Form No. 6, the Identification and Attestation schedule (18 CFR 357.2(a)(3)).
The Commission uses the data in FERC Form Nos. 6 and 6-Q to perform audits and reviews on the financial condition of oil pipelines; assess energy markets; conduct oil pipeline rate proceedings and economic analysis; conduct research for use in administrative litigation; and administer the requirements of the ICA. Data from FERC Form No. 6 facilitates the calculation of the actual rate of return on equity for oil pipelines. The actual rate of return on equity is particularly useful information when evaluating a pipeline's rates.
The Commission also uses data on Page 301 of FERC Form No. 6 to compute annual charges which are then assessed against oil pipeline companies to recover the Commission's annual costs as mandated by Order No. 472. The annual charges are required by Section 3401 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986.
Furthermore, the majority of state regulatory commissions use FERC Form Nos. 6 and 6-Q and the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts (USofA) to satisfy their reporting requirements for those companies under their jurisdiction. In addition, the public uses the data in FERC Form Nos. 6 and 6-Q to assist in monitoring rates, the financial condition of the oil pipeline industry, and in assessing energy markets.
Oil pipeline companies subject to the provisions of section 20 of the ICA must submit FERC Form No. 6-Q. 18 CFR 357.4(b)). The Commission uses the information collected in FERC Form No. 6-Q to carry out its responsibilities in implementing the statutory provisions of the ICA to include the authority to prescribe rules and regulations concerning accounts, records, and memoranda, as necessary or appropriate. Financial accounting and reporting provides necessary information concerning a company's past performance and its future prospects. Without reliable financial statements prepared in accordance with the Commission's USofA and related regulations, it would be difficult for the Commission to accurately determine the costs that relate to a particular time period, service, or line of business.
The Commission uses data from FERC Form No. 6-Q to assist in: (1) Implementation of its financial audits and programs; (2) continuous review of the financial condition of regulated companies; (3) assessment of energy markets; (4) rate proceedings and economic analyses; and (5) research for use in litigation.
Financial information reported on the quarterly FERC Form No. 6-Q provides the Commission, as well as customers, investors and others, an important tool to help identify emerging trends and issues affecting jurisdictional entities within the energy industry. It also provides timely disclosures of the impacts that new accounting standards, or changes in existing standards, have on jurisdictional entities, as well as the economic effects of significant transactions, events, and circumstances. The reporting of this information by jurisdictional entities assists the Commission in its analysis of profitability, efficiency, risk, and in its overall monitoring.
BEA further notes that FERC Form No. 6 data is used indirectly to derive annual pipeline transportation output in the industry accounts program. BEA explains that data obtained by the industry account from the Association of Oil Pipelines “Shifts in Petroleum Transportation” report is based, in part, on this survey. BEA concludes that FERC Form No. 6 information is considered an indispensable data source to the NIPA estimates and industry accounts estimates because it is used indirectly through the VPIP program and the trade association.
Finally, BEA requests that the Commission keep BEA informed of any modifications to FERC Form Nos. 6 and 6-Q, and notes, in particular, that BEA is particularly interested in any modifications proposed during the forms approval process that would substantially affect BEA's use of the data.
With respect to BEA's interest in any modifications to FERC Form Nos. 6 and 6-Q, we emphasize that we are not changing the information to be collected in this proceeding.
The LSG states that it welcomed the Commission's decision to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) in October 2016 in Docket No. RM17-1.
The LSG states that in its comments to the ANOPR, it encouraged the Commission to propose to revise Page 700 to require all pipelines to disaggregate Page 700 revenue, barrel and barrel-mile data associated with cost-based rates, non-cost based rates and other jurisdictional revenues such as penalties. In addition, the LSG states that it recommended that the Commission also propose to require all pipelines to include information regarding pipeline loss allowance revenues in the “other jurisdictional revenues” category because, according to the LSG, it is unclear whether those revenues are being recorded by pipelines on Page 700 in a uniform and consistent manner.
The LSG explains that in its comments to the ANOPR, it also reiterated the call for the Commission to require all pipelines to make their Page 700 workpapers available to a shipper or interested person upon request, not just to the Commission and FERC staff. The LSG suggested that there is no logical basis for, and no public interest served by, the requirement that pipelines provide their workpapers only to the Commission and Commission staff. According to the LSG, shippers should have the tools they need to bear the burden of evaluating the reasonableness of rates and bringing challenges to the pipeline's rates.
For the reasons stated in its comments to the ANOPR, the LSG recommends that the Commission issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in which the Commission proposes the suggested modifications to the FERC Form No. 6.
LSG's FERC Form No. 6 modification suggestions are currently before the Commission in Docket No. RM15-19-000 for consideration in that proceeding.
Take notice that on June 28, 2019, Spire Storage West LLC (Spire Storage) filed a request as Successor to Clear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C. (Clear Creek) for waiver or clarification of any
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 5, 2019.
Office of Systems Management, Integrated Award Environment, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice; announcement of public meeting.
Notice of this new Unique Entity ID for Federal awards management includes the final technical specification for the identifier standard. IAE is hosting a meeting to provide information on the new Unique Entity ID standard. The meeting is open to current and potential federal awardees (contracts, grants, loan recipients, etc.) and the public.
The Unique Entity ID standard is considered final on July 10, 2019.
The meeting will be held virtually. Interested individuals must register to attend as instructed below under
Ms. Nancy Goode, Program Manager, IAE Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement Division. More information can be found at
Currently, the System for Award Management (
In 2016, the government revised both the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (2CFR) to remove any proprietary references to D&B and the DUNS® number as the unique entity identifier. This allowed the government to decouple the required unique identifier from the supporting entity validation services.
As such, the U.S. government is moving to a new unique entity identifier for federal awards management, including, but not limited to, contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, which will ultimately become the primary key to identify entities throughout the federal awarding lifecycle, in
Through December 2020, IAE systems will be transitioning from the DUNS® to a SAM-generated Unique Entity ID (UEI). The standard for the new UEI was developed by an interagency working group. This new entity identifier will be the authoritative identifier once the transition is complete.
More information can be found at
The public meeting will be conducted virtually where information on the awards management Unique Entity ID standard will be presented.
To register for the meeting please email
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of availability.
NIOSH announces the availability of
The final document was published on July 3, 2019 on the CDC website.
The document may be obtained at the following link:
Thomas J. Lentz (
On March 15, 2017, NIOSH published a request for public review in the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.
Extension of comment period.
On April 8, 2019, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), opened a docket to obtain information on the feasibility of a registry designed to track mesothelioma cases in the United States, as well as recommendations on enrollment, data collection, confidentiality, and registry maintenance. The purpose of such a registry would be to collect information that could be used to develop and improve standards of care and to identify gaps in mesothelioma prevention and treatment. Comments were to be received by July 8, 2019. NIOSH is extending the comment period to close on August 7, 2019, to allow stakeholders and other interested parties sufficient time to respond.
The comment period for the document published on April 8, 2019 (84 FR 13928), is extended. Comments must be received by August 7, 2019.
Comments may be submitted electronically, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS: C-48, Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855) 818-1629 (this is a toll-free number); email
NIOSH published a request for information in the
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Web-based approaches to reach black or African American and Hispanic/Latino MSM for HIV Testing and Prevention Services” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on December 6, 2018 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one substantive comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Web-based approaches to reach black or African American and Hispanic/Latino MSM for HIV Testing and Prevention Services—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The goal of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of mailing out rapid HIV home-testing kits and additional testing promotion components to increase HIV testing among black/African-American or Hispanic/Latino MSM. The findings from this research will assist local and state health departments, and community based organizations in making decisions on how to improve HIV testing and linkage to HIV prevention services for black/African American and Hispanic/Latino men who have sex with men.
The research study is a randomized control trial and all survey data will be collected over the internet. There will not be any in-person surveys. We will advertise the study on internet websites frequented by black and Hispanic MSM. People will click on a banner ad and will be taken to a study website that provides a brief overview of the study. Those who are interested in participating will complete a brief survey to determine their eligibility. Men who are eligible will complete registration information and then download a study phone app onto their smartphone. The app will allow them to complete a baseline survey. After completing the baseline survey, they will be randomized into one of three conditions.
All participants will be sent up to four rapid HIV test kits for their use and to give to their friends (hereafter referred to as “guests”) and they will report their results to the study. Participants will use the study app to complete study activities. All participants and guests will have access to web-based HIV counseling upon request. Participants who report a positive HIV test result will be offered web-based HIV counseling if they have not previously requested counseling. Men assigned to the control arm will only have access to the study app and web-based counseling. Men assigned to one intervention arm will also be able to access another smartphone app (HealthMindr) that will allow them to engage in additional study activities. Men assigned to the second intervention arm will have access to a web-based forum (HealthEmpowerment) covering HIV prevention and not the HealthMindr app. At four months after enrollment, all participants will complete an online survey and will be offered additional HIV testing materials to complete. Guests who receive a study HIV self-test kit will be able to report the result online.
The subpopulation are individuals who: (1) Identify as African-American/black or Hispanic/Latino; (2) report their HIV status as negative or report being unaware of their HIV status; (3) are not currently using PrEP or participating in other HIV testing prevention studies; (4) have had anal intercourse with another man in the past 12 months; (5) reside in one of the study states and not planning to move out of the state in the next 4 months; (6) Are 18 years or older; (7) born male; and (8) identify as male. We will evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the HIV home-testing kits and additional testing promotion components with respect to linkage of participants to appropriate services (HIV treatment, PrEP, STI testing, additional prevention and social services). These analyses will determine whether any such differences are significant within and across study arms, and by race/ethnicity.
Depending on the study arm to which participants are assigned filling out data collection forms, engaging with testing promotion components, and completing and submitting at-home HIV testing this will require between two hours 25 minutes and three hours and 45 minutes of a participant's time over the course of the entire study period. Guests who receive an HIV self-test from a study participant will take up to 37 minutes to complete the testing activities.
The total annual burden hours are 1,517. There are no other costs to respondents other than time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection titled, Improving Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) Prevention and Practice through Practice and Implementation Centers and National Partnerships (PICs). The purpose of FASD PICs is to collect training evaluation data from healthcare practitioners and staff in health systems where FASD-related practice and systems changes are implemented, and from grantees of Practice and Implementation Centers and national partner organizations related to prevention, identification, and treatment of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs).
CDC must receive written comments on or before September 9, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2019-0058 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. CDC will post, without change, all relevant comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs
Improving Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) Prevention and Practice through Practice and Implementation Centers and National Partnerships” project (OMB Control No. 0920-1129, Exp. 8/31/2019))—Revision — National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disability (NCBDDD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Prenatal exposure to alcohol is a leading preventable cause of birth defects and developmental disabilities. The term `fetal alcohol spectrum
Since 2002, CDC funded FASD Regional Training Centers (RTCs) to provide education and training to healthcare professionals and students about FASD prevention, identification, and treatment. In July 2013, CDC convened an expert review panel to evaluate the effectiveness of the RTC program overall and to make recommendations about the program.
The panel highlighted several accomplishments of the RTCs and proposed several changes for future programming: (1) The panel identified a need for more comprehensive coverage nationally with discipline-specific trainings, increased use of technology, greater collaboration with medical societies, and stronger linkages with national partner organizations to increase the reach of training opportunities, and (2) The panel suggested that the training centers focus on demonstrable practice change and sustainability and place a stronger emphasis on primary prevention of FASDs. In addition, it was recommended that future initiatives have stronger evaluation components.
Based on the recommendations of the expert review panel, CDC is placing increased focus on prevention, demonstrating practice change, achieving national coverage, and strengthening partnerships between FASD Practice and Implementation Centers, or PICs (the newly redesigned RTCs), and medical societies and national partner organizations. The National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (NOFAS) also participates in this project as a resource to the PICS and national partners. The PICs and national partners are asked to closely collaborate in discipline-specific workgroups (DSWs) and identify strategies that will increase the reach of the program on a national level. While a major focus of the grantees' work will be national, regional approaches will be used to develop new content and test feasibility and acceptability of materials, especially among healthcare providers and medical societies. In addition, CDC is placing a stronger emphasis on evaluation, with both individual DSW/NOFAS evaluations and a cross-site evaluation.
CDC requests OMB approval to collect program evaluation information from (1) healthcare practitioners from disciplines targeted by each DSW, including training participants, (2) health system staff, and (3) cooperative agreement grantees over a three-year period.
Healthcare practitioners will complete surveys to provide information on whether project trainings impacted their knowledge and practice behavior regarding FASD identification, prevention, and treatment. The information will be used to improve future trainings and assess whether knowledge and practice changes occurred. Some participants will also complete qualitative key informant interviews to gain additional information on practice change. Health system employees will be interviewed or complete surveys as part of projects to assess healthcare systems change, including high impact evaluation studies and DSW systems change projects. The high impact evaluation studies will be primarily qualitative assessments of two to three specific grantee efforts that seem likely to result in achievement of program objectives. The DSW systems change projects will employ online surveys to assess systems change in selected health systems across the U.S.
Grantees will complete program evaluation forms to track perceptions of DSW collaboration and perceptions of key successes and challenges encountered by the DSW. It is estimated that 29,573 respondents will participate in the evaluation each year, for a total estimated burden of 3790 hours annually. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Information Collection on Soil-transmitted Helminth Infections in Alabama and Mississippi” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on April 2, 2019 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive any comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Information Collection on Soil-transmitted Helminth Infections in Alabama and Mississippi—New—Center for Global Health (CGH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Soil-transmitted helminths (STH) are intestinal worms transmitted through contaminated soil. They include roundworms (
The core data elements were developed with input from community advocates, and local, state, and federal public health and environmental health partners in both Alabama and Mississippi. The questionnaires have been designed for self-completion by respondents. The data that are collected will be pooled and analyzed by university partners and CDC, to generate hypotheses about potential risk factors for infection.
CDC requests OMB approval to collect critical information, not available otherwise, on the prevalence and distribution of disease and on risk factors, knowledge, attitudes and/or practices related to STH infections among residents in at-risk areas in Alabama and Mississippi. This information is critical for planning and implementation of disease prevention and control strategies targeting STH infections in the southeastern United States.
This data collection is not expected to entail substantial burden for respondents. The estimated total annualized burden associated with this data collection is 220 hours (approximately 958 individuals interviewed × 10 minutes/response). There will be no costs to respondents other than their time.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request “Online training for law enforcement to reduce risks associated with shift work and long work hours” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on December 10, 2018 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Online training for law enforcement to reduce risks associated with shift work and long work hours—NEW—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Law enforcement officers work in stressful and dangerous conditions to enforce law and order, prevent crime, and protect persons and property. Police often work during the evening, at night, and sometimes irregular and long hours. Shift work and long work hours are linked to many health and safety risks due to disturbances to sleep, circadian rhythms, and personal relationships. These work schedules and inadequate sleep are likely critical contributors to the many health problems seen in police: Shorter life spans, high occupational injury rates, and burden of chronic illnesses. One important strategy to reduce these risks is training programs to inform employers and law enforcement officers about the risks and strategies to reduce the risks. This is a new Information Collection Request for one year of data collection. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is authorized to carry out this data collection through Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
The purpose of this project is to develop a training program to relay the risks linked to shift work and long work hours and give workplace strategies for employers and personal strategies for the officers to reduce the risks. Once finalized, the training will be available on the NIOSH website. The training will be pilot tested with 30 recent graduates of a police academy in their first field experience and 30 experienced officers. Study staff will recruit 60 law enforcement officers during a 30-minute phone call. All will work full time on fixed night shifts. The pilot test will use a pretest/posttest design to examine sleep (both duration and quality), worktime sleepiness, and knowledge retained. Pre-test measures will be collected two weeks before the training. Post-test measures will be collected the week of the training, one week after the training and at weeks 11 and 12 of the study. Additional post-test measures will include feedback about the training and if specific behaviors changed.
Before starting the pretest, the respondent will sign an informed consent form. The pilot pre-test will start with the respondent filling out a 10 minute online survey that includes four short surveys: (1) Demographic information and work experience; (2) the Epworth Sleepiness Scale; (3) the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; and (4) a knowledge test. The respondent will be fitted with a wrist actigraph, which will record activity and estimate the times of sleep. The respondents will keep an online sleep activity diary and wear the actigraph continuously during weeks one to four of the study. The online sleep activity diary takes approximately two minutes a day to complete. The sleep diary and actigraph are being used together to obtain a more accurate timing of respondent's sleep and activity.
During the third week of the study, the respondent will take the 2.5 hour online training program. Immediately after completing the training, the respondent will take the post-test knowledge test and will provide feedback about the training including barriers to using the training information and what influential people
The second post-test period will be weeks 11 and 12 of the study to gather longer-term outcomes. At the beginning of week 11, the respondents will be fitted with an actigraph. The respondent will wear the actigraph and complete the sleep activity diary for the next 14 days. At the end of week 12 of the study, respondent will complete the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and Changes in Behaviors questionnaires. The combined response time is five minutes. The respondent will return the actigraph and study ends.
The burden table lists three 10-minute meetings during the post-test period when they will return the actigraph at the end of week four, be fitted with an actigraph at the beginning of week 11 and return it at the end of week 12. The respondents will complete the sleep activity diary for 42 days, which will take two minutes each day.
Study staff will use the findings from the pilot test to make improvements to the training program. The research team will reinforce or expand training content that showed less than desired results on the pilot test. Potential impacts of this project include improvements in management practices such as the design of work schedules and improvements in officers' personal behaviors for coping with the demands of shift work and long work hours. The total estimated annualized burden hours is 334. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Correction of notice.
This document corrects the information provided for [Document Identifier: CMS-10328] titled “Medicare Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol.”
William N. Parham, III, (410) 786-4669.
In the June 26, 2019, issue of the
In the June 26, 2019, notice, the information provided in the second column of the notice on page 30125, was published with incorrect information in the “
In FR Doc. 2019-13608 of June 26, 2019 (84 FR 30123), page 30125, the language in the middle of the second column that begins with “[
[
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to
Comments must be received by September 9, 2019.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
2.
The final rule “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Annual Eligibility Redeterminations for Exchange Participation and Insurance Affordability Programs; Health Insurance Issuer Standards Under the Affordable Care Act, including Standards Related to Exchanges” (79 FR 52994), provides that an Exchange may choose to conduct the annual redetermination process for a plan year (1) in accordance with the existing procedures described in 45 CFR 155.335; (2) in accordance with procedures described in guidance issued by the Secretary for the coverage year; or (3) using an alternative proposed by the Exchange and approved by the Secretary.
The final rule also amends the requirements for product renewal and re-enrollment (or non-renewal) notices to be sent by QHP issuers in the Exchanges and specifies content for these notices. The guidance document “Updated Federal Standard Renewal and Product Discontinuation Notices” (published on July 19, 2018) provides standard notices for product discontinuation and renewal to be sent by issuers of individual market QHPs and issuers in the individual market.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by August 9, 2019.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Changes to the collection from the 60-day package to the 30-day package include:
• Removal of language related to State Fair Hearings to comply with the change in Medicaid managed care rules at 42 CFR 438.402(c)(1)(i), effective 2017, that all Medicaid managed care denials must now first have a plan-level review before a State Fair Hearing can be requested.
• Updates to comply with the Medicare Advantage final rule, published May 23, 2019,
• Removing the option to delete sections related to expedited payment requests (if applicable); plans are to leave all language regarding fast appeals. Text has been added to the notice informing enrollees they do not have a right to request an expedited appeal if they are asking to be paid back for an item or service already received (42 CFR 422.570(a)).
• The addition of language in the instructions that “applicable integrated plans” should follow notification requirements under final rule published
• The addition of instructions for MA-PDs to enter text in the free text field “why did we deny your request?” when they have determined that the requested drug being denied is covered under Part D.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is withdrawing the approval of 31 abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) held by Apotex, Inc. (Apotex). Apotex, through its U.S. agent, has requested withdrawal of these applications and has waived its opportunity for a hearing.
Approval is withdrawn as of July 10, 2019.
Kristiana Brugger, Office of Regulatory Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6262, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
FDA approved the following ANDAs on the dates indicated in the table, for the conditions of use found in the reference listed drug for each application:
However, after these drugs were approved, FDA became aware of concerns involving material manufactured at two Apotex facilities, at least one of which was named in each of these applications. The facilities involved were Apotex Private Research Ltd. (Federal Employer Identification (FEI) number: 3006076314) and Apotex Pharmachem India Private Ltd. (FEI: 3005466325). The application numbers for the impacted ANDAs are listed above. In January 2018, Apotex requested withdrawal of the above ANDAs and waived its opportunity for a hearing. FDA interprets this withdrawal request as a request under § 314.150(d) (21 CFR 314.150(d)).
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, and pursuant to Apotex's request, FDA is withdrawing approval
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies: Modifications and Revisions.” This guidance provides information on how FDA will define and process submissions for modifications and revisions of risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS), as well as information on what types of changes to approved REMS will be considered modifications or revisions of the REMS. The guidance also provides instructions to application holders related to procedures for submission of REMS modifications and revisions to FDA as well as different timeframes for FDA's review of and action on such changes. The definitions of REMS modifications and revisions apply to all types of REMS. This guidance updates the guidance of the same name, issued April 7, 2015, including finalizing the portion that sets forth the submission procedures for REMS revisions.
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)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Vaishali Jarral, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6480, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4248; or Stephen Ripley, Center for
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies: Modifications and Revisions.” This guidance provides information on what types of changes to approved REMS will be considered modifications of the REMS and what types of changes will be considered revisions. (See section 505-1(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355-1(h)).) This guidance also provides information on how REMS modifications and revisions should be submitted to FDA and how FDA intends to review and act on these submissions.
If FDA determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of a drug outweigh its risks, FDA is authorized to require a REMS for such drugs under section 505-1 of the FD&C Act.
This guidance updates the guidance of the same name, issued April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18629), and finalizes the portion that sets forth the submission procedures for REMS revisions. FDA carefully considered all comments received, including comments on the submission procedures portion, and revised the guidance as appropriate.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies: Modifications and Revisions.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This final guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. 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). REMS modifications are submitted to FDA as supplements to approved new drug applications (NDAs) under 21 CFR 314.70 and for abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) under 21 CFR 314.97, and for approved biologics license applications (BLAs) under 21 CFR 601.12. Burden hours for NDAs and ANDAs are approved by OMB under control number 0910-0001, and for BLAs under control number 0910-0338. REMS revisions are submitted to FDA as application correspondence and are also approved by OMB under control numbers 0910-0001 and 0910-0338.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the 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 materials, 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
Infrastructure Security Division (ISD), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-Day notice and request for comments; Revision, 1670-0035.
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.
Comments are due by September 9, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number CISA-2019-0007, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
Ricky Morgan, 866-844-8163,
The Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7, the Presidential Policy Directive-21, and the National Infrastructure Protection Plan highlight the need for a centrally managed repository of infrastructure attributes capable of assessing risks and facilitating data sharing. To support this mission need, the DHS CISA ISD has developed a data collection system that contains several capabilities which support the homeland security mission in the area of critical infrastructure (CI) protection.
Protective Security Advisors (PSAs) and Cyber Security Advisors (CSAs) conduct voluntary assessments on CI facilities. These assessments are web-based and are used to collect an organization's basic, high-level information, and its dependencies. This data is then used to determine a Protective Measures Index (PMI) and a Resilience Measures Index (RMI) for the assessed organization. This information allows an organization to see how it compares to other organizations within the same sector as well as allows them to see how adjusting certain aspects
The information will be gathered by site visits, arranged between the organization owners and DHS PSAs or CSAs. The PSA or CSA will then visit the site and perform the assessment, as requested. They then return to complete the vulnerability assessment and input the data into the system where the data is then accessible to system users. Once available, the organization and other relevant system users can then review the data and use it for planning, risk identification, mitigation and decision making. All data is captured electronically by the PSA, CSA or by the organization as a self-assessment. The vulnerability assessments are voluntary but are required in order for the organization to receive an evaluation of their security posture.
After assessments are input into the system, the user is prompted to participate in a feedback questionnaire. Every user is prompted to participate in the Post Assessment questionnaire after entering an assessment. Participation in the Post Assessment questionnaire is voluntary. The Post Assessment Questionnaires are designed to capture feedback about a vulnerability assessment and the system. There are three different questionnaires correlated and prompted after entering a particular assessment into the database. The results are used internally within DHS to make programmatic improvements.
The collection of information uses automated electronic vulnerability assessments and questionnaires. The vulnerability assessments and questionnaires are electronic in nature and include questions that measure the security, resiliency and dependencies of an organization. The vulnerability assessments are arranged at the request of an organization and are then scheduled and performed by a PSA or CSA.
The changes to the collection since the previous OMB approval include: Updating the title of the collection, adding three customer feedback questionnaires, increase in burden estimates and costs. The three questionnaires were added to the collection to provide user feedback on the content and functionality of the system. The addition of the questionnaires have increased the burden estimates by $3,861.
The annual burden cost for the collection has increased by $121,591, from $1,786,166 to $1,907,757, due to the addition of the Post Assessment Questionnaires and updated wage rates.
The annual government cost for the collection has increased by $509,195, from $1,710,959 to $2,220,152, due to the addition of the Post Assessment Questionnaires and updated wage rates.
This is a revision and renewal of an information collection.
OMB is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Infrastructure Security Division (ISD), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-Day notice and request for comments; revision, 1670-0009.
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.
Comments are due by September 9, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number CISA-2019-0008, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
Ricky Morgan, 866-844-8163,
The Homeland Security Presidential
The purpose of this collection is to gather the details pertaining to the users of the IP Gateway for the purpose of creating accounts to access the IP Gateway. This information is also used to verify a need to know to access the IP Gateway. After being vetted and granted access, users are prompted and required to take an online training course upon first logging into the system. After completing the training, users are permitted full access to the system. In addition, this collection will gather feedback from the users of the IP Gateway to determine any future system improvements.
The information gathered will be used by the CISA IP Gateway Program Management Team to vet users for a need to know and grant access to the system. As part of the registration process, users are required to take a one-time online training course. When logging into the system for the first time, the system prompts users to take the training courses. Users cannot opt out of the training and are required to take the course in order to gain and maintain access to the system. When users complete the training, the system automatically logs that the training is complete and allows full access to the system.
Additionally, CISA uses a Utilization Survey to assess the current functionality of the IP Gateway as well as identify any further capabilities to be developed. Through this process, the IP Gateway will remain a viable solution for the stakeholders. This survey is available to users as an ideal way to consolidate end user satisfaction feedback and gather undeveloped capabilities that would aid in the expansion and functionality of the IP Gateway.
The collection of information uses automated electronic forms. During the online registration process, there is an electronic form used to create a user account and an online training course required to grant access.
The survey is electronic and includes questions that measure the satisfaction of the user as well as a section to capture any improvements that the user would like to see added and/or corrected. This voluntary survey is available by clicking a link labeled “User Survey” on the IP Gateway landing page. By clicking on this link, the user is then provided the electronic form for them to complete and submit.
The changes to the collection since the previous OMB approval include: Updating the title of the collection, decrease in burden estimates and decrease in costs. The total annual burden cost for the collection has decreased by $31,909, from $37,230 to $5,321 due to a decrease in registrations, as registration is a one-time burden. The total number of responses has decreased by 1,150 from 1,500 to 350 since most users are already registered for the system as well as making updates for the number of survey responses received. The annual government cost for the collection has decreased by $95,188 from $107,857 to $12,668, due to removing the costs associated with designing the survey.
This is a revision and renewal of an information collection.
OMB is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications and proposed incidental harassment authorizations; availability of draft environmental assessments; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received two requests, one from the City and Borough of Sitka (CBS) and one from Duck Point Development II, LLC (DPD), for authorization to take small numbers of the southeast Alaska stock of northern sea otters incidental to pile driving in Sitka Sound and Port Frederick, Alaska, between April 1, 2019, and September 30, 2019. However, due to the time needed to process the request, we evaluated the estimated take of northern sea otters during project activities between July 22, 2019, and December 31, 2019. We estimate there may be up to 12 nonlethal, incidental takes by harassment of 4 northern sea otters for the CBS project, and up to 1,380 nonlethal, incidental takes by harassment of 220 northern sea otters for the DPD project. In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, we request comments on our proposed authorizations, which, if finalized, will be for take by Level B harassment only. We anticipate no take by injury or death and include none in these proposed authorizations.
Comments on the proposed incidental harassment authorizations and draft environmental assessments must be received by August 9, 2019.
•
•
We will post all comments at
Mr. Christopher Putnam, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 341, Anchorage, Alaska, 99503, by email at
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361,
The term “take,” as defined by the MMPA, means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal (16 U.S.C. 1362(13)). Harassment, as defined by the MMPA, means any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (the MMPA calls this “Level A harassment”), or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (the MMPA calls this “Level B harassment”).
The terms “negligible impact,” “small numbers,” and “unmitigable adverse impact” are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 18.27, the Service's regulations governing take of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to specified activities. “Negligible impact” is defined as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Although “small numbers” is defined in 50 CFR 18.27, we do not rely on that definition as it conflates the terms “small numbers” and “negligible impact,” which we recognize as two separate and distinct requirements (see
If the requisite findings are made, we issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA), which sets forth the following: (i) Permissible methods of taking; (ii) other means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of marine mammals for taking for subsistence uses by coastal-dwelling Alaska Natives; and (iii) requirements for monitoring and reporting take.
On November 12, 2018, the City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska, (hereafter “CBS”) submitted a request to the Service's Marine Mammals Management Office (MMM) for authorization to take by harassment a small number of northern sea otters (
On January 30, 2019, Duck Point Development II, LLC, (hereafter “DPD”) submitted a request to the Service's MMM for authorization to take by harassment a small number of sea otters. Following requests for additional information, DPD submitted an amended application on March 21, 2019. The applicant expects that take by incidental harassment may occur during their planned pile-driving activities at Cannery Point located near Hoonah, Alaska.
The specified activity (the “project”) consists of CBS's proposed repairs to the O'Connell Bridge Lightering Float, specifically the removal and replacement of six 16-inch-diameter steel pipe piles. CBS will conduct work on 3 days between July 22, 2019, and December 31, 2019.
Removal of the extant piles will be accomplished by either dry pull or vibratory extraction. Sockets to accommodate the replacement piles will be drilled so that the piles may be installed to a greater depth than that of the existing piles, allowing for the accommodation of larger vessels. The replacement piles will be installed using both vibratory and impact methods. Transfer of personnel and equipment between shore and the work platform will be done using skiffs approximately 7.6-10.7 meters (m) or 25-30 feet (ft) in length with a 35-50 horsepower (hp)
The project at Hoonah consists of two components: (1) The installation of a lightering float at the existing dock facility on the southwest side of Cannery Point; and (2) the installation of a cruise ship berth on the northeast side of Cannery Point. This will involve the installation and subsequent removal of up to 62 temporary 30-inch piles and installation of 45 permanent piles ranging from 24 to 42 inches in diameter. Temporary piles will be installed and removed by vibratory extraction; permanent piles will be installed using both vibratory and impact methods. Additionally, there will be socket and anchor drilling to secure piles at depth. Transfer of personnel and equipment between shore and the work platform will be done using skiffs approximately 7.6-10.7 m (25-30 ft) in length with a 35-50 hp outboard engine, and a similar vessel will be used for visual monitoring of marine mammals in the waters of Port Frederick and parts of Icy Strait. Work will take place over a 75-day period between July 22, 2019, and December 31, 2019. Further information and technical specifications can be found in DPD's IHA application at:
The northern sea otter is currently the only marine mammal under the Service's jurisdiction that normally occupies Sitka Sound and Port Frederick, Alaska. There are three stocks of northern sea otters in Alaska. These are the southeast, southcentral, and southwest stocks. Sea otters that occur in Sitka Sound and Port Frederick/Icy Strait belong to the southeast Alaska stock. The Service's most recent stock assessment report is available at
Sea otters may occur anywhere within the specified project area other than upland areas. Abundance and densities of the southeast Alaska stock of sea otters were estimated from aerial surveys conducted by the Service in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) between 1995 and 2012 (Tinker
Sea otters generally occur in shallow water near the shoreline. They are most commonly observed within the 40-m (131-ft depth contour (USFWS, 2014), although they can be found in areas with deeper water. Depth is generally correlated with distance to shore, and sea otters typically remain within 1 to 2 kilometers (km) (0.62 to 1.24 miles (mi)) of shore (Riedman and Estes 1990). They tend to remain closer to shore during storms, but they may be found farther from shore when seas are calm (Lensink 1962; Kenyon 1969).
Sea otters are non-migratory and generally do not disperse over long distances (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984). They usually remain within a few kilometers of their established feeding grounds (Kenyon 1981). Breeding males remain for all or part of the year in a breeding territory covering up to 1 km (0.62 mi) of coastline. Adult females have home ranges of approximately 8 to 16 km (5 to 10 mi), which may include one or more male territories. Juveniles move greater distances between resting and foraging areas (Lensink 1962; Kenyon 1969; Riedman and Estes 1990). Although sea otters generally remain local to an area, they are capable of long-distance travel. Otters in Alaska have shown daily movement distances greater than 3 km (1.9 mi) at speeds up to 5.5 km/hour (3.4 mi/hour) (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984).
The applicants have requested authorizations for Level B incidental harassment of the southeast Alaska stock of northern sea otters. Otters in the project area will be exposed to the visual and auditory stimulation associated with the presence and operation of pile-driving equipment and support vessels. Vessel traffic and human presence on docks are common in Sitka Sound and Port Frederick/Icy Strait; however, pile-driving operations will create sounds that are unfamiliar to otters in these areas. If sea otters are disturbed, it will likely be due to the underwater noise associated with pile-driving operations, or possibly, the noise in tandem with the sight of equipment and vessels. Pile driving and vessel operations may cause disruptions to biologically significant sea otter behavioral patterns, thereby resulting in incidental take by Level B harassment.
During the course of pile driving, a portion of the kinetic energy from the hammer is lost to the water column in the form of sound. Levels of underwater sounds produced during pile driving are dependent upon the size and composition of the pile, the substrate into which the pile is driven, bathymetry, physical and chemical characteristics of the surrounding waters, and pile installation method (Illingworth and Rodkin 2007, 2014; Denes
Both impact and vibratory pile installation produce underwater sounds of frequencies predominantly lower than 2.5 kilohertz (kHz), with the highest intensity of pressure spectral density at or below 1 kHz (Denes
Whether a specific noise source will affect an otter depends on several factors, including the distance between the animal and the sound source, the sound intensity, background noise levels, the noise frequency, duration, and whether the noise is pulsed or continuous. The actual noise level perceived by individual otters will depend on distance to the pile-driving site, whether the animal is above or below water, atmospheric and environmental conditions, and the operational parameters of the piles and pile-driving equipment being used.
Characteristics of sounds produced by vessels are a product of several variables pertaining to the specifications of the vessel, including the number and type of engines, propeller shape and size, and the mechanical condition of these components. Operational status of the vessel, such as pushing or towing heavy loads, or using bow thrusters, can significantly affect the levels of sounds emitted by the same vessel at different times (Richardson
The proposed vessels are skiffs approximately 7.6-10.7 m (25-30 ft) in length with 35-50 hp outboard engines. Recordings of sounds produced by similar vessels in Glacier Bay National Park were loudest at frequencies between roughly 100 Hertz (Hz) and 5 kHz, with source levels ranging from 160-182 Decibels referenced at 1 micro Pascal at 1 meter (dB re 1 µPa at 1 m) (Kipple and Gabriele 2004). Acoustic properties of sounds expected from vessel operations are shown in table 1.
Sound frequencies produced by vessels, pile driving, and removal equipment will fall within the hearing range of northern sea otters and will be audible to animals during the proposed construction activities. Controlled sound exposure trials on southern sea otters (
Exposure to high levels of sound may cause changes in behavior, masking of communications, temporary or permanent changes in hearing sensitivity, discomfort, and injury. Species-specific criteria for sea otters have not been identified for preventing harmful sound exposures. Thresholds have been developed for other marine mammals, above which exposure is likely to cause behavioral disturbance and injuries (Southall
California sea lions (
Noise exposure criteria have been established by the NMFS for identifying underwater noise levels capable of causing Level A harassment (injury) of marine mammals, including otariid pinnipeds (NMFS 2018a). Sea otter-specific criteria have not been established; however, because of the biological similarities between otariid pinnipeds and sea otters, we assume that noise criteria developed by NMFS for injury for otariid pinnipeds are a suitable proxy for sea otters. Those criteria are based on estimated levels of sound exposure capable of causing a permanent shift in sensitivity of hearing (
NMFS's (2018a) criteria for sound exposure incorporate two metrics of exposure: The peak level of instantaneous exposure likely to cause PTS, and the effects of cumulative exposure during a 24-hour period. They also include weighting adjustments for the sensitivity of different species to varying frequencies. PTS-based injury criteria were developed from theoretical extrapolation of observations of temporary threshold shifts (TTS) detected in lab settings during sound exposure trials. The estimated PTS
NMFS (2018a) criteria do not identify thresholds for avoidance of Level B harassment. For pinnipeds, NMFS has adopted a 160-dB threshold Level B harassment from exposure to impulse noise and a 120-dB threshold for continuous noise (NMFS 1998; HESS 1999; NMFS undated). These thresholds were developed from observations of mysticetes responding to airgun operations (
Southall
Southall
In conclusion, a 199-dB SEL
Exposure to impulsive sound levels greater than 160 dB can elicit behavioral changes in marine mammals that might be detrimental to health and long-term survival where it disrupts normal behavioral routines. Thus, using information available for other marine mammals as a surrogate, and taking into consideration the best available information about sea otters, the Service has determined the received sound level under water of 160 dB as a threshold for Level B take by disturbance for sea otters for this proposed IHA (based on Ghoul and Reichmuth 2012a,b; McShane
The available studies of northern and southern sea otter behavior indicate that sea otters are somewhat more resistant to the effects of sound than other marine mammals (Riedman 1983, 1984; Ghoul
Sea otters in Alaska have shown signs of disturbance (escape behaviors) in response to the presence and approach of vessels. Behaviors included diving or actively swimming away from a boat, hauled-out sea otters entering the water, and groups of otters dispersing and swimming in multiple different directions (Udevitz
Disturbance is possible from the applicants' activities. Individual sea otters in Sitka Sound and Port Frederick/Icy Strait are likely to show a range of responses to noise from the applicants' equipment and vessels. Some may abandon the construction areas and return when the disturbance has ceased. Based on the observed movement patterns of wild otters (
Some otters will likely show startle responses, change direction of travel, or dive. Otters reacting to pile driving or vessels may divert time and attention from biologically important behaviors, such as feeding. Other effects may be undetectable in observations of behavior, especially the physiological effects of chronic noise exposure. Some otters in the area of activity may become habituated to noise caused by the project due to the existing continual vessel traffic in the area and will have little, if any, reaction to the presence of vessels or human activity on the barge platforms.
Habitat areas of significance for otters exist near the project areas. Physical and biological features of coastal habitat essential to the conservation of northern sea otters include the benthic invertebrates (urchins, mussels, clams, etc.) eaten by otters and the shallow rocky areas and kelp beds that provide cover from predators. The CBS project involves the removal and replacement of piles at an extant dock facility, and little to no habitat within Sitka Sound will be altered. For the DPD project, the lightering float will be installed between two busy commercial docks at Cannery Point. This area already experiences frequent vessel traffic, and the addition of the lightering float will not result in a substantial increase in vessel traffic to the area. Therefore, it is unlikely that sea otter habitat would be significantly modified by the addition of the lightering float.
The northeast side of Cannery Point—the proposed location for the second cruise ship berth at Hoonah—is not developed and otters may be displaced by the installation of the berth and a subsequent increase in vessel traffic. Impacts upon benthic habitat of otters and their prey are minimized by the use of a floating dock, which will not require dredging or fill. The installation of the berth will increase vessel traffic to the northeast side of Cannery Point where otters may become habituated to traffic or may be displaced. However, passengers from cruise ships are currently being transferred to shore a few at a time on board small vessels. The presence of a facility at which passengers can walk off a vessel to participate in shore excursions will bring about a reduction in the number of small vessel trips between moored cruise ships and the shore near Cannery Point.
If IHAs for the applicants' projects are issued, they must specify means for effecting the least practicable impact on northern sea otters and their habitat, paying particular attention to habitat areas of significance, and on the availability of northern sea otters for taking for subsistence uses by coastal-dwelling Alaska Natives.
In evaluating what mitigation measures are appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on a species or stock and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses, we considered the manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measures are expected to reduce impacts to sea otters, their habitat, and their availability for subsistence uses. We considered the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), the likelihood that the measures will be effective if implemented, and the likelihood of effective implementation. We also considered the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation (
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli associated with the activities, the applicants have proposed mitigation measures including, but not limited to, the following:
• Development of marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plans;
• Establishment of shutdown and monitoring zones during noise-generating work;
• Visual mitigation monitoring by designated Protected Species Observers (PSOs);
• Conducting all work during periods of good visibility;
• Site clearance before start-up;
• Soft-start procedures;
• Shutdown procedures;
• Use of pile caps to reduce noise during impact pile driving; and
• Vessel strike avoidance measures.
These measures are further specified under Proposed Authorizations, part
An individual sea otter's reaction will depend on its prior exposure to vessels and human presence at the project sites, some intrinsic motivation or requirement to be in the particular area, its physiological status, or other intrinsic factors. The location, timing, frequency, intensity, and duration of the encounter are among the external factors that will also influence the animal's response.
Relatively minor reactions such as increased vigilance or a short-term change in direction of travel are not likely to disrupt biologically important behavioral patterns and are not considered take by harassment as defined by the MMPA. These types of responses typify the most likely reactions of sea otters that will be exposed to the applicants' activities. Extreme behavioral reactions capable of causing injury are characterized as Level A harassment events, which are unlikely to result from the proposed project and will not be authorized. Intermediate reactions that disrupt biologically significant behaviors of the affected animal meet the criteria for Level B harassment under the MMPA. In 2014, the Service identified the following sea otter behaviors as indicating possible Level B harassment. The following list does not describe all possible behaviors, and other situations may indicate Level B harassment:
• Swimming away at a fast pace on belly (
• Repeatedly raising the head vertically above the water to get a better view (spy hopping) while apparently agitated or while swimming away;
• In the case of a pup, repeatedly spy hopping while hiding behind and holding onto its mother's head;
• Abandoning prey or feeding area;
• Ceasing to nurse and/or rest (applies to dependent pups);
• Ceasing to rest (applies to independent animals);
• Ceasing to use movement corridors along the shoreline;
• Ceasing mating behaviors;
• Shifting/jostling/agitation in a raft so that the raft disperses;
• Sudden diving of an entire raft; and
• Flushing animals off a haulout.
The Service anticipates that incidental harassment of sea otters may occur during the proposed activities in Sitka Sound and Port Frederick/Icy Strait. Underwater noise levels from pile driving and related activities may cause short-term, nonlethal, but biologically significant changes in behavior that the Service considers Level B harassment. The number of animals affected will be determined by the distribution of animals and their location in proximity to the project work.
Sound exposure criteria provide the best available proxy for estimation of exposure. The behavioral response of sea otters to shoreline construction and vessel activities is related to the distance between the activity and the animals. Underwater sound is generated in tandem with other airborne visual, olfactory, or auditory signals from the specified activities, and travels much farther. Therefore, estimating exposure to underwater sound can be used to estimate exposure to all proposed activities.
No separate exposure evaluation was done for activities that do not generate underwater sound. All of the proposed activities that may disturb sea otters will occur simultaneously with in-water activities that do generate sound. For example, operation of heavy equipment on barge platforms will facilitate underwater pile driving. The otters affected by the equipment operations are the same as those affected by the pile driving. Sound exposure and behavioral disturbances are accumulated over a 24-hour period, resulting in estimation of one exposure from all in-water sources rather than one each from equipment operations and pile-driving noise.
Although we cannot predict the outcome of each exposure of a sea otter to the sounds, equipment, and vessels used for the proposed activities, it is possible to consider the most likely reactions. Whether an individual animal responds behaviorally to such exposure is dependent upon many variables. The health, physiological state, reproductive state, and temperament of the individual animals will have an effect. Factors such as the activity of the animal, exposure to other disturbances, habituation of the animal to similar disturbances, and the presence of predators, pups, or other otters will have an effect as well. We assumed all animals exposed to underwater sound levels that meet acoustic criteria would experience Level B harassment.
The total take of sea otters for each of the proposed construction projects in Sitka Sound and Port Frederick was estimated by calculating the number of otters in the ensonified areas during the full duration of the projects. To calculate the areas that will be ensonified during each component of the projects, we first estimated the distances that underwater sound will travel before attenuating to levels below thresholds for take by Level A and Level B harassment. The distances to the Level A thresholds were calculated using the NMFS Acoustical Guidance Spreadsheets (NMFS 2018b) and their thresholds for otariid pinnipeds as a proxy for sea otters. Distances to the 160-dB Level B threshold were calculated using a practical spreading transmission loss model (15 LogR).
Model estimates incorporated operational and environmental parameters for each activity, and characteristics of the sound produced are shown in table 3. Weighting factor adjustments were used for SEL calculations based on NMFS Technical Guidance (NMFS 2018a). Operational parameters were estimated from the description of activities outlined in the applicants' petitions.
The distances to the modelled Level A and Level B thresholds are shown in table 4. Each estimate represents the radial distance away from the sound source within which an otter exposed to the sound of the activity is expected to experience take by Level A or Level B harassment.
To calculate the areas that will be ensonified by pile driving, we used either half or all of the area of the circle of the radii in table 4, above, depending on the size of the radius. Pile driving will take place close to shore; however, many of the radii are small enough that their defined circles will fall entirely, or nearly entirely, in the water, especially at higher tides—in these instances, the area was calculated as π r
The areas ensonified by crew and monitoring vessel operations were estimated by multiplying the vessels' anticipated daily track length by twice the 160-dB radius plus π r
We then took two approaches to estimate the number of otters that may be present within the areas that will be ensonified by the various sound sources. We used densities of otters based on recent analyses of data from aerial and skiff-based surveys conducted by the Service and USGS in southeast Alaska. The most recently available estimates of the distribution and abundance of northern sea otters in southeast Alaska indicate that the density of animals in Sitka Sound is 0.842 otters per km
In the calculation of otter densities, sightings data from transect surveys are averaged over a large area. While densities provide the most reliable estimates of animal presence within a relatively large subset of the area for which density was calculated, they do not account for patchy distribution of animals within relatively small areas. For each project area considered here, local knowledge suggests that sea otter utilization of some areas of habitat near the construction sites is greater than indicated by density data. The estimates of take based on density (table 5) almost certainly underestimate the number of otters likely to be affected by the activities planned for each location.
Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. conducted surveys of the Sitka O'Connell Bridge site; the data collected suggest that between one and four sea otters can be expected near the project area daily (Solstice Alaska Consulting Inc., unpublished data). We therefore assumed that 4 animals would be present on each of the 3 days of operations.
The Hoonah Indian Association, based on local knowledge and in consultation with Solstice Alaska Consulting Inc., indicated that between one and six sea otters would likely be
With this information in mind, we made a second estimate of take by Level B harassment by multiplying the number of otters expected to be in the Level B harassment zone by the number of days of operations (table 6). For the CBS project, operations are expected to take place on 3 days and result in the take of four otters each day. Four otters multiplied by 3 days results in 12 takes of otters.
The total number of days of operations for the DPD project is 75. However, the number of potentially affected otters on a given day is dependent upon which operations are undertaken. During the 8 days of impact pile driving at Hoonah, the area in which noise levels will exceed the Level B harassment threshold is likely to contain 70 sea otters:—10 animals within the immediate vicinity of Hoonah and 60 animals near Halibut Island. On the other 67 days of pile-driving operations, the Level B harassment zone does not reach Halibut Island, and would contain only the 10 animals expected to be present in the immediate vicinity of Cannery Point. On all 75 days of operations, the monitoring skiff will be operating well outside the areas defined by the 160-dB zone for pile-driving operations, and so the density approach was applied to estimating take for this larger area. Sea otters may be encountered within the 160-dB radius created by the skiff's motor (10 m or 33 ft). We estimated a Level B harassment of two sea otters per day for the operation of the monitoring skiff based on the density approach (above). The total number of Level B exposures for the DPD/Hoonah Berth II project is 1,380 (table 6).
For the CBS project at O'Connell Bridge, we assumed that the four animals present on each day would likely be the same individuals from day to day. We therefore estimate that there would be 12 exposures of 4 northern sea otters to sounds in excess of the threshold for take by Level B harassment.
For the DPD/Hoonah Berth II project, we assumed that the composition of the groups at Cannery Point and Halibut Island would remain static but that two different individuals would be encountered by the monitoring skiff on each day of surveys of the waters of Port Frederick and Icy Strait. Thus, the number of individuals affected would be 10 + 60 + (2 × 75) = 220 otters.
We propose to authorize up to 12 takes of 4 sea otters by Level B harassment from the CBS project. For the DPD/Hoonah Berth II project, we propose to authorize up to 1,380 takes of 220 northern sea otters. We made several critical assumptions to conduct this analysis. We assumed that take by harassment equated to exposure to noise meeting or exceeding the specified criteria. We also assumed all otters exposed to these noise levels would exhibit behavioral responses that indicate harassment or disturbance. We assumed the response rates are uniform throughout the population, though there are likely to be some animals that respond more to disturbance and some less. Our estimates also do not account for variable responses by age and sex. There is not enough information available to develop a correction factor for these differences; therefore, a correction factor was not applied. This will result in overestimation in take calculations from exposure to underwater noise and underestimation of take from all other sources. The degree of over- or under-estimation of take is unknown.
The estimate of behavioral responses do not account for the variability of movements of animals in the project area. Our assessment assumes that the animals near Sitka, Cannery Point, and Halibut Island will remain,
We do not account for an otter's time at the water's surface where sound attenuates faster than in deeper water. The average dive time of a northern sea otter is only 85 to 149 seconds (Bodkin
We also assume that the mitigation measures presented will be effective for eliminating take by Level A harassment and reducing take by Level B harassment. Given that the largest Level A radius is slightly under 40 m (131 ft), it is reasonable to expect that visual monitoring and mitigation will be effective in this regard. However, additional information is needed to quantify the effectiveness of mitigation. The monitoring and reporting in these proposed IHAs will help fill this information need in the future, but for this suite of proposed activities, no adjustments were made to estimate the number of Level B takes that will be avoided by applying effective mitigation measures.
The estimated level of take by Level B harassment is small relative to the most recent stock abundance estimates for the southeast Alaska stock of northern sea otter, which is 25,712 animals (USFWS 2014). The take of animals associated with the CBS project is less than 0.1 percent of the current population size (4 ÷ 25,712 ≉ 0.0002). For the DPD project, the take of 220 animals is about 0.9 percent of the southeast Alaska stock (220 ÷ 25,712 ≉ 0.0086).
Sea otter subsistence harvest by Alaska Natives from the villages of Sitka and Hoonah occurs year-round in areas relatively near the proposed project areas. Between 2013 and 2017, Alaska Native residents of Sitka harvested approximately 1,541 sea otters averaging 257 per year (although numbers from 2018 are preliminary). Over the same period, Alaska Native residents of Hoonah harvested 394 animals, averaging 67 per year.
The applicants' activities will not preclude access to hunting areas or interfere in any way with individuals wishing to hunt. Pile driving and vessel use may displace otters, resulting in changes to availability of otters for subsistence use during the project period. Otters may be more vigilant during periods of disturbance, which could affect hunting success rates. The applicants have coordinated with the Indigenous People's Council for Marine Mammals, the Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission, the Hoonah Indian Association, and the Sitka Tribe of Alaska to identify and avoid potential conflicts. The applicants reported that no conflicts with sea otter subsistence harvest were identified by these groups.
We propose the following findings regarding these actions:
For small numbers analyses, the statute and legislative history do not expressly require a specific type of numerical analysis, leaving the determination of “small” to the agency's discretion. In this case, we propose a finding that the applicants' projects may result in takes from the southeast stock as follows: The take of 4 sea otters for CBS and 220 sea otters for DPD. The current estimate of the southeast Alaska stock of northern sea otters is 25,712 animals (USFWS 2014). The number of animals taken associated with the CBS project represent 0.02 percent of the stock. For the DPD project, the number of animals taken represent 0.86 percent of the stock. Based on these numbers, we propose a finding that the applicants' projects will take a small number of animals.
We propose a finding that the incidental take by harassment resulting from the proposed project cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the sea otter through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival and would, therefore, have no more than a negligible impact on the southeast Alaska stock of northern sea otters. In making this finding, we considered the best available scientific information, including the biological and behavioral characteristics of the species; the most recent information on species distribution and abundance within the area of the specified activities; the potential sources of disturbance caused by the project; and the potential responses of animals to this disturbance. In addition, we reviewed materials supplied by the applicants, other operators in Alaska, our files and datasets, published reference materials, and species experts.
Otters are likely to respond to proposed activities with temporary behavioral modification or displacement. These reactions are unlikely to have consequences for the health, reproduction, or survival of affected animals. The areas in which sound production is expected to reach levels capable of causing harm are small and we expect visual monitoring to eliminate this risk, so Level A harassment is not anticipated and not authorized. Most animals will respond to disturbance by moving away from the source, which may cause temporary interruption of foraging, resting, or other natural behaviors. Affected animals are expected to resume normal behaviors soon after exposure, with no lasting consequences. Some animals may exhibit more acute responses typical of Level B harassment, such as fleeing, ceasing feeding, or flushing from a haulout. These responses could have significant biological impacts for a few affected individuals, but most animals will also tolerate this type of disturbance without lasting effects. We do not expect this type of harassment to affect annual rates of recruitment or survival or result in adverse effects on the species or stock.
Our proposed finding of negligible impact applies to incidental take associated with the proposed activities as mitigated by the avoidance and minimization measures identified in the applicants' mitigation and monitoring plans. These measures are designed to reduce interactions with and impacts to otters. Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting procedures are required for the validity of our findings and are a necessary component of the IHAs. For these reasons, we propose findings that the CBS and DPD projects will have a negligible impact on the southeast Alaska stock of sea otters.
We propose a finding that the anticipated harassment caused by both applicants' activities would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of sea otters for taking for subsistence uses. In making this finding, we considered the timing and location of the proposed activities and the location of subsistence harvest activities in the area of the proposed project. We also considered both applicants' consultations with subsistence
We have prepared draft environmental assessment in accordance with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
The proposed authorization has no effect on any species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
It is our responsibility to communicate and work directly on a Government-to-Government basis with federally recognized Alaska Native tribes and corporations in developing programs for healthy ecosystems. We seek their full and meaningful participation in evaluating and addressing conservation concerns for protected species. It is our goal to remain sensitive to Alaska Native culture, and to make information available to Alaska Natives. Our efforts are guided by the following policies and directives: (1) The Native American Policy of the Service (January 20, 2016); (2) the Alaska Native Relations Policy (currently in draft form); (3) Executive Order 13175 (January 9, 2000); (4) Department of the Interior Secretarial Orders 3206 (June 5, 1997), 3225 (January 19, 2001), 3317 (December 1, 2011), and 3342 (October 21, 2016); (5) the Alaska Government-to-Government Policy (a departmental memorandum issued January 18, 2001); and (6) the Department of the Interior's policies on consultation with Alaska Native tribes and organizations.
We have evaluated possible effects of the proposed activities on federally recognized Alaska Native Tribes and corporations. Through the IHA process identified in the MMPA, the applicants have presented a communication process, culminating in a POC if needed, with the Native organizations and communities most likely to be affected by their work. The applicants have engaged these groups in informational meetings.
The Service proposes to issue an IHA to the CBS for up to 12 incidental takes by Level B harassment of 4 northern sea otters from the southeast Alaska stock. We also propose to issue an IHA to DPD for up to 1,380 incidental takes by Level B harassment of 220 sea otters. Authorized take will be limited to disruption of behavioral patterns that may be caused by pile driving and vessel operations conducted by the applicants in Sitka Sound and Port Frederick/Icy Strait, Alaska, during the time period of July 22, 2019, through December 31, 2019. Take by injury or death to northern sea otters resulting from these construction activities and vessel operations is neither anticipated nor authorized.
The final IHA will incorporate the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements provided below. The applicants would be responsible for following these requirements. These authorizations would not allow the intentional taking of sea otters.
1. The taking of sea otters whenever the required conditions, mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are not fully implemented as required by the IHAs will be prohibited. Failure to follow measures specified may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of the IHA.
2. If take exceeds the level or type identified in the proposed authorization (
3. All operations managers and vessel operators must receive a copy of the IHA and maintain access to it for reference at all times during project work. These personnel must understand, be fully aware of, and be capable of implementing the conditions of the IHA at all times during project work.
4. The IHA will apply to activities associated with the proposed project as described in this document and in the applicants' amended applications (Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc., 2019a, and b). Changes to the proposed project without prior authorization may invalidate the IHA.
5. The applicants' IHA applications will be approved and fully incorporated into the IHAs, unless exceptions are specifically noted herein or in the final IHAs.
The CBS application includes these items: The applicant's original request for an IHA, dated November 12, 2018; the applicant's response to a request for additional information from the Service, dated March 19, 2019; the amended application, dated March 21, 2019; the applicant's response to a request for additional information from the Service, dated March 25, 2019; and the
The DPD application includes the following items: The applicant's original request for an IHA, dated January 30, 2019; the applicant's response to a request for additional information from the Service, dated March 19, 2019; the amended application, dated March 21, 2019; and the
6. Operators will allow Service personnel or the Service's designated representative to visit project work sites to monitor impacts to sea otters and subsistence uses of sea otters at any time throughout project activities so long as it is safe to do so. “Operators” are all personnel operating under the applicants' authority, including all contractors and subcontractors.
1. Shutdown and monitoring zones will be established as shown in Table 7.
2. Vessels will not approach within 100 m (328 ft) of individual sea otters or 500 m (1,640 ft) of groups of 10 or more otters. Operators will reduce vessel speed if a sea otter approaches or surfaces within 100 m (328 ft) of a vessel.
3. All vessels must avoid areas of active or anticipated subsistence hunting for sea otters as determined through community consultations.
1. Trained and qualified PSOs will be placed at positions with good vantage of shutdown and monitoring zones for pile-driving activities to perform the monitoring of sea otters necessary for initiation of adaptive mitigation measures.
2. A trained and qualified PSO will be placed on the vessel used to monitor the Level B harassment zones defined in these IHAs and in any IHAs issued by the NMFS to perform the monitoring of sea otters necessary for initiation of adaptive mitigation measures.
3. While on shift, PSOs will have no primary duties other than to watch for and report on events related to marine mammals.
Prior to conducting the work, applicants will take the following steps to reduce potential effects on subsistence harvest of sea otters: (i) Avoid work in areas of known subsistence harvest of sea otters; (ii) discuss the planned activities with subsistence stakeholders including Sitka Sound and Port Frederick villages, traditional councils, and harvest commissions; (iii) identify and work to resolve concerns of stakeholders regarding the project's effects on subsistence hunting of sea otters; and (iv) if any unresolved or ongoing concerns remain, develop a POC in consultation with the Service and subsistence stakeholders to address these concerns.
1. The applicants must notify the Service at least 48 hours prior to commencement of activities.
2. Reports will be submitted to the Service's MMM weekly during project activities. The reports will summarize project work and monitoring efforts.
3. A final report will be submitted to the Service's MMM within 90 days after the expiration of the IHAs. It will include a summary of monitoring efforts and observations. All project activities will be described, along with any additional work yet to be done. Factors influencing visibility and detectability of marine mammals (
4. Injured, dead, or distressed sea otters that are associated with project activities must be reported to the Service MMM within 48 hours of discovery. Injured, dead, or distressed sea otters that are not associated with project activities (
5. If behaviors indicative of Level B harassment are observed during the course of pile driving or vessel operations, the PSO will record the details regarding the behavior(s) and the distance(s) at which the animals showed behaviors indicative of harassment. If such incidences take place at distances greater than the standoff and shutdown radii described above in
6. All reports shall be submitted by email to
7. Applicants must notify the Service upon project completion or end of the work season.
A list of the references cited in this notice is available at
If you wish to comment on these proposed IHAs, the associated draft environmental assessments, or both, you
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will become part of the administrative record for this proposal. Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comments to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public Land Order.
This Order partially revokes two Public Land Orders (PLOs) insofar as they affect 217,486 acres of public lands reserved for study and classification as appropriate by the Department of the Interior. The purposes for which these lands were withdrawn no longer exist as described in the analysis and decisions made through the 2007 East Alaska Resource Management Plan (East Alaska RMP).
This PLO takes effect on July 10, 2019.
David V. Mushovic, Bureau of Land Management Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, Mailstop #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504, telephone: 907-271-4682, or email:
This Order follows the recommendations made in the Bureau of Land Management's 2007 East Alaska RMP. The Environmental Impact Statement accompanying the East Alaska RMP serves as the detailed statement required under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act. PLO No. 5176, as amended, modified, or corrected, withdrew land for selection by Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) village and regional corporations in the Chugach Region, and for classification. The selection period expired in 1974 making it possible for revocation of this withdrawal on any segregated land still under selection. PLO No. 5179, as amended, modified, or corrected, withdrew lands in aid of legislation concerning addition to or creation of units of the National Park, National Forest, Wildlife Refuge, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, and to allow for classification of the lands. Any additions to or creation of new units of National Parks, National Forests, Wildlife Refuges or Wild and Scenic Rivers from the land withdrawn by PLO No. 5179 were accomplished by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. The classification of the lands withdrawn by PLO No. 5176 and 5179 were satisfied by the analysis conducted during the development of the East Alaska RMP.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, and Section 22(h)(4) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, 43 U.S.C. 1621(h)(4), it is ordered as follows:
1. Subject to valid existing rights, PLOs No. 5176 (37 FR 5579 (1972)), 5179 (37 FR 5589 (1972)), and any amendments, modifications, or corrections to these orders, if any, are hereby revoked insofar as they affect the following described Federal lands:
The areas described aggregate 217,486 acres. Some lands covered by the revocation of the above listed withdrawals as to the lands described above have been top-filed by the State of Alaska per the Alaska Statehood Act.
2. The lands subject to revocation in this Order will not be subject to additional withdrawal by PLO No. 5418, effective March 28, 1974, amending PLO No. 5180.
3. At 8 a.m. AKDT on August 9, 2019, the lands described in Paragraph 1 shall be open to all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including selection by the State of Alaska under the Alaska Statehood Act, location and entry under the mining laws, leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as amended, and selection by Regional Corporations under section 12 of the ANCSA, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public Land Order.
This Order partially revokes seven Public Land Orders (PLOs) insofar as they affect 1,151,877.36 acres of public lands reserved for study and classification as appropriate by the Department of the Interior. The purposes for which these lands were withdrawn no longer exist as described in the analysis and decisions made through the Eastern Interior Fortymile Resource Management Plan (RMP).
This PLO takes effect on July 10, 2019.
David V. Mushovic, Bureau of Land Management Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, Mailstop #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504, 907-271-4682, or
This Order follows the recommendations made in the Bureau of Land Management's 2016 Eastern Interior Fortymile RMP. The Environmental Impact Statement accompanying the Fortymile RMP serves as the detailed statement required under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act. PLOs 5173 and 5178, as amended, modified, or corrected, withdrew lands for selection by Village and Regional Corporations under Sec. 11(a)(3) of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), and for classification. Sec. 22(h)(4) of ANCSA states “the Secretary is authorized to terminate any withdrawal . . . whenever he determines the withdrawal is no longer necessary.” The purposes for which these lands were withdrawn were satisfied by the analysis conducted during the development of the Bureau of Land Management's 2016 Eastern Interior Fortymile RMP. PLO No. 5179, as amended, modified, or corrected, withdrew lands in aid of legislation concerning addition to or creation of units of the National Park, National Forest, Wildlife Refuge, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, and to allow for classification of the lands. Any additions to or creation of new units of National Parks, National Forests, Wildlife Refuges or Wild and Scenic Rivers from the land withdrawn by PLO No. 5179 were accomplished by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). The classification of the lands withdrawn by PLO No. 5179 has been satisfied by the analysis conducted during the development of the Fortymile RMP. PLO No. 5180, as amended, modified, or corrected, withdrew lands to allow for classification and for the protection of the public interest in these lands. The classification and protection of the public interest in the lands withdrawn by PLO No. 5180 has been satisfied by the analysis conducted during the development of the Fortymile RMP. PLO No. 5184, as amended, modified, or corrected, withdrew lands to allow for classification or reclassification of some of areas withdrawn by Section 11 of the ANCSA. These purposes were satisfied by the analysis conducted during the development of the Fortymile RMP. PLO No. 5186, as amended, modified, or corrected, withdrew lands for classification and protection of the public interest in lands not selected by the State of Alaska. These purposes for which these lands were withdrawn were satisfied by the analysis conducted during the development of the Fortymile RMP. PLO No. 5187, as amended, modified, or corrected, withdrew lands for classification and protection of the public interest in lands in military reservations. The classification of the lands withdrawn by PLO No. 5187 has been satisfied by the analysis conducted during the development of the Fortymile RMP. In addition, PLO No. 5418, effective March 28, 1974, amends PLO No. 5180 to add “All unreserved public lands in Alaska, or those that may become unreserved unless specified by order at that time.” Upon revocation, the lands in this Order will not be subject to the terms and conditions of PLO No. 5418, which amended PLO No. 5180, but will continue to be subject to the terms and conditions of any other withdrawal, application, or segregation of record. Some lands covered by the revocation of the above listed withdrawals have been top-filed by the State of Alaska per the Alaska Statehood Act. Upon revocation of the above listed withdrawals, the top filings will convert to selections, subject to valid existing rights. Lands validly selected by or conveyed to the State of Alaska are not subject to the subsistence management provisions of Title VIII of the ANILCA as they no longer meet the definition of public lands. The Sec. 810 analysis for the approved Fortymile RMP found no significant restriction on subsistence uses due to this action.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, and Section 22(h)(4) of the ANCSA of 1971, 43 U.S.C. 1621(h)(4), it is ordered as follows:
1. Subject to valid existing rights, PLOs 5173 (37 FR 5575 (1972)); 5178 (37 FR 5579 (1972)); 5179 (37 FR 5579 (1972)); 5180 (37 FR 5583 (1972)); 5184 (37 FR 5588 (1972)); 5186 (37 FR 5589 (1972)); and 5187 (37 FR 5591 (1972)), and any amendments, modifications, or corrections to these orders, if any, are hereby revoked insofar as they affect the following described Federal lands:
M.S. No. 2401.
tract A.
tract A.
sec 11, NE
tracts A and B.
Tps. 6 and 7 S, R. 26 E.
sec 20, E
The areas described aggregate 1,151,877.36 acres.
2. The lands subject to revocation in this order will not be subject to additional withdrawal by PLO 5418.
3. At 8 a.m. AKST on August 9, 2019, the lands described in Paragraph 1 shall be open to all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including location and entry under the mining laws, leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as amended, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of temporary travel restriction.
Notice is hereby given that a temporary restriction of activities is in effect on public lands administered by the Little Snake Field Office, Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
The temporary restriction takes effect on August 9, 2019 and lasts until July 12, 2021.
Copies of this temporary closure, maps and associated documents are available at the BLM Little Snake Field Office, 455 Emerson Street, Craig, Colorado 81625.
Bruce Sillitoe, Field Manager, BLM Little Snake Field Office, at the
The BLM will temporarily restrict motorized vehicle use on BLM-administered lands to existing routes on approximately 3,081 acres in the Sand Wash Open Off-Highway Vehicle Area affected by the 2018 Boone Draw Fire. This action is necessary to allow reseeding and revegetation efforts to take hold in the area, prevent erosion, and protect public health and safety.
This temporary restriction affects public lands north of Colorado State Route 318; west of the Sand Wash Herd Management Area; and south of the intersection at Moffat County Roads 46 and 48 in Moffat County, Colorado. The legal description of the affected public lands is:
T. 8 N, R. 99 W, Sections 3-5, 7-10.
The area to be temporarily restricted is a designated open area for OHV use. With the loss of vegetative cover following the Boone Draw Fire, there is high risk of severe erosion in the area. Unrestricted motorized use may hinder rehabilitation efforts and accelerate erosion problems. The BLM will post temporary restriction signs at the main entry points to this area and the temporary restriction order will be posted at the BLM Little Snake Field Office, see the
This temporary restriction is categorically excluded from further documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with 516 DM2, Appendix 3, 1.13. Under the authority of Section 303(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S. C. 1733(a)), 43 CFR 8360.0-7, and 43 CFR 8364.1, the BLM will enforce the following temporary restriction within the portion of the Sand Wash Open Area affected by the Boone Draw Fire:
All motorized use within the temporary restricted area will be limited to existing routes. Cross country motorized travel is prohibited until this temporary restriction is lifted.
Notice is hereby given that, on April 25, 2019, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and HEDGE IV intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On February 14, 2017, HEDGE IV, filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 11, 2019. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 18, 2019, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and HSA Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On August 31, 2012, HSA Foundation filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 29, 2019. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in
Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection on the Antitrust Division's website at
Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, including the name of the submitter, and responses thereto, will be posted on the Antitrust Division's website, filed with the Court, and, under certain circumstances, published in the
The United States of America (“United States”), acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil antitrust action against Defendants Harris Corporation (“Harris”) and L3 Technologies, Inc. (“L3”) to enjoin the proposed merger of Harris and L3. The United States complains and alleges as follows:
1. Pursuant to an agreement and plan of merger dated October 12, 2018, Harris and L3 propose to merge in a transaction that would create the sixth-largest defense contractor in the United States.
2. Harris and L3 are the only suppliers of image intensifier tubes for use by the United States military. Image intensifier tubes are the key component in night vision devices such as goggles and weapon sights, which are purchased by the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”). Night vision devices amplify visible light and allow soldiers and aircrews to see their surroundings in dark conditions. The proposed merger would eliminate competition between Harris and L3 and create a monopoly for image intensifier tubes for night vision devices purchased by DoD (hereinafter “U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes”).
3. As a result, the proposed transaction likely would substantially lessen competition in the market for the design, development, manufacture, sale, service, and distribution of U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes in the United States in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
4. Harris is incorporated in Delaware and has its headquarters in Melbourne, Florida. Harris provides night vision devices and image intensifier tubes, tactical communications solutions, electronic warfare solutions, and space and intelligence systems. In 2018, Harris had sales of approximately $6.2 billion.
5. L3 is incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in New York, New York. L3 provides night vision devices and image intensifier tubes; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems; aircraft sustainment, simulation, and training; and security and detection systems. In 2018, L3 had sales of approximately $10.2 billion.
6. The United States brings this action under Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 25, as amended, to prevent and restrain Defendants from violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
7. Defendants design, develop, manufacture, sell, service, and distribute U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes. Defendants' activities in the design, development, manufacture, sale, service, and distribution of these products substantially affects interstate commerce. This Court has subject
8. Defendants have consented to venue and personal jurisdiction in this judicial district. Venue is therefore proper in this district under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 22, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).
9. Image intensifier tubes amplify visible light and are integrated into night vision devices produced by Harris, L3, and other companies. Night vision devices allow the user to see in dark conditions, increasing the situational awareness, threat detection, and mission performance of soldiers and aircrews operating in low-light environments. Night vision devices come in the form of goggles, binoculars, and monoculars and can be handheld or mounted to objects like helmets or weapons. There are over half a million such devices in use today, and DoD expects to purchase at least one hundred thousand additional devices over the next few years.
10. DoD also purchases significant quantities of image intensifier tubes as replacement parts for night vision devices currently in the field. In addition, as L3 and Harris innovate and develop improved image intensifier tubes with greater resolution and light amplification, DoD purchases these more advanced image intensifier tubes to upgrade existing night vision devices. DoD is likely to purchase half a million image intensifier tubes for replacements or upgrades over the next few years.
11. The quality and usefulness of an image intensifier tube is defined by several characteristics, the most important of which are size, weight, power consumption, and especially sensitivity, which relates to the ability of the tube to amplify low levels of visible light without producing excessive distortion in the resulting image. DoD requires highly capable image intensifier tubes, as the lives of soldiers and aircrews depend on the performance of the night vision devices incorporating these tubes. Less capable image intensifier tubes are therefore not a substitute for the highly capable image intensifier tubes that DoD views as U.S. military grade.
12. Other night vision technologies such as thermal imaging devices and digital light amplification systems are not substitutes for U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes. Thermal imaging devices, such as microbolometers and infrared focal plane arrays, detect infrared radiation emitted by warm objects rather than amplifying visible light. Thermal imaging devices also differ from image intensifier tubes in range and sensitivity to environmental factors such as humidity and dust. Night vision equipment incorporating thermal imaging devices tends to be larger, heavier, and substantially more expensive than similar equipment incorporating image intensifier tubes. Although some night vision devices incorporate both image intensifier tubes and thermal imaging devices to combine the benefits of the two and create a “fused” image, thermal imaging devices cannot replicate the performance of image intensifier tubes or replace them in night vision devices.
13. Digital light amplification systems based on charge-coupled device (“CCD”) or complementary metal oxide semiconductor (“CMOS”) detectors are also not adequate substitutes for U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes. CCD- and CMOS-based devices tend to be heavier, consume more power, and cost significantly more than devices incorporating image intensifier tubes. Moreover, because such devices are digital, and therefore require a certain amount of signal processing, the images produced also tend to lag behind the actual scene being viewed, potentially creating disorientation in the user.
14. For the foregoing reasons, DoD will not substitute less-capable image intensifier tubes, thermal imaging devices, or CCD- or CMOS-based digital light amplification systems for U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes in response to a small but significant and non-transitory increase in the price of U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes. Accordingly, U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes are a relevant product market and line of commerce under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
15. For national security reasons, DoD only considers domestic producers of U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes. DoD is unlikely to turn to any foreign producers in the face of a small but significant and non-transitory price increase by domestic producers of U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes.
16. The United States is a relevant geographic market within the meaning of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
17. Harris and L3 are currently the only firms that develop, manufacture, and sell U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes. The merger would therefore give the combined firm a monopoly in this product market, leaving DoD without a competitive alternative for this critical component of night vision devices.
18. Harris and L3 compete for sales of U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes on the basis of quality, price, and contractual terms such as delivery times. This competition has resulted in higher quality, lower prices, and shorter delivery times, and has fostered innovation, leading to U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes with higher sensitivity and resolution. The combination of Harris and L3 would eliminate this competition and its future benefits to DoD customers. Post-transaction, the merged firm likely would have the incentive and ability to reduce research and development efforts that lead to innovative and high-quality products and to increase prices and offer less favorable contractual terms.
19. The proposed merger, therefore, likely would substantially lessen competition in the design, development, manufacture, sale, service, and distribution of U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes in the United States in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
20. Sufficient, timely entry of additional competitors into the market for U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes is unlikely. Production facilities for U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes require a substantial investment in both capital equipment and human resources. A new entrant would need to set up a foundry to produce electronic components, establish production lines capable of manufacturing fiber optic subcomponents, and build assembly lines and testing facilities. Engineering and research personnel would need to be assigned to develop, test, and troubleshoot the detailed manufacturing process, involving hundreds of steps, that is necessary to produce U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes. Any new products would require extensive testing and qualification before they could be used in night vision devices for the U.S. military. As a result, entry would be costly and time-consuming.
21. Moreover, a new entrant is unlikely to recover these costs. Although CMOS-based night vision
22. As a result of these barriers, entry into the market for U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes would not be timely, likely, or sufficient to defeat the anticompetitive effects likely to result from the merger of Harris and L3.
23. The merger of Harris and L3 likely would lessen competition substantially in the design, development, manufacture, sale, service, and distribution of U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes in the United States in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
24. Unless enjoined, the merger likely would have the following anticompetitive effects, among others, related to U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes:
(a) actual and potential competition between Harris and L3 would be eliminated;
(b) competition likely would be substantially lessened; and
(c) prices likely would increase, innovation would decrease, and contractual terms likely would be less favorable to customers.
25. The United States requests that this Court:
(a) adjudge and decree that Harris's merger with L3 would be unlawful and violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18;
(b) preliminarily and permanently enjoin and restrain Defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from consummating the proposed merger of L3 and Harris, or from entering into or carrying out any other contract, agreement, plan, or understanding, the effect of which would be to combine Harris with L3;
(c) award the United States its costs for this action; and
(d) award the United States such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint on June 20, 2019, the United States and Defendants, Harris Corporation (“Harris”) and L3 Technologies, Inc. (“L3”), by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law;
AND WHEREAS, Defendants agree to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court;
AND WHEREAS, the essence of this Final Judgment is the prompt and certain divestiture of certain rights or assets by Defendants to assure that competition is not substantially lessened;
AND WHEREAS, the United States requires, and Defendants agree, to make a certain divestiture for the purpose of remedying the loss of competition alleged in the Complaint;
AND WHEREAS, Defendants have represented to the United States that the divestiture required below can and will be made and that Defendants will not later raise any claim of hardship or difficulty as grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the divestiture provisions contained below;
NOW THEREFORE, before any testimony is taken, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendants under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. § 18).
As used in this Final Judgment:
A. “Acquirer” means the entity to which Defendants divest the Divestiture Assets.
B. “Harris” means Defendant Harris Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Melbourne, Florida, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
C. “L3” means Defendant L3 Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in New York, New York, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
D. “Night Vision Business” means Harris's business in the design, development, manufacture, sale, service, and distribution of image intensifier technology and night vision devices.
E. “Divestiture Assets” means the Night Vision Business, including:
1. the facilities located at 7625, 7635, and 7645 Plantation Road, Roanoke, Virginia; 7767 Lila Drive, Roanoke, Virginia; and 7671 Enon Drive, Roanoke, Virginia;
2. all tangible assets, including but not limited to: research and development activities; all manufacturing equipment, tooling and fixed assets, personal property, inventory, office furniture, materials, supplies, and other tangible property; all licenses, permits, certifications, and authorizations issued by any governmental organization for the Night Vision Business; all contracts, teaming arrangements, agreements, leases, commitments, certifications, and understandings, including supply agreements; all customer lists, contracts, accounts, and credit records; all repair and performance records; and all other records of the Night Vision Business; and
3. all intangible assets, including but not limited to: all patents; licenses and sublicenses; intellectual property; copyrights; trademarks; trade names; service marks; service names; technical information; computer software and related documentation; know-how; trade secrets; drawings; blueprints; designs; design protocols; specifications for materials; specifications for parts and devices; safety procedures for the handling of materials and substances; quality assurance and control procedures; design tools and simulation capability; all manuals and technical information Defendants provide to their own employees, customers, suppliers, agents, or licensees; and all research data concerning historic and current research and development efforts, including but not limited to designs of experiments and the results of successful and unsuccessful designs and experiments.
F. “Regulatory Approvals” means any approvals or clearances pursuant to filings with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”), or under antitrust, competition, or other U.S. or international laws required for Acquirer's acquisition of the Divestiture Assets to proceed.
A. This Final Judgment applies to Harris and L3, as defined above, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise.
B. If, prior to complying with Section IV and Section V of this Final Judgment, Defendants sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of their assets or of lesser business units that include the Divestiture Assets, Defendants shall require the purchaser to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment. Defendants need not obtain such an agreement from the Acquirer of the assets divested pursuant to this Final Judgment.
A. Defendants are ordered and directed, within the later of forty-five (45) calendar days after the entry of the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order by the Court or fifteen (15) calendar days after Regulatory Approvals have been received, to divest the Divestiture Assets in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment to an Acquirer acceptable to the United States, in its sole discretion. The United States, in its sole discretion, may agree to one or more extensions of this time period not to exceed sixty (60) calendar days in total, and shall notify the Court in such circumstances. Defendants agree to use their best efforts to divest the Divestiture Assets as expeditiously as possible.
B. In accomplishing the divestiture ordered by this Final Judgment, Defendants promptly shall make known, by usual and customary means, the availability of the Divestiture Assets. Defendants shall inform any person making an inquiry regarding a possible purchase of the Divestiture Assets that they are being divested pursuant to this Final Judgment and provide that person with a copy of this Final Judgment. Defendants shall offer to furnish to all prospective Acquirers, subject to customary confidentiality assurances, all information and documents relating to the Divestiture Assets customarily provided in a due diligence process, except information or documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. Defendants shall make available such information to the United States at the same time that such information is made available to any other person.
C. Defendants shall provide the Acquirer and the United States all information relating to all personnel in the Night Vision Business to enable the Acquirer to make offers of employment. Defendants will not interfere in any way with any negotiations or effort by the Acquirer to hire any Defendant employee in the Night Vision Business.
D. Defendants shall permit prospective Acquirers of the Divestiture Assets to have reasonable access to personnel and to make inspections of the physical facilities of the Night Vision Business; access to any and all environmental, zoning, and other permit documents and information; and access to any and all financial, operational, or other documents and information customarily provided as part of a due diligence process.
E. Defendants shall warrant to the Acquirer that each asset will be operational on the date of sale.
F. Defendants shall not take any action that will impede in any way the permitting, operation, or divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.
G. At the option of the Acquirer, Defendants shall enter into a transition services agreement for back office, human resource, and information technology services and support for the Night Vision Business for a period of up to twelve (12) months. The United States, in its sole discretion, may approve one or more extensions of this agreement for a total of up to an additional six (6) months. If the Acquirer seeks an extension of the term of this transition services agreement, Defendants shall notify the United States in writing at least three (3) months prior to the date the transition services contract expires. The terms and conditions of any contractual arrangement meant to satisfy this provision must be reasonably related to market value of the expertise of the personnel providing any needed assistance. The employee(s) of Defendants tasked with providing these transition services shall not share any competitively sensitive information of the Acquirer with any other employee of Defendants.
H. At the option of the Acquirer, Defendants shall enter into a contract for wafer sawing and sensor packaging services. Such an agreement shall be for a period of up to twelve (12) months. The United States, in its sole discretion, may approve one or more extensions of this agreement for a total of up to an additional six (6) months. If the Acquirer seeks an extension of the term of this agreement, Defendants shall so notify the United States in writing at least three (3) months prior to the date the contract expires. The terms and conditions of any contractual arrangement meant to satisfy this provision must be reasonably related to the market value of the expertise of the personnel providing any needed assistance. The employee(s) of Defendants tasked with providing these services shall not share any competitively sensitive information of the Acquirer with any other employee of Defendants.
I. Defendants shall warrant to the Acquirer (1) that there are no material defects in the environmental, zoning, or other permits pertaining to the operation of the Divestiture Assets, and (2) that following the sale of the Divestiture Assets, Defendants will not undertake, directly or indirectly, any challenges to the environmental, zoning, or other permits relating to the operation of the Divestiture Assets.
J. Unless the United States otherwise consents in writing, the divestiture pursuant to Section IV or by Divestiture Trustee appointed pursuant to Section V of this Final Judgment shall include the entire Divestiture Assets and shall be accomplished in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that the Divestiture Assets can and will be used by the Acquirer as part of a viable, ongoing business of the design, development, manufacture, sale, service, and distribution of image intensifier technology and night vision devices. If any of the terms of an agreement between Defendants and the Acquirer to effectuate the divestiture required by the Final Judgment varies from the terms of this Final Judgment then, to the extent that Defendants cannot fully comply with both terms, this Final Judgment shall determine Defendants' obligations. The divestiture, whether pursuant to Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment,
A. If Defendants have not divested the Divestiture Assets within the time period specified in Paragraph IV(A), Defendants shall notify the United States of that fact in writing. Upon application of the United States, the Court shall appoint a Divestiture Trustee selected by the United States and approved by the Court to effect the divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.
B. After the appointment of a Divestiture Trustee becomes effective, only the Divestiture Trustee shall have the right to sell the Divestiture Assets. The Divestiture Trustee shall have the power and authority to accomplish the divestiture to an Acquirer acceptable to the United States, in its sole discretion, at such price and on such terms as are then obtainable upon reasonable effort by the Divestiture Trustee, subject to the provisions of Sections IV, V, and VI of this Final Judgment, and shall have such other powers as the Court deems appropriate. Subject to Paragraph V(D) of this Final Judgment, the Divestiture Trustee may hire at the cost and expense of Defendants any agents, investment bankers, attorneys, accountants, or consultants, who shall be solely accountable to the Divestiture Trustee, reasonably necessary in the Divestiture Trustee's judgment to assist in the divestiture. Any such agents or consultants shall serve on such terms and conditions as the United States approves, including confidentiality requirements and conflict of interest certifications.
C. Defendants shall not object to a sale by the Divestiture Trustee on any ground other than the Divestiture Trustee's malfeasance. Any such objections by Defendants must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the Divestiture Trustee within ten (10) calendar days after the Divestiture Trustee has provided the notice required under Section VI.
D. The Divestiture Trustee shall serve at the cost and expense of Defendants pursuant to a written agreement, on such terms and conditions as the United States approves, including confidentiality requirements and conflict of interest certifications. The Divestiture Trustee shall account for all monies derived from the sale of the assets sold by the Divestiture Trustee and all costs and expenses so incurred. After approval by the Court of the Divestiture Trustee's accounting, including fees for any of its services yet unpaid and those of any professionals and agents retained by the Divestiture Trustee, all remaining money shall be paid to Defendants and the trust shall then be terminated. The compensation of the Divestiture Trustee and any professionals and agents retained by the Divestiture Trustee shall be reasonable in light of the value of the Divestiture Assets and based on a fee arrangement that provides the Divestiture Trustee with incentives based on the price and terms of the divestiture and the speed with which it is accomplished, but the timeliness of the divestiture is paramount. If the Divestiture Trustee and Defendants are unable to reach agreement on the Divestiture Trustee's or any agents' or consultants' compensation or other terms and conditions of engagement within fourteen (14) calendar days of the appointment of the Divestiture Trustee, the United States may, in its sole discretion, take appropriate action, including making a recommendation to the Court. The Divestiture Trustee shall, within three (3) business days of hiring any other agents or consultants, provide written notice of such hiring and the rate of compensation to Defendants and the United States.
E. Defendants shall use their best efforts to assist the Divestiture Trustee in accomplishing the required divestiture. The Divestiture Trustee and any agents or consultants retained by the Divestiture Trustee shall have full and complete access to the personnel, books, records, and facilities of the business to be divested, and Defendants shall provide or develop financial and other information relevant to such business as the Divestiture Trustee may reasonably request, subject to reasonable protection for trade secrets; other confidential research, development, or commercial information; or any applicable privileges. Defendants shall take no action to interfere with or to impede the Divestiture Trustee's accomplishment of the divestiture.
F. After its appointment, the Divestiture Trustee shall file monthly reports with the United States setting forth the Divestiture Trustee's efforts to accomplish the divestiture ordered under this Final Judgment. Such reports shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding month, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring any interest in the Divestiture Assets and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person. The Divestiture Trustee shall maintain full records of all efforts made to divest the Divestiture Assets.
G. If the Divestiture Trustee has not accomplished the divestiture ordered under this Final Judgment within six months after its appointment, the Divestiture Trustee shall promptly file with the Court a report setting forth (1) the Divestiture Trustee's efforts to accomplish the required divestiture; (2) the reasons, in the Divestiture Trustee's judgment, why the required divestiture has not been accomplished; and (3) the Divestiture Trustee's recommendations. To the extent such reports contain
H. If the United States determines that the Divestiture Trustee has ceased to act or failed to act diligently or in a reasonably cost-effective manner, the United States may recommend the Court appoint a substitute Divestiture Trustee.
A. Within two (2) business days following execution of a definitive divestiture agreement, Defendants or the Divestiture Trustee, whichever is then responsible for effecting the divestiture required herein, shall notify the United States of any proposed divestiture required by Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment. If the Divestiture Trustee is responsible, it shall similarly notify Defendants. The notice shall set forth the details of the proposed divestiture and list the name, address, and telephone number of each person not previously identified who offered or expressed an interest in or desire to acquire any ownership interest in the Divestiture Assets, together with full details of the same.
B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt by the United States of such notice, the United States may request from Defendants, the proposed Acquirer, any other third party, or the Divestiture Trustee, if applicable, additional information concerning the proposed divestiture, the proposed Acquirer, and any other potential Acquirer. Defendants and the Divestiture Trustee shall furnish any additional information requested within fifteen (15) calendar days of the receipt of the request, unless the parties shall otherwise agree.
C. Within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the notice or within twenty (20) calendar days after the United States has been provided the additional information requested from Defendants, the proposed Acquirer, any third party, and the Divestiture Trustee, whichever is later, the United States shall provide written notice to Defendants and the Divestiture Trustee, if there is one, stating whether it objects to the proposed divestiture. If the United States provides written notice that it does not object, the divestiture may be consummated, subject only to Defendants' limited right to object to the sale under Paragraph V(C) of this Final Judgment. Absent written notice that the United States does not object to the proposed Acquirer or upon objection by the United States, a divestiture proposed under Section IV or Section V shall not be consummated. Upon objection by Defendants under Paragraph V(C), a divestiture proposed under Section V shall not be consummated unless approved by the Court.
Defendants shall not finance all or any part of any purchase made pursuant to Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment.
Until the divestiture required by this Final Judgment has been accomplished, Defendants shall take all steps necessary to comply with the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order entered by the Court. Defendants shall take no action that would jeopardize the divestiture ordered by the Court.
A. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, and every thirty (30) calendar days thereafter until the divestiture has been completed under Section IV or Section V, Defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit, signed by each defendant's Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel, which shall describe the fact and manner of Defendants' compliance with Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment. Each such affidavit shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding thirty (30) calendar days, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person during that period. Each such affidavit shall also include a description of the efforts Defendants have taken to solicit buyers for the Divestiture Assets, and to provide required information to prospective Acquirers, including the limitations, if any, on such information. Assuming the information set forth in the affidavit is true and complete, any objection by the United States to information provided by Defendants, including limitation on information, shall be made within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of such affidavit.
B. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, Defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit that describes in reasonable detail all actions Defendants have taken and all steps Defendants have implemented on an ongoing basis to comply with Section VIII of this Final Judgment. Defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit describing any changes to the efforts and actions outlined in Defendants' earlier affidavits filed pursuant to this Section within fifteen (15) calendar days after the change is implemented.
C. Defendants shall keep all records of all efforts made to preserve and divest the Divestiture Assets until one year after such divestiture has been completed.
A. For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or of any related orders such as any Hold Separate Stipulation and Order or of determining whether the Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, and subject to any legally-recognized privilege, from time to time authorized representatives of the United States, including agents retained by the United States, shall, upon written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division and on reasonable notice to Defendants, be permitted:
B. Upon the written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, Defendants shall submit written reports or response to written interrogatories, under oath if
C. No information or documents obtained by the means provided in Section X shall be divulged by the United States to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States is a party (including grand jury proceedings), for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.
D. If at the time that Defendants furnish information or documents to the United States, Defendants represent and identify in writing the material in any such information or documents to which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Defendants mark each pertinent page of such material, “Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” then the United States shall give Defendants ten (10) calendar days' notice prior to divulging such material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding).
Defendants may not reacquire any part of the Divestiture Assets during the term of this Final Judgment.
The Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final Judgment to apply to the Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.
A. The United States retains and reserves all rights to enforce the provisions of this Final Judgment, including the right to seek an order of contempt from the Court. Defendants agree that in any civil contempt action, any motion to show cause, or any similar action brought by the United States regarding an alleged violation of this Final Judgment, the United States may establish a violation of the Final Judgment and the appropriateness of any remedy therefor by a preponderance of the evidence, and Defendants waive any argument that a different standard of proof should apply.
B. This Final Judgment should be interpreted to give full effect to the procompetitive purposes of the antitrust laws and to restore all competition the United States alleged was harmed by the challenged conduct. Defendants agree that they may be held in contempt of, and that the Court may enforce, any provision of this Final Judgment that, as interpreted by the Court in light of these procompetitive principles and applying ordinary tools of interpretation, is stated specifically and in reasonable detail, whether or not it is clear and unambiguous on its face. In any such interpretation, the terms of this Final Judgment should not be construed against either party as the drafter.
C. In any enforcement proceeding in which the Court finds that Defendants have violated this Final Judgment, the United States may apply to the Court for a one-time extension of this Final Judgment, together with other relief as may be appropriate. In connection with any successful effort by the United States to enforce this Final Judgment against a Defendant, whether litigated or resolved before litigation, that Defendant agrees to reimburse the United States for the fees and expenses of its attorneys, as well as any other costs including experts' fees, incurred in connection with that enforcement effort, including in the investigation of the potential violation.
D. For a period of four (4) years following the expiration of the Final Judgment, if the United States has evidence that a Defendant violated this Final Judgment before it expired, the United States may file an action against that Defendant in this Court requesting that the Court order (1) Defendant to comply with the terms of this Final Judgment for an additional term of at least four years following the filing of the enforcement action under this Section, (2) any appropriate contempt remedies, (3) any additional relief needed to ensure the Defendant complies with the terms of the Final Judgment, and (4) fees or expenses as called for in Paragraph XIII(C).
Unless the Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment shall expire ten (10) years from the date of its entry, except that after five (5) years from the date of its entry, this Final Judgment may be terminated upon notice by the United States to the Court and Defendants that the divestiture has been completed and that the continuation of the Final Judgment no longer is necessary or in the public interest.
Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. The parties have complied with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16, including making copies available to the public of this Final Judgment, the Competitive Impact Statement, any comments thereon, and the United States' responses to comments. Based upon the record before the Court, which includes the Competitive Impact Statement and any comments and responses to comments filed with the Court, entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.
Plaintiff United States of America (“United States”), pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (“APPA” or “Tunney Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.
Defendants Harris Corporation (“Harris”) and L3 Technologies, Inc. (“L3”) entered into an agreement and plan of merger, dated October 12, 2018, pursuant to which Harris and L3 propose to combine in a transaction that would create the sixth-largest defense contractor in the United States. The United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on June 20, 2019, seeking to enjoin the proposed transaction. The Complaint alleges that the likely effect of this merger would be to lessen competition substantially in the United States for the design, development, manufacture, sale, service, and distribution of U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
At the same time the Complaint was filed, the United States also filed a Hold
The United States and Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment would terminate this action, except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof.
Harris is incorporated in Delaware and has its headquarters in Melbourne, Florida. Harris provides night vision devices and image intensifier tubes, tactical communications solutions, electronic warfare solutions, and space and intelligence systems. In 2018, Harris had sales of approximately $6.2 billion.
L3 is incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in New York, New York. L3 provides night vision devices and image intensifier tubes; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems; aircraft sustainment, simulation, and training; and security and detection systems. In 2018, L3 had sales of approximately $10.2 billion.
Harris and L3 entered into an agreement and plan of merger, dated October 12, 2018, pursuant to which Harris and L3 propose to merge.
Image intensifier tubes amplify visible light and are integrated into night vision devices produced by Harris, L3, and other companies. Night vision devices allow the user to see better in dark conditions, increasing the situational awareness, threat detection, and mission performance of soldiers and aircrews operating in low-light environments. Night vision devices come in the form of goggles, binoculars, and monoculars and can be handheld or mounted to objects like helmets or weapons. There are over half a million such devices in use today, and the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”) expects to purchase at least one hundred thousand additional devices over the next few years.
DoD also purchases significant quantities of image intensifier tubes as replacement parts for night vision devices currently in the field. In addition, as Harris and L3 innovate and develop improved image intensifier tubes with greater resolution and light amplification, DoD purchases these more advanced image intensifier tubes to upgrade existing night vision devices. DoD is likely to purchase half a million image intensifier tubes for replacements or upgrades over the next few years.
As alleged in the Complaint, the quality and usefulness of an image intensifier tube is defined by several characteristics, the most important of which are size, weight, power consumption, and especially sensitivity, which relates to the ability of the tube to amplify low levels of visible light without producing excessive distortion in the resulting image. DoD requires highly capable image intensifier tubes, as the lives of soldiers and aircrews depend on the performance of the night vision devices incorporating these tubes. The Complaint alleges that less capable image intensifier tubes are therefore not a substitute for the highly capable image intensifier tubes that DoD views as U.S. military grade.
According to the Complaint, other night vision technologies such as thermal imaging devices and digital light amplification systems are not substitutes for U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes. Thermal imaging devices, such as microbolometers and infrared focal plane arrays, detect infrared radiation emitted by warm objects rather than amplifying visible light. Thermal imaging devices also differ from image intensifier tubes in range and sensitivity to environmental factors such as humidity and dust. Night vision equipment incorporating thermal imaging devices tends to be larger, heavier, and substantially more expensive than similar equipment incorporating image intensifier tubes. Although some night vision devices incorporate both image intensifier tubes and thermal imaging devices to combine the benefits of the two and create a “fused” image, thermal imaging devices cannot replicate the performance of image intensifier tubes or replace them in night vision devices.
The Complaint further alleges that digital light amplification systems based on charge-coupled device (“CCD”) or complementary metal oxide semiconductor (“CMOS”) detectors are also not adequate substitutes for U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes. CCD- and CMOS-based devices tend to be heavier, consume more power, and cost significantly more than devices incorporating image intensifier tubes. Moreover, because such devices are digital, and therefore require a certain amount of signal processing, the images produced also tend to lag behind the actual scene being viewed, potentially creating disorientation in the user.
For the foregoing reasons, DoD would not substitute less-capable image intensifier tubes, thermal imaging devices, or CCD- or CMOS-based digital light amplification systems for U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes in response to a small but significant and non-transitory increase in the price of U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes. Therefore, the Complaint alleges that U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes are a relevant product market and line of commerce under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
The Complaint alleges that the relevant geographic market for U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes is the United States. For national security reasons, DoD only considers domestic producers of U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes. DoD is unlikely to turn to any foreign producers in the face of a small but significant and non-transitory price increase by domestic producers of U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes.
As alleged in the Complaint, Harris and L3 are currently the only firms that develop, manufacture, and sell U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes. The merger would therefore give the combined firm a monopoly in this product market, leaving DoD without a competitive alternative for this critical component of night vision devices.
According to the Complaint, Harris and L3 compete for sales of U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes on the basis of quality, price, and contractual terms such as delivery times. This competition has resulted in higher quality, lower prices, and shorter delivery times and has fostered
According to the Complaint, sufficient, timely entry of additional competitors into the market for U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes is unlikely. Production facilities for U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes require a substantial investment in both capital equipment and human resources. A new entrant would need to set up a foundry to produce electronic components, establish production lines capable of manufacturing fiber optic subcomponents, and build assembly lines and testing facilities. Engineering and research personnel would need to be assigned to develop, test, and troubleshoot the detailed manufacturing process, involving hundreds of steps, that is necessary to produce U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes. Any new products would require extensive testing and qualification before they could be used in night vision devices for the U.S. military. As a result, the Complaint alleges that entry would be costly and time consuming.
Moreover, as alleged in the Complaint, a new entrant is unlikely to recover these costs. Although CMOS-based night vision devices currently are not suitable for DoD uses, and thus are not reasonable substitutes for night vision devices based on U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes, research and development on these devices is progressing, and industry observers expect these devices to begin replacing night vision devices based on U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes at some point in the next five to ten years. Because the market for U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes will likely decline as this transition takes place, the Complaint alleges that an entrant is unlikely to produce sufficient revenue to recover its costs of entry. The prospect of a declining market for U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes thus would discourage new companies from entering.
The divestiture required by the proposed Final Judgment will eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the transaction in the market for U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes by establishing an independent and economically viable competitor. Paragraph IV(A) of the proposed Final Judgment requires Defendants, within the later of 45 calendar days after the entry of the Hold Separate by the Court or 15 calendar days after Regulatory Approvals have been received, to divest Harris's night vision business.
In the event that Defendants do not accomplish the divestiture within the period prescribed in the proposed Final Judgment, Section V of the proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court will appoint a trustee selected by the United States to effect the divestiture. If a trustee is appointed, the proposed Final Judgment provides that Defendants will pay all costs and expenses of the trustee. The trustee's commission will be structured so as to provide an incentive for the trustee based on the price obtained and the speed with which the divestiture is accomplished. After his or her appointment becomes effective, the trustee will file monthly reports with the United States setting forth his or her efforts to accomplish the divestiture. At the end of six months, if the divestiture has not been accomplished, the trustee and the United States will make recommendations to the Court, which shall enter such orders as appropriate in order to carry out the purpose of the trust, including extending the trust or the term of the trustee's appointment.
The proposed Final Judgment contains several provisions to facilitate the immediate use of the Divestiture Assets by the Acquirer. Paragraph IV(G) of the proposed Final Judgment requires Defendants, at the Acquirer's option, to enter into a transition services agreement for back office, human resource, and information technology services and support for the night vision business for a period of up to 12 months. Paragraph IV(H) of the proposed Final Judgment requires Defendants, at the Acquirer's option, to enter into a contract for wafer sawing and sensor packaging services to help facilitate the development of the next-generation of U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes, for a period of up to 12 months. With respect to any agreements entered into under Paragraph IV(G) or IV(H), the United States, in its sole discretion, may approve one or more extensions for a total of up to an additional six months. If the Acquirer seeks an extension of any such agreement, Defendants must notify the United States in writing at least three months prior to the date the underlying agreement expires. Paragraphs IV(G) and IV(H) further provide that employees of Defendants tasked with providing services under such agreements must not share any competitively sensitive information of the Acquirer with any other employee of Defendants.
The proposed Final Judgment also contains provisions designed to promote compliance and make the enforcement of the Final Judgment as effective as possible. Paragraph XIII(A) provides that the United States retains and reserves all rights to enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment, including its rights to seek an order of contempt from the Court. Under the terms of this paragraph, Defendants have agreed that in any civil contempt action, any motion to show cause, or any similar action brought by the United States regarding an alleged violation of the Final Judgment, the United States may establish the violation and the appropriateness of any remedy by a preponderance of the evidence and that Defendants have waived any argument that a different standard of proof should apply. This provision aligns the standard for compliance obligations with the standard of proof that applies to the underlying offense that the compliance commitments address.
Paragraph XIII(B) provides additional clarification regarding the interpretation of the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment. The proposed Final Judgment was drafted to restore all competition that would otherwise be harmed by the merger. Defendants agree that they will abide by the proposed Final Judgment
Paragraph XIII(C) of the proposed Final Judgment provides that should the Court find in an enforcement proceeding that Defendants have violated the Final Judgment, the United States may apply to the Court for a one-time extension of the Final Judgment, together with such other relief as may be appropriate. In addition, in order to compensate American taxpayers for any costs associated with the investigation and enforcement of violations of the proposed Final Judgment, Paragraph XIII(C) provides that, in any successful effort by the United States to enforce the Final Judgment against a Defendant, whether litigated or resolved prior to litigation, the Defendant agrees to reimburse the United States for attorneys' fees, experts' fees, or costs incurred in connection with any enforcement effort, including the investigation of the potential violation.
Paragraph XIII(D) states that the United States may file an action against a Defendant for violating the Final Judgment for up to four years after the Final Judgment has expired or been terminated under Section XIV. This provision is meant to address circumstances such as when evidence that a violation of the Final Judgment occurred during the term of the Final Judgment is not discovered until after the Final Judgment has expired or been terminated or when there is not sufficient time for the United States to complete an investigation of an alleged violation until after the Final Judgment has expired or been terminated. This provision, therefore, makes clear that, for four years after the Final Judgment has expired or been terminated, the United States may still challenge a violation that occurred during the term of the Final Judgment.
Finally, Section XIV of the proposed Final Judgment provides that the Final Judgment shall expire ten years from the date of its entry, except that after five years from the date of its entry, the Final Judgment may be terminated upon notice by the United States to the Court and Defendants that the divestiture has been completed and that the continuation of the Final Judgment is no longer necessary or in the public interest.
The divestiture provisions of the proposed Final Judgment will eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the merger in the provision of U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes by establishing a new, independent, and economically viable competitor to the merged entity.
Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, provides that any person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will neither impair nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust damage action. Under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie effect in any subsequent private lawsuit that may be brought against Defendants.
The United States and Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest.
The APPA provides a period of at least 60 days preceding the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so within 60 days of the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in the
Written comments should be submitted to: Maribeth Petrizzi, Chief, Defense, Industrials, and Aerospace Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 8700, Washington, D.C. 20530.
The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the Court for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment.
The United States considered, as an alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, a full trial on the merits against Defendants. The United States could have continued the litigation and sought preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the merger of Harris and L3. The United States is satisfied, however, that the divestiture of assets described in the proposed Final Judgment will preserve competition for the provision of U.S. military-grade image intensifier tubes in the relevant market identified by the United States. Thus, the proposed Final Judgment would achieve all, or substantially all, of the relief the United States would have obtained through litigation but avoids the time, expense, and uncertainty of a full trial on the merits of the Complaint.
The Clayton Act, as amended by the APPA, requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a 60-day comment period, after which the court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider:
As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, under the APPA a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations in the government's complaint, whether the Final Judgment is sufficiently clear, whether its enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the Final Judgment may positively harm third parties.
The United States' predictions with respect to the efficacy of the remedy are to be afforded deference by the Court.
Moreover, the court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its complaint, and does not authorize the court to “construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.”
In its 2004 amendments to the APPA,
There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Executive Office of the President.
Notice of request for information: Identifying Priority Access or Quality Improvements for Federal data and models for Artificial Intelligence Research and Development (R&D), and Testing.
Under the
July 10, 2019.
Submissions are due 30 days from publication of this notice through
The National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan discusses fundamental challenges, novel ideas for human and AI collaboration, and creating AI that is more trustworthy (
Beyond fundamental advances in AI, open challenges also include the application of AI to key domains, such as those highlighted on
Depending on the R&D goal and application domain, different data sets and models may be needed to accelerate AI advances. Additionally, the use of these data sets and models could stimulate new developments that would enhance the transparency and explainability of the AI application, and illuminate ways to ensure the robustness, security and safety of AI applications.
Over the years, a number of data sets have already been made available via
The following lists of topics cover the major areas for which information is sought. These lists are not intended to limit the topics that may be addressed by respondents, who may provide information about any topic that would inform the objective of this action.
To developing requests for additional accesses for data and models to improve AI R&D and testing, input to the following questions is sought:
• What Federal data and models are you seeking to use that are available to the public with no use restrictions, but which have technical issues inhibiting data access? Specifically, what are the technical issues (
• What Federal data and models are you seeking to use that are restricted to the public,
• What Federal data and models are you seeking to use that are private and not at all available to the public? Describe the agency that has the data and what, if any, attempts you are aware of that have been made to increase access to the data or model. What types of AI R&D and testing would be accelerated with increased access to this data?
• What are key gaps in data and model availability that are slowing progress in AI R&D and testing? Which areas of AI R&D and testing are most impacted?
In developing requests for quality improvements to accessible data and models to improve AI R&D and testing, input to the following questions is sought:
• As agencies review their data and models, what are the most important characteristics they should consider? Stated differently, what characteristics of data sets or models make them well-suited for AI R&D?
• Which models are most important for agencies to focus on, and why?
• What characteristics should the Federal Government consider to increase a data set or model's utility for AI R&D (
• What data ownership, intellectual property, or data sharing considerations should be included in federally-funded agreements (including, but not limited to, federal contracts and grants) that results in production of data for R&D?
• What research questions and applications are you trying to solve with AI, that require specific types and/or quantities of Federal data and models, and how might the Federal Government reduce barriers to discovery and access?
• Accelerating the application of AI can be enabled with pre-trained models (
Respondents to this RFI may define “data”, “data set”, and “model” as they desire, indicating clearly what they mean when using the term.
Interested parties should provide written responses to the questions outlined in the purpose of this
Please include the below in your response,
• The name of the individual(s) and/or organization responding. Anonymous responses will also be accepted.
• A brief description of the responding individual(s) or organization's mission and/or areas of expertise, if the responder feels appropriate.
• A contact for questions or other follow-up on your response if desired.
Comments submitted in response to this notice are subject to FOIA. OMB may also make all comments 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 and made available on the internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
For background information on the areas of AI activity in the Federal government, please visit:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
New reporting requirement for discrimination, sexual or other forms of harassment, or sexual assault; request for comments.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is soliciting public comment on the agency's proposed implementation of new reporting requirements regarding discrimination and harassment among recipients of NASA financial assistance. The many hundreds of U.S. institutions of higher education and other organizations that receive NASA funds are responsible for fully investigating complaints and for compliance with federal non-discrimination laws, regulations, and executive orders. The implementation of new reporting requirements is necessary as NASA seeks to help ensure research environments to which the Agency provides funding are free from discrimination, including harassment, sexual harassment, other forms of harassment, and sexual assault. Additionally, NASA is taking this action to bolster our policies, guidelines, and communications. The intended effect of this action is, first, to better ensure that organizations funded by NASA clearly understand expectations and requirements. In addition, NASA seeks to ensure that recipients of grants and cooperative agreements respond promptly and appropriately to instances of discrimination, sexual harassment, other forms of harassment, and sexual assault.
Comments must be received by August 9, 2019.
Comments should be addressed to National Space and Aeronautics Administration Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, Rm. 6O87, Washington, DC 20546 or sent by email to
Richard N. Reback, email:
As a U.S. funding agency of scientific research and development, and the primary funding agency for aeronautics and space research and technology, NASA is committed to promoting safe, productive research and education environments for current and future scientists and engineers. We consider the Principal Investigator (PI) and any Co-I(s) identified on a NASA award and all personnel supported by a NASA award must not engage in discriminatory or harassing behavior during the award period of performance whether at the awardee institution, on-line, or outside the organization, such as at field sites or facilities, or during conferences and workshops.
Upon implementation, the new term and condition will require awardee organizations to notify NASA of any findings/determinations of discrimination, sexual harassment, other forms of harassment, or sexual assault regarding an NASA funded PI or Co-I. The new term and condition also will require the awardee to notify NASA if the PI or Co-I is placed on administrative leave or if the awardee has imposed any administrative action on the PI or any determination or an investigation of an alleged violation of awardee policies or codes of conduct, statutes, regulations, or executive orders relating to discrimination, sexual harassment, other forms of harassment, or sexual assault. Finally, the award term and condition specifies the procedures that will be followed by NASA upon receipt of a notification.
The full text of the new term and condition is provided below:
The Principal Investigator (PI) and any Co-I(s) identified on an NASA award are in a position of trust. These individuals must comport themselves in a responsible and accountable manner during the award period of performance, whether at the awardee institution, on-line, or at locales such as field sites, facilities, or conferences/workshops. Above all, NASA wishes to assure the safety, integrity, and excellence of the programs and activities it funds.
For purposes of this term and condition, the following definitions apply:
The awardee is required to notify NASA of: (1) Any finding/determination regarding the PI or any Co-I
Each notification must include the following information:
□ NASA Award Number;
□ Name of PI or Co-I being reported;
□ Finding/Determination that the reported individual has been found to have violated awardee policies or codes of conduct, statutes, regulations, or executive orders relating to discrimination, sexual harassment, other forms of harassment, or sexual assault;
or
□ Placement by the awardee of the reported individual on administrative leave or the imposition of any administrative action on the PI or any Co-I by the awardee relating to any finding/determination, or an investigation of an alleged violation of awardee policies or codes of conduct, statutes, regulations, or executive orders relating to sexual harassment, other forms of harassment, or sexual assault.
The awardee must also provide:
□ A description of the finding/determination and action(s) taken, if any; and/or
□ The reason(s) for, and conditions of placement of the PI or any Co-I on administrative action.
The awardee, at any time, may propose a substitute investigator if it determines the PI or any Co-I may not be able to carry out the funded project or activity and/or abide by the award terms and conditions.
In reviewing the notification, NASA will consider, at a minimum, the following factors:
a. The safety and security of personnel supported by the NASA award;
b. The overall impact to the NASA-funded activity;
c. The continued advancement of taxpayer-funded investments in science and scientists; and
d. Whether the awardee has taken appropriate action(s) to ensure the continuity of science and that continued progress under the funded project can be made.
Upon receipt and review of the information provided, NASA will consult with the AOR, or designee. Based on the results of this review and consultation, the Agency may, if necessary and in accordance with 2 CFR 200.338, assert its programmatic stewardship responsibilities and oversight authority to initiate the substitution or removal of the PI or any Co-I, reduce the award funding amount, or where neither of those previous options is available or adequate, to suspend or terminate the award.
Other personnel supported by a NASA award must likewise remain in full compliance with awardee policies or codes of conduct, statutes, regulations, or executive orders relating to sexual harassment, other forms of harassment, or sexual assault. With regard to any personnel not in compliance, the awardee must make appropriate arrangements to ensure the safety and security of other award personnel and the continued progress of the funded project. Notification of these actions is not required under this term and condition.
Upon receipt and resolution of all comments, it is NASA's intention to implement the new term through revision of the NASA Agency Specific Requirements to the Research Terms and Conditions, the Grant General Conditions, and the Cooperative Agreement—Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions. These revised terms and conditions will become effective thirty days from the date of publication in the
The new term and condition will be applied to all new NASA awards and funding amendments to existing awards made on or after the effective date. This new reporting requirement will apply to all findings/determinations that occur on or after the effective date of the terms and conditions. With regard to notification of placement on administrative leave, the awardee must notify NASA within seven business days from the date the awardee determines that placement on administrative leave is necessary.
Awardees are strongly encouraged to conduct a thorough review of the term and condition to determine whether the new requirements necessitate any changes to the institution's policies and procedures. The new term and condition will be effective for any new award, or funding amendment to an existing award, made on or after the effective date. For these purposes, this means that any finding/determination, placement on administrative leave or the imposition of any administrative action by the institution made on or after the start date of an award or funding amendment subject to the new term will invoke the new notification requirements.
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, July 23, 2019.
NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20594.
The one item is open to the public.
59351 Railroad Accident Report—Amtrak Passenger Train Head-on Collision with Stationary CSX Freight Train, Cayce, South Carolina, February 4, 2018.
Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email at
The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle McCallister at (202) 314-6305 or by email at
The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at
Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at
The National Transportation Safety Board is holding the meeting under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; safety evaluation and environmental assessment with finding of no significant impact; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing four exemptions requested by Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (Maine Yankee). The requested exemptions are from NRC regulations that require compliance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1015 for the NAC-UMS® spent fuel storage system at Maine Yankee's Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). Maine Yankee currently stores sixty NAC-UMS® System canisters under Amendment No. 5 to CoC No. 1015. In order to adopt Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015, Maine Yankee is requesting the reissuance of the four previously approved exemptions.
The environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) referenced in this document are available on July 10, 2019. The exemption takes effect on July 10, 2019.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0116 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Torre Taylor, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7900; email:
Maine Yankee is a general licensee under part 72 of title 10 of the
Maine Yankee is requesting the reissuance of four exemptions from the terms and conditions of Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015 that were previously approved for Amendment No. 5 to CoC No. 1015. Maine Yankee submitted its request by letter dated January 21, 2019, supplemented by letter dated April 11, 2019. Maine Yankee requested specific exemptions from the requirements in 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(3), 72.212(b)(5)(i), 72.212(b)(11), and 72.214, with regard to certain terms and conditions of Appendices A and B to the technical specifications of Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015 detailed below.
Maine Yankee stated that adoption of the exemptions would not result in any impact to the safe storage of the spent fuel at the ISFSI and will not increase the probability or consequences of an accident.
The four exemptions are:
1. Appendix A, Section A.3.1.4, Canister Maximum Time in Transfer Cask. This exemption is from the requirement to comply with the 25-day requirement in Limiting Condition of Operation 3.1.4 for canister, NAC-UMS-TSC-790-016.
2. Appendix A, Section A.5.1, Training Program. This exemption is from the requirement to develop a systematic approach to training that includes comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-UMS® System.
3. Appendix A, Section A.5.5, Radioactive Effluent Control Program. This exemption is from the requirement to submit an annual report pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a).
4. Appendix B, Section B.3.4.2.6. This exemption is from the requirement to maintain a coefficient of friction on the ISFSI pad surface of at least 0.5.
The requests for an exemption from the requirements of Appendix A,
Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, “Specific exemptions,” the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations of 10 CFR part 72 as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and are otherwise in the public interest.
The requested exemptions would allow the licensee to depart from certain requirements of CoC No. 1015, Amendment No. 6. Section 72.7 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 72. Issuance of these exemptions are consistent with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and is not inconsistent with NRC regulations or other applicable laws. Therefore, the NRC has concluded that the exemptions are authorized by law.
The requested exemptions are the same exemptions as have been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC as discussed in this document. The NRC verified that there is no change in conditions under which the exemptions were previously approved. Therefore, the NRC has concluded that the exemptions will not endanger life or property, or the common defense and security.
The requested exemptions are the same exemptions as have been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC as discussed in this document. Continuing to apply the exemptions would provide for consistent and efficient regulation of the NAC-UMS® System casks at the Maine Yankee ISFSI. Further, the alternative of denying the exemption request would impose an administrative burden on Maine Yankee and the NRC that would not provide a significant safety benefit. Therefore, the NRC has concluded that the exemptions are in the public interest.
The NRC reviewed the requested exemptions to verify that there were no differences from the previously approved exemptions. There are no changes in Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015 that affect the terms and conditions from which Maine Yankee is requesting the exemptions. These terms and conditions are identical to the equivalent sections in Amendment No. 5. Each of the exemptions are discussed below.
1. Appendix A, Section A.3.1.4, Canister Maximum Time in Transfer Cask. This exemption is from the requirement to comply with the 25-day requirement in Limiting Condition of Operation 3.1.4 for canister, NAC-UMS-TSC-790-016. The exemption was approved by letter dated July 14, 2010, with the environmental assessment noticed in the
2. Appendix A, Section A.5.1, Training Program. This exemption is from the requirement to develop a systematic approach to training that includes comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-UMS® System. This exemption was previously approved by letter dated January 4, 2005, with the environmental assessment noticed in the
This exemption would relieve Maine Yankee from the requirements to develop training modules under its systematic approach to training that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-UMS® System. The NRC previously determined, as discussed in the
3. Appendix A, Section A.5.5, Radioactive Effluent Control Program. This exemption is from the requirement to submit an annual report pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) or 10 CFR 50.36(a). This exemption was previously approved by letter dated January 4, 2005, with the environmental assessment noticed in the
Licensees are required to submit an annual report to the Commission regarding effluents released into the environment pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3). The NRC previously determined, as discussed in the
4. Appendix B, Section B.3.4.2.6. This exemption is from the requirement to maintain a coefficient of friction on the ISFSI pad surface of at least 0.5. This exemption was previously approved by letter dated February 1, 2004, with the environmental assessment noticed in the
Maine Yankee originally requested the exemption following the discovery of a winter icing condition at its ISFSI that created an indeterminate coefficient of friction between the vertical concrete casks and the ISFSI pad surface. The NRC determined that a specific coefficient of friction was not necessary. The NRC's environmental assessment of this exemption is discussed in the
The State of Maine reviewed Maine Yankee's request and, by letter dated January 29, 2019, stated that it has no objections to the request. The State of Maine explained that it sees Maine Yankee's request as an administrative change to maintain consistency with the canister manufacturer's Certificate of Compliance. A copy of this document will be provided to the State of Maine prior to publication in the
1. Appendix A, Section A.3.1.4, Canister Maximum Time in Transfer Cask. This exemption is from the requirement to comply with the 25-day requirement in Limiting Condition of Operation 3.1.4 for canister, NAC-UMS-TSC-790-016. This exemption was previously approved by the NRC by letter dated July 14, 2010, with the environmental assessment noticed in the
2. Appendix B, Section B.3.4.2.6. This exemption is from the requirement to maintain a coefficient of friction on the ISFSI pad surface of at least 0.5. This exemption was previously approved by the NRC by letter dated February 1, 2004, with the environmental assessment noticed in the
The requested exemption from Appendix A, Section A.3.1.4, “Canister Maximum Time in Transfer Cask” is an exemption from the requirement to comply with the 25-day requirement in Limiting Condition of Operation 3.1.4 for one canister, NAC-UMS-TSC-790-016. The affected storage canister had a heat load of 9.59kW, and was placed in a transfer cask for a total of 43 days between December 28, 2002, and February 18, 2003. At that time the Maine Yankee ISFSI operated under the provisions of CoC No. 1015, Amendment No. 2, and the Limiting Condition of Operation 3.1.4 time limit for a canister having a content decay heat load of less than or equal to 14kW was unlimited. During this period, the storage canister was in full compliance with CoC No. 1015, Amendment No. 2, and its stored spent fuel was maintained in a safe condition during the time the canister was in the transfer cask. The transfer of the loaded canister was completed in a safe manner to ensure the transfer cask was not used as a long-term storage device.
The requested exemption from Appendix B, Section B.3.4.2.6 is an exemption from the requirement to maintain a coefficient of friction on the ISFSI pad surface of at least 0.5. As discussed in the
The NRC evaluated the impact to public safety that would result from the proposed action and determined that approval of the exemptions would not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes would be made to the types of effluents released offsite, and there would be no increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the action. Additionally, the proposed action would not involve any construction or other ground disturbing activities, would not change the footprint of the existing ISFSI, and would have no other significant non-radiological impacts. The ISFSI is located on previously disturbed land so it is unlikely to create any significant impact on aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the plant or to threatened, endangered, or protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or to essential fish habitat covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Approval of the exemptions is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic or cultural properties, assuming such properties are present at the site.
Given that there are no significant differences in environmental impact between the proposed action and the alternative considered, and that there are no changes in the conditions under which the exemptions were previously approved, the NRC concludes that the preferred alternative is to grant the exemptions.
The environmental impacts of the exemptions were previously reviewed and determined to have no significant environmental impact. There have been no changes to the conditions under which the previous review was approved. Based upon the foregoing discussion and the previous approvals, the NRC finds that the exemptions will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at
Based on the above considerations, the NRC has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, the exemptions are authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, the NRC grants the exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(3), 72.212(b)(5)(i), 72.212(b)(11), and 72.214.
These exemptions are effective upon publication.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 4.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of NEBRASKA (FEMA-4420-DR), dated 04/05/2019.
Issued on 06/28/2019.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of NEBRASKA, dated 04/05/2019, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 7.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of IOWA (FEMA-4421-DR), dated 04/05/2019.
Issued on 07/02/2019.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration,
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of IOWA, dated 04/05/2019, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 7.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of IOWA (FEMA-4421-DR), dated 03/23/2019.
Issued on 07/01/2019.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of IOWA, dated 03/23/2019, is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 07/16/2019.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Ohio (FEMA-4447-DR), dated 06/18/2019.
Issued on 07/02/2019.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Ohio, dated 06/18/2019, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
The Surface Transportation Board (Board) has received a request from three researchers at NC State University (WB19-31—6/20/19) for permission to use select data from the Board's 1990-2017 Unmasked Carload Waybill Sample. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Board's website under docket no. WB19-31.
The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and Federal Highway Administration pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327.
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans, that are final within the meaning of the United States Code. The actions relate to the proposed VEN-1 Slope Restoration Project on State Route 1 (SR-1) at post mile (PM) 4.0 and 4.2 within the County of Ventura, State of California. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal Agency Actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before December 9, 2019. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less
For Caltrans: Lourdes Ortega, Senior Environmental Planner, Division of Environmental Planning, California Department of Transportation—District 7, 100 South Main Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Office hours: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., telephone: (213) 897-9572, email:
Effective July 1, 2007, FHWA assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that Caltrans and has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of California. Caltrans proposes to construct two secant walls at post mile (PM) 4.0 and PM 4.2 on SR-1 in Ventura County to serve as a permanent stabilization of the slope and corresponding roadway from wave induced slope erosion. The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Initial Study (IS)/Environmental Analysis (EA) with Negative Declaration (ND)/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) approved on June 28, 2019, and in other documents in the FHWA project records. The Final IS/EA with ND/FONSI, and other project records are available by contacting Caltrans at the addresses provided above. The Caltrans Final IS/EA with ND/FONSI can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at:
(1) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969;
(2) Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970;
(3) U.S. EPA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 230);
(4) Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA);
(5) Clean Water Act of 1977 and 1987;
(6) Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (see Clean Water Act of 1977 & 1987);
(7) Safe Drinking Water Act of 1944, as amended;
(8) Endangered Species Act of 1973;
(9) Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species;
(10) Migratory Bird Treaty Act;
(11) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended;
(12) Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972;
(13) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327.
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans, that are final within the meaning of the United States Code. The actions relate to a proposed highway safety project along State Route 70 in the County of Yuba, State of California. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
For Caltrans: Kelly McNally, Branch Chief, Caltrans Office of Environmental Management, M-2, California Department of Transportation-District 3, 703 B Street, Marysville, CA 95901 Office Hours: 8:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time, telephone (530) 741-4134 or email
Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that Caltrans has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
Caltrans proposes a safety project along a 9.6-mile portion of State Route 70 (SR 70) from Laurellen Road to Honcut Creek Bridge in Yuba County. The safety project is intended to significantly reduce traffic fatalities, reduce injury-type collisions, and address operational needs by bringing SR 70 up to current design standards and improve overall safety within the project limits.
The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Environmental Assessment (FEA)/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project, issued June 20, 2019, and in other documents in Caltrans' project records. The FEA, FONSI and other project records are available by contacting Caltrans at the addresses provided above. The Caltrans FEA, FONSI and other project records can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
23 U.S.C. 139(
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, August 14, 2019.
Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4110.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be held Wednesday, August 14, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Antoinette Ross. For more information please contact Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4110, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Assistance Center Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, August 8, 2019.
Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Assistance Center Project Committee will be held Thursday, August 8, 2019, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Matthew O'Sullivan. For more information please contact Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274, or write TAP Office, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612-5217 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, August 13, 2019.
Conchata Holloway at 1-888-912-1227 or (336) 690-6217.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be held Tuesday, August 13, 2019, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Conchata Holloway. For more information please contact Conchata Holloway at 1-888-912-1227 or (336) 690-6217, or write TAP Office, 4905
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, August 29, 2019.
Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Thursday, August 29, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Matthew O'Sullivan. For more information please contact Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274, or write TAP Office, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612-5217 or contact us at the website:
The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, August 14, 2019.
Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee will be held Wednesday, August 14, 2019, 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Rosalind Matherne. For more information please contact Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, August 14, 2019.
Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be held Wednesday, August 14, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Robert Rosalia. For more information please contact Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203, or write TAP Office, 2 Metrotech Center, 100 Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, August 13, 2019 and Wednesday, August 14, 2019.
Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer
The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, August 8, 2019.
Fred Smith at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3087.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects Committee will be held Thursday, August 8, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Fred Smith. For more information please contact Fred Smith at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3087, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website: